It's Late, But Some Are Still Debating Voter Reg

Note from CarlD: Third Coast Press is a left publication in Chicago, and this debte broke out on Chicago Indymedia when they announced having a voter registration party

Commentor: Third Coast Press endorsing Kerry? Inquiring minds want to know.

Another Commentor: Since it’s a "Third Coast Press" endorsement of another rich liberal who will carry out the same tired policies, but with "feel your pain" bullshit, it can't be too direct. Therefore, its talk about "register to vote" and then plenty of verbiage about how bad El Busho is. Isn't the alternative rather apparent?

CarlD: Goodness, haven't you guys yet been able to figure out that there's a difference between ENDORSING a candidate because you support some or most of his positions, and VOTING for a candidate because you want to unseat or defeat his or her opponent? It's really not rocket science, but I guess it's a little too deep for a few folks.

Garth: I don't want to diss my 3rd Coast compadres, I don't know the specifics of why the Voter Registration party was organized. All I can say is that it's not just Kerry that's being decided upon. I think also that it's a step to make ordinary folk a little more politically aware. This is one goal of the paper.

Folks should also be aware that some 3rd Coast people are more liberal and more radical and even more conservative than each other. This avoidance of a straight dogmatic political rag is one reason I love the project so much.

Speaking for myself, the "Anybody but Bush" philosophy sets the bar pretty low. Hence Kerry. Remember the whole,"Will the real Peace Candidate please stand up?" We went from Kucinich as simply too radical, to the Peace Puppet Dean being taken out by the media with his "Primal Yell" And finally, Kerry, who banked on his Vietnam experience to stand in as the "Real Peace Candidate" who now claims only to wage a "better Iraq war."

Carl's argument quickly puts one in a dangerous camp. For one, why are we 'in the trench folk' doing the work of Democrats? Especially when they have more resources than we? Even more so in a non-swing state that's Democratic? The 'vote against your enemy' approach leaves me with no options to vote for.

Anyway, it's beautiful outside and I need to go do some constructive things. Ciao.

CarlD: Garth says: 'Carl's argument quickly puts one in a dangerous camp. For one, why are we 'in the trench folk' doing the work of Democrats? Especially when they have more resources than we? Even more so in a non-swing state that's Democratic? The 'vote against your enemy' approach leaves me with no options to vote for.'

Garth, you're looking at the 'work in the trenches' too narrowly. We are assisting the Democrats only in one tactical respect: most of the people we register are likely to vote for Kerry. But the people we are training as registrars, poll watchers, election judges, fundraisers, canvassers, neighborhood alliance builders, etc, are doing it for THEIR neighborhood peace & justice groups, not for the Democrats.

Except for the antiwar Democratic elected officials who come to our meetings, we don't even meet with the Democratic party. After Nov 2, no matter who wins, these organizational gains will belong to US, not the Dems. AS for someone to positively vote FOR, I agree its slim pickings. We had Kucinich in the primaries, and that was about it. As for Illinois being in the bag, so far we have sent hundreds of volunteers to work weekends in Wisconsin, Ohio and Iowa.

As for what's most dangerous, I think that's to follow Uncle Karl Rove's advice to the antiwar movement: stay away from the polls on election day.

Garth: Carl, Later I thought I shouldn't use that phrase about the "dangerous camp."

One concern of mine is exactly about the day after the big election. If Kerry is elected, will many of those mobilized voter people think all is won? and what about if G.W. gets it? Will those people turn away in frustration?

It seems to me that a lot of hope is being put into this election, and that is it's own little trick bag. Would I rather have Kerry than Bush? That's an easy question for a lot of people. But when I think about the Iraqis who are suffering, how can I pretend to put hope in this election?

From my meager readings on Tricky Dick and LBJ during the Vietnam war, (or American war as the Vietnamese called it) I see Kerry as a person who is beholden to many of the same corporate interests as Bush. Nor do I think that he'll resolve the war and have 'peace with honor', because the methods he proposes using are the same.

So, back to the electoral thing, I think if people feel motivated to go out and 'rock the vote', then it's the next step in their progression that hopefully leads to a fuller critcal consciousness.

Ultimately for this war to end, I think we all need to stop accepting the benefits. Soldiers need to refuse. etc. As a hypocrite, I remind myself of Berrigan's words. That of course we still have war, because war is being waged by so many with such totality. Yet we wage peace with half a heart...

I hope you're right. I hope that some of the electoral work moves people past electoral work. Guess if we could do a survey we could find out...

CarlD: Garth, I've found that electoral work is like anything else--you have a wide range of views. Most people we work with have few illusions about Kerry, they are just determined to fire Bush. If Kerry wins, they're ready to hit the ground running the next day to mobilize against the war aimed at him. Still, I do run into people who are enamored of Kerry and claim that if he loses, they're moving to Canada or Europe or somewhere--who knows?

To me, the critical question is how do we CONSOLIDATE most of these folks we've mobilized into ongoing grassroots independent political organizations. If we don't do this quickly and creatively right after the election, then some of the critique of our work will be true, that we're just a tail on the Democrats.

We'll see how it works out...
Read more!

Debate Following Aug 29 'Unity Rally' in Chicago

An Exchange between CarlD & Some Left Critics...

Opening Comment on Chicago Indymedia
from Bob Schwartz on Chicago's 8/29 Rally:

"According to the local daily propaganda sheets, between 500 to 1,000 folk turned out for the Chicago version of the Kerry rally, the not-so-cleverly named "No to the Bush Agenda." Left rhetoricians Jan Schakowsky and Luis Gutierrez were trotted out to provide cover to the DLC Kerry campaign...

"I've heard talk from some progressives, that the proper course of action is to vote Bush out (i.e., for Kerry) then organize against Kerry's less evil war on workers at home and abroad. This is whistling in the wind. Having failed to drive home the lesson that only mass organizing and protest can force change, nearly all Kerry voters will sit back and let AnybodybutBush save the day. And the downward spiral will continue."

Answer from CarlD:

RE: Bob Schwartz

"Sorry, Bob, but I'm sure you won't be surprised to know that the vast majority of folks at the rally will be voting against Bush whether Jan or Luis told them to or not. These two speakers REFLECTED the views of most of the protesters, just like most of those in NYC, and you only drop a little insult on these folks by suggesting that they are sheep to be herded, unlike much wiser vanguards like yourself. As for 'whistling in the dark,' it seems to me that applies much more to those who think it doesn't matter if Bush wins..."

Bob Again:

"Carl, I'm not suggesting that people are "sheep to be herded." Most antiwar activists just like you and me are eager for what they think of as the "Bush nightmare" to end. Yet, there is no denying that virtually all of our miseducation from grammar school to the TV focus on Republicrat candidates teaches and promotes voting as THE political act. And people like yourself and the CP, folks with a long history on the left, also promote the illusion of change by voting for Democrats.

By promoting the Democrats as better than the Republicans, however marginally, Carl and his friends, who have seen this strategy fail time after time, promote the illusion that a Kerry administration will return things to a state of "normalcy." That is, US rule using the fig leaf of internationalism by acting sometimes behind the UN, and cobbling together a coalition of the other imperialist nations by giving a little more than El Busho and his gang have been willing to do.

This is the "normalcy" of US government rule, pursued with a vengeance since the close of WW II. Rather than leading actions to protest and disrupt the US war effort in Iraq, its campaigns against Cuba and the Palestinian people, and its troop presence in over 100 nations, Carl's wing of the antiwar movement shills for John Kerry, the one time critic of imperialist war, now eager to lead the world's number one rogue state.

Under present circumstances with both parties representing the interests of the system of exploitation, racism and war, to advocate voting is actually counter-productive. As Carl himself has acknowledged on more than one occasion, no matter who is elected we will end up with an agent of capitalism and imperialism sitting in the Oval Office. And that is exactly my point.

I am not a member of a "vanguard" party, but I emphatically support the strategy of employing the methods of direct action to force social change. Why not help folk to understand that this is the only strategy that can win in the long term?"

CarlD Again:
Reply to bob:

"Bob said: 'I am not a member of a "vanguard" party, but I emphatically support the strategy of employing the methods of direct action to force social change. Why not help folk to understand that this is the only strategy that can win in the long term?'

"This is an odd way to put things, Bob. The ONLY strategy? First, I always thought 'direct action' was a tactic, not a strategy. The first question of strategy is distinguishing friends from adversaries, and the first problem is finding ways of uniting the many to defeat the few. Strategy thinks in terms of the whole, and deploys a wide variety of tactics, depending on time place and circumstance--direct action, elections, strikes, debates, armed self-defense, etc.

"The only tendency I know that emphasizes direct action over all others, and even to the exclusion of others, is some varieties of anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism that worship the 'general strike' or, even as some proto-fascist theorists like Sorel put it, 'the myth of the general strike.' I'm not saying you hold to this 'strategy,' but doesn't the one-sided elevation of 'direct action' and 'propaganda of the deed' push us down this slippery slope?"

Hmmmmmm Jumps in:

"Carl, please don't speak down to the rest of us on the left. We all know that the Unity Rally was a pro-Kerry/Edwards rally in disguise. Anything else would have angered Katz' meal-ticket, da mayor. I find it particularly disheartening, and telling, that groups like CAWI, JWJ, CP-USA and others did not mobilize for the RNC and instead chose to have a "solidarity" rally back here in Chicago that did nothing to challenge the GOP whatsoever. Nor did they make any significant attempts to get their members or others to go to the RNC. This is especially puzzling since the main organizer of the march yesterday was UFPJ, which is the main antiwar coalition that they all belong to.

"WHY THE HELL DIDN'T YOU ORGANIZE FOR NYC? It's fine to have a rally here for those who really CAN'T go but you didn't put any effort into getting people there in the first place or even giving them an option and that's the problem!

"But thanks for giving Palestine 3 minutes worth of lipservice, it's a hell of a lot more than any other people fighting for liberation received. What about Afghanistan?"

CarlD reply to Hmmmmmm

"For the record, CAWI supported the UFPJ action in NYC and encouraged people to go; for those who couldn't make it, we organized a rally here that was in solidarity with the one in NYC. We took as our main slogan here, 'Say NO to the Bush Agenda', the same as the rally in NYC.

"Goodness, why would I oppose the NYC rally? Apart from agreement with the general politics, Leslie Cagan and I are both leading members of the same group, the CCDS, which went all out for Aug 29 in NYC.

"Moreover, the Chicago event was not simply CAWI's rally, but a coalition of a lot of folks, with the more progressive unions in town at the core of it, along with some anti-Iraq war Democrats, such as Munoz, Gutierrez and Schakowsky. Everyone fully expected these folks to speak up for Kerry and the vast majority of the crowd cheered the idea of voting for Kerry over Bush. Nothing hidden here! Good grief, MILLIONS of progressives are going to do this Nov 2!

"Still, CAWI itself doesn't ENDORSE Kerry; most of us will likely VOTE for him, but a few will vote for Nader or the Greens, if and where they can. Likewise for some of the others in the rally coalition, which is why the rally itself did not make pro-Kerry a basis of its unity. That's a distinction that may not mean anything to you, but it does to us. The rally's politics was exactly what it said it was: Unity vs. the Bush Agenda, Yes to Peace & Justice, Solidarity with UFPJ in NYC.

"There are plenty of things about our event that could have been better, especially the relatively small size, but it was important to have had it anyway. Finally, I won't dignify the snide comments against Camille and Marilyn with a response, but the real problem you have is that this was a left-liberal coalition vs. the hard right, not an anti-imperialist bloc against liberals and conservatives equally. Fine, you do things your way and and we'll do our thing our way; we don't have to agree, we can just cooperate tactically when its practical and necessary."

"Another Angle" Jumps In:

"This is the same Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) that supports maintaining the $5 billion in "official" aid that the U.S. sends to Israel each and every year. The same Schakowsky who has repeatedly spoken in defense of the right of Israeli's to defend themselves while demanding that the Palestinians lay down and die. The same Schakowsky that attends and supports AIPAC conferences where the agenda is how best to spin, distort and cover up the crimes against humanity being committed against the Palestinian people each and every day by the Israeli's, how best to silence critics of Israel whether they be students, academics, politicians, writers, Muslims, Christians or even other Jews, and how best to continue funneling more money into the TINY state of Israel than goes to all of Latin America, Africa and the Caribbean combined when you remove Egypt and Colombia.

"Yeah, she's some progressive. Thanks for being a real fucking hypocrite Jan!"

CarlD replies to 'Another Angle':

"One problem you have is that there's hardly any electoral districts in the country where a majority of the potential electorate holds the views on Palestine that you express or would be happy with.

"Our task, at the base, is to change that condition, through action and education, so a democratic (small 'd' intended) leader can represent the views of those who elected him or her. At the same time, I would also agree that the task of progressive leadership, elected or otherwise, is to help transform progressive minorities in their districts into progressive majorities, in a step-by-step fashion in good time.

"I know some people think there is no such thing as a progressive, peace-minded grouping of people who support Israel's existence, or that one could ever emerge and grow. Let's hope this isn't the case, or we're in much deeper difficulties than we might imagine.

"In the meantime, while I don't agree with Jan on the Middle East, I would measure her of this question by where she stands within the range of views in her district, whether she promotes dialogue and joint efforts for peace between Jews and Palestinians, whether she is trying to build a pro-peace majority, by what the rightist pro-Israel lobby thinks of her, and, finally, by where she stands of a whole range of issues compared to her adversaries, not on one issue, however important.

"Politics is a process of development. While it's critical to be clear and keep strong on core values, such as support for Palestinian self-determination, it's also important to do so in a way that doesn't build a wall between you and a broader range of allies who agree with you on some things but not others."

Read more!

Debate: Chicago Unity Rally vs Bush Agenda

This is a brief exchange on Chicago Indymedia over the slogans and relevance of the Aug 29 Unity Rally in Chicago opposing the Bush agenda and expressing solidarity with the actions at the Republican Convention in NYC:


From CarlD
RE: (a)'s comment on Aug 29 Rally Slogans:


(a) says: "'A Real National Security * Diplomacy, Not War * Genuine Family Values' What the fuck is this shit?"

Carld: It's not so hard to figure out, (a). 'Real national security' is having peaceful and helpful relations with other countries; 'Diplomacy, not war' is the preferable way to handle conflicts between countries; 'genuine family values' is access to health care, education and employment that can sustain couples and their children and elderly parents. Or do you think we should call for greater insecurity for the American people, the war of all against all among states, and smashing the family?

From Bob Schwartz:
"...access to health care, education and employment that can sustain couples and their children and elderly parents."

Does Carl Davidson really believe that these laudable goals will be met by voting for Kerry and Edwards? These goals will be brought closer only by mass organization and protest, as occurred with union rights, black rights, women’s rights.

When the rights won in the streets and on the shop floors were turned over to the damned Democrats for defense, it has resulted in a downward spiral of defeat followed by defeat.

As for the phantom "real national security" and "diplomacy," Carl knows full well that US aggression in the interests [i.e., "security"] of big business will be executed with or without the fig leaf of "diplomacy."

Reply to Bob Schwartz:

CarlD: Once again, Bob is missing the point. I make no promises for the Democrats, nor try to prettify them in any way. As I have said repeatedly from day one, in this election, they simply represent a different faction of imperialism than Bush--multilateralists vs unilateralists, globalist vs hegemonist, however you want to describe them.

They have some tactical differences with Bush and the Neocons on foreign policy and are not a straight up antiwar party, thanks to the DLC and the defeat of Kucinich. But their potential victory would weaken the war policy of Bush and the Neocons, which would be a plus for the antiwar forces everywhere. We would have to fight the DLC/Kerry war policy the next day, but we will be more energized and in a better position to do it if Bush loses.

As for whether social reforms like health care are won, I agree that these are a reflection of the degree of social power and fighting capacity of mass organizations around these issues at the base, as well as their ability to focus that power nationally.

Even so, any reform won this way can be taken back--and often is taken back--if conditions change. As Lenin put it, every reform, however positive, contains a 'police snare'. But that doesn't mean we should not raise demands for them.

If you're looking for an apologist for the Democrats and their leadership, you undoubtedly can find some in the antiwar movement, but you won't find one here, even if I, like many others, vote for a few of their candidates from time to time to defeat a greater danger. I also vote for third parties where appropriate, or refuse to vote for either option. I never voted for Clinton, for instance. I liked Jerry Brown in the primary back then.

As for the range and wording of the demands for the Aug 29 rally, they reflect the combined politics of the various groups making up coalition. Most are just fine; some I would have worded differently. But then I didn't have the final say-so, nor should I have. Overall they aim the main blow at Bush and the Bush Agenda and express solidarity with the protests in NYC, which is why we should all turn out for it and then express our additional or opposing perspectives independently, if we want.

The real question is: Are your tactics helping to build an independent grassroots electoral organization in the communities? One that can challenge the DLC Dems strategically? That's what our Peace and Justice Voters project is working toward, however modestly. How about you?

From: cynical2:

Another rally with the same old phrases, buy the same newspapers. Hurray.


I'll show solidarity by watching the action at home on cnn. This is the Olympics of protesting, lets all watch instead of chant.

From CarlD
Reply to cynical2:

Gee, Cynical, sorry the Bushies got you worn out and demoralized so early. As I recall, the Vietnam War and protests went on for 15 years. At what point would you have given up and stopped to just watch the rest of us on TV? 5 years out? 6? 7? Whatever happed to the spirit of Keep on Keepin' On?






Read more!

Kucinich vs. Kerry's Democrats

Kucinich's Ongoing Battle
in the Democratic Party

By Carl Davidson

Here's two quotes from a long piece by Ron Jacobs in Counter-Punch July 16:

"One would think that Mr. Kucinich would not give up so easily on his desire to get some antiwar language into the Democratic platform. After all, what does he have to lose? Instead, his supporters and the rest of the Anyone-But-Bush mindset are left to vote for John Kerry, a man who not only supported the Iraq war from its beginnings, but also hopes to expand it to NATO if he's elected. How is that any different from George Bush?"

"How times have changed. After 1968, the antiwar forces briefly took over the Democratic Party and ran George McGovern in 1972. Thanks to a lack of support from the party's corporate backers, an uneven campaign strategy, and a Republican campaign that included a number of dirty tricks, McGovern lost and the progressive forces within the Democratic Party moved back into the shadows. Since then, these forces have played a role that revolves primarily around keeping progressive independents from running a third-party campaign (a role ironically now also played by the third party Greens). By performing this role, these forces have prevented the progressive voice in US electoral politics from being heard in any effective manner and have helped create the current political situation in the US where most people don't vote and those that do have a choice that only represents the American right wing."

Jacobs is missing the point.

Kucinich didn't surrender on his antiwar plank; he was DEFEATED. He didn't have the delegate strength to push it any further, expect in his ability to speak his own views, should he get to address the convention. There's no shame in taking your forces as far as they can go, even if the other side wins out.

Now he faces a choice: he can leave the party and go out in a blaze of glory in the eyes of the third-party left; or he can continue his project of building a left-progressive grouping or faction among the ranks of the delegates in order to fight other battles, now and in the future.

In either case, he has to keep in mind the main task and where to aim the main blow vis-a-vis Nov. 2.

I think there's an appropriate struggle to be waged either way. The Green Party's Cobb campaign, with its 'safe states' tactics, is a good third party approach that will both help to unseat Bush and build the Greens; Kucinich's approach will also help unseat Bush while, if he plays his cards right, he could also help develop the forces for political independence within the Democratic party that will sharpen the antagonism to its 'corporate caucus' in the longer run.

The strategic idea is for these 'inside' and 'outside' forces, in good time, to unite as a broad electoral form of popular democracy, either as a third party or as a Democratic party purged of its corporate caucus. I think the former is far more likely than the later, but results on the ground will resolve the argument in the real world.

I also think Jacob's assessment of McGovern in 1972 is a bit overblown. McGovern's candidacy was both a reflection of the strength of the antiwar movement and the split in the ruling class over Vietnam. Even with McGovern, the bourgeoisie, albeit its peace-minded sector, was still very much in control of the Democratic Party; the Democrats hardly belonged to the popular antiwar forces even then at the peak of the battle.

To repeat a point I've made before: we are not going to have a clear effective choice between antiwar and prowar candidates in this election. (I'm assuming Nader will fizzle and the Greens will grow slightly on the margins.) Instead, we have a choice between two factions of imperialists, one of which at most disagrees with the policy of unilateral pre-emptive war.

That's a small difference, but it means we cannot be indifferent to which faction wins. That's why we are not endorsing Kerry or anyone else, but just bringing large numbers of new antiwar voters to the polls. They will do what they think best in their situation, whether it's a vote for Cobb or Kerry.

Believe me, if Bush is defeated, it will be seen as a repudiation of the war around the world, even as we continue to wage struggle against a Kerry White House the very next day.

Read more!

Mini-Debate over Green Decision vs Nader

Comments on Green Party Decision
from Carl Davidson & Bob Swartz on Indymedia

Re: Green Party Refuses to Back Nader for President
Submitted by Bob

Put aside the issue of Nader ego-driven flawed strategy vis-a-vis the Greens. Also put aside David Cobb's party building efforts.

The Green decision to back a candidate who promises to give "anybodybutbush" Kerry a free ride in the so-called "swing states," is a victory for people who still don't understand the necessity of breaking with the Democrats.

Breaking with the Democrats needs to be a centerpiece of any program leading to a break with the damn corporate enterprise.


Re: Green Party Refuses to Back Nader for President
Submitted by Carl Davidson
Contrary to Bob, I think the Green Party made the best decision for itself and for progressives generally. First, they aimed the main blow at Bush and the NeoCons. Second, by fielding candidates and a platform, they distinguished themselves from the Democrats in the electoral arena and maintained their ballot status gains from the past. Third, by adopting the "swing state" tactic, they strengthened their internal unity and their alliances with nonpartisan progressives beyond their ranks. Fourth, by emphasizing party-building from the base upward, they will come out of the election stronger than when they entered it.

That's what counts for third party success in these times in my book.

Bob's "scorched earth" approach is one of aiming the main blow at the Democrats, especially the more progressive "conciliators" among them, in order to effect a radical rupture NOW as a matter of "principle." That's what I assess as the subtext of his argument. Even if it didn't help re-elect Bush, it would leave the Greens deeper split internally and more isolated from most of their progressive and left allies. If they did spell the difference in helping a Bush victory, it would take them decades to recover, if ever.

The problem with the right wing of our movement is that they're all tactics and no strategy; the problem with our ultralefts, however, is that they are all strategy and no tactics. Both are recipes for failure.
See also: http://www.carldavidson.blogspot.com

Re: Green Party Refuses to Back Nader for President
Submitted by Bob Schwartz
That the Democratic party is the "graveyard" of progressive movements is a fact ignored by Carl Davidson. We keep running up this hill time and again, only to slide down the other side.

Carl and I have both been around long enough to go thru this run-up several times.

Sure, I have a principle that it is wrong to work for and vote for Democrats. A fact as well known to Carl as to myself, is that both parties are parties of big business.

For the Green nominee to advocate for Kerry is to jettison the independence of the Green party, no matter how incisive its program might be. How can one party endorse a candidate of another party, and still be independent of that party? Or be taken seriously by voters looking for an alternative?

Of course party building is critical to the future of the Greens, but entering thru the back door to back the candidate of another party is poison.

Re: Green Party Refuses to Back Nader for President
Submitted by Carl Davidson
The Democratic Party isn't the only "graveyard" of progressive movements, if you want to put it that way; the same can be said for any number of third parties as well.

The Democratic Party's leading core, its "corporate caucus" so to speak, frequently co-opts progressive movements by subordinating and dividing their leadership, fragmenting their programs, and demobilizing their insurgencies through partial reforms--"giving up a little to protect a lot," at least for a time.

Third parties, on the other hand, often derail or confine progressive movements to the margins of society, isolate them from allies, and keep them from wielding power, except as indirect "pressure groups" that, consciously or unconsciously, rely on the corporate liberals of the "corporate caucus" to implement some portion of their demands. They become co-opted into a semi-permanent extraparlimentary opposition, fired up now and then when the corporate liberals in power need a little "street heat" in dealing with their rivals.

Almost every third party I can think of has, to some degree, bragged about their co-optation, ie, about how at least some part of their program was implemented by one or another of the two major parties, even if it never wielded power or got more than a relative handful of votes itself.

Yes, we have had this discussion before--"same old, same old" for the last 40 years of my life, at least. You can take articles written advocating both sides of this question from 30 years ago, change the names of the wars, a few issues, a few statistics, and a few people, and run them again and it would be hard to see the difference.

It's time for something new. Each side of this argument is mainly right about the other side, but has serious problems about itself. Those working as progressives in the Democratic party, for instance, have no strategy (that I know of) for ridding the party of the control of the corporate caucus. The third parties, on the other hand, have no tactics for winning over those who vote or work for Democrats--other than demanding "clean breaks" on "principle," which may count as ineffective propaganda but not effective tactics. They often end up avoiding many arenas where the fight is actually going on.

Here's an irony. The left has hundreds, even thousands of nonprofit, tax-exempt 501C3 organizations all across the country. It's one of the first things new insurgent groups often clamor for. But there are two main requirments for a 501C3: first, you are not allowed to campaign for a candidate; second you are not allowed to campaign for a specific piece of legislation.

In other words, if you are an anarchist or otherwise opposed to electoral politics, the foundations will fund you, just as long as you stay that way and only indirectly lobby for your cause--no political parties or electoral groups, please. I'm not saying we should totally abandon 501C3s, but isn't there a deeper lesson here? Hasn't our movement suffered from co-optation from the "left" as well as the right?

I think some of the answers are in this direction:

First, in order to do electoral politics, you have to have something to do electoral politics WITH. Otherwise, whatever postions you take, it's just so much "left" posturing. In my book, that starts with community-based groups that belong to themselves, that have their own voter lists, contacts, funding sources, allies and leaders. They start winning campaigns and positions locally and work their way up, federating with like-minded groups in other areas along the way. Second, they understand that you can vote against someone without "endorsing" that someone's rival (unless, of course, they want to.) Our group, Peace and Justice Voters 2004, isn't endorsing anyone. We will just bring tens of thousands of new progressive voters to the polls for "Regime Change" in November, voters who will decide for themselves whether to vote for Kerry, Nader, Cobb or even, in rare instances, Bush. Our main impact will be, predictably, against Bush and the neo-cons, but we are not endorsing Kerry or building his organization. We are building our organizations, organizations that will have to continue the struggle against the White House and the war regardless of the occupant.

Second, we have to campaign for electoral reform BETWEEN elections--Instant Runoff, Proportional Representation, Allowance of Fusion, etc. Without these, we are forever inflicted with the two-party system.

Third, we need a program of radical structural reform that contests not only the maldistribution of wealth, but also the creation of wealth on the micro as well as the macro level. It is mainly in these campaigns that the people themselves are schooled in becoming the masters of society.
See also: http://www.cyrev.net

Read more!

News Report on Greens Not Backing Nader

MILWAUKEE, Wis. - The Green Party on Saturday refused to back Ralph Nader in his independent run for the White House, a move that could reduce his chances of being a factor in this year's election.

Delegates to the half-million-member party's presidential convention voted to nominate party activist David Cobb, a California lawyer who led the delegate count going into the meeting.

On the second round of voting, Cobb captured 408 delegates, more than the 385 needed to gain the nomination.

"What you have here before you are working class people who have demonstrated that it is possible to build a political party on principles and values -- without corporate money and without selling out," he told a lively crowd after he won the nomination.

"Ralph Nader has had more influence on my life than anyone who is not a direct relative. I am a lawyer because of Ralph Nader. Without Ralph Nader, this nomination wouldn't have happened," Cobb added.

Nader had not sought the party's nomination but said he would have accepted either that or an endorsement as a possible route to getting on the ballot in 22 states and the District of Columbia. The party earned those ballot positions as a result of its showing in 2000 when Nader headed its ticket.

The consumer rights advocate just days ago chose veteran Green Party politician Peter Camejo as his vice presidential running mate in an attempt to attract support from the party.

As an independent, Nader has been trying to consolidate support from third parties as well as disaffected Democrats and Republicans. He had already been endorsed by the Reform Party, giving him potential access to ballots in seven states where it won access.

Losing the Green Party's support could make it all the more difficult for him to get on the ballot in every state. He has been trying to round up signatures in as many states as possible and Democrats have indicated they will scrutinize those efforts and challenge them when validity questions arise.

In choosing Cobb, the Greens picked a candidate who spent the last eight years visiting 40 states, working at the grass-roots level to build ties between environmental and labor movements.

As the Green candidate in 2000, Nader drew 2.7 percent of the popular vote, but Democrats saw him as a spoiler who sapped strength from former Vice President Al Gore in battleground states, including Florida, where Nader drew 97,488 votes.

Gore won the popular vote nationally but lost the weighted electoral college vote -- and the election -- to President Bush, losing Florida by 537 contested votes.
Read more!

The Nader Factor: Getting Beyond Blame to the Deeper Issues

Re: Blaming Nader for Their Own Mistakes:
Democrat Snipers Target Nader, while Ralph
Has Other Problems of His Own Making

by Carl Davidson

A good number of progressives are upset with Ralph Nader as a "spoiler." But so-called "third party spoilers" are a symtom of progressive movements' problems in the electoral arena, not the cause.

The real causes are reactionary structures --winner-take-all primaries, court rulings against fusion candidates in all but two states, no proportional representation or instant runoff balloting, and so on. If any party wants to protect itself against "spoiler candidates" in a democractic way, the solution is to get rid of these causes. Telling people they can't run is a backward non-solution.

Nor are these structural issues the only causes. Others are outright electoral fraud and theft, are was done with the Black vote in Florida in 2000. This was the most direct racist cause of Bush's "victory", and to blame Nader for it only conciliates and covers up the GOP's racism.

Besides, even if one accepted the false logic, why limit it to Nader? Why not blame Monica Moorehead of the Workers World Party? She got 1500 votes in Florida which theoretically put Gore over the edge? Or why not blame Gore for losing Tennessee? Or, turn it around and blame or credit, as the case may be, Ross Perot for Bill Clinton in an earlier contest?

I like the Greens and Nader, with some differences in his tilt toward protectionism. But if he runs this time, I won't be voting for him. Having said that, however, unlike a few of my friends, I have no problem with any qualified candidate running for president any time, including Nader or a Green. It's their right and it broadens the spectrum of choice for everyone. That's a good thing for democracy.

But if he does run, I might have a serious quarrel with his tactics. Where does he aim the main blow? At Bush and the NeocCons? Or at the "conciliators" and "social props" of Bush and the NeoCons, ie, the Democrats, especially the Democrats with some sympathy or support in the progressive movements?

This is an old question first posed by R. Palme Dutt in his classic work, "Fascism and Social Revolution," supported by the 6th Comintern in 1928 and later repudiated by Dimitrov at the 7th Comintern later in the 1930s.

Dutt argued that the main blow had to be aimed the the "social fascist" "twins" of fascism, the Social Democrats, since they were really propping up Hitler and we had to get them, the Social Democrats, out of the way first. This didn't work out too well in practice.

I'm not too fond of analogies from one historical period to another--they tend to raise as many issues as they seemingly answer--but the question for Nader, the Greens, and all of us remains--Where do we want to aim the main blow in this election and which approach helps us to better strengthen progressive organization and alliances at the base?

Does Nader mainly want to expand the electorate and bring in new voters? Or does he mainly want to reduce the number of Democratic voters? Given our present setup, these are not unimportant questions for any progressive third party candidate at any time.

Finally, how is a campaign like Nader's helping to build independent grass roots organization? Perhaps I'm wrong and I know things are different elsewhere, but I don't see the Greens here in Illinois (unfortunately) being much stronger today than they were before the last Nader campaign.

My views are out there; I'd like to hear from others.

Read more!

Carl Davidson  Read more!

2004 Election: War, Terrorism & Regime Change at Home

An analysis of the impact of Iraq on the 2004 election, the need to deconstruct Bush's 'War on Terrorism' and a perspective on how progressives can independently intervene in the election to defeat Bush in spite of poor tactics from the Democratic leadership.

The 2004 Elections:
War, Terrorism and the
Need for Regime Change

By Carl Davidson

The 2004 presidential election is most likely to be decided on the stands that the candidates, and the American people themselves, take on the matters of war, terrorism, and now, atrocity and occupation.

The decision, for many people, will not be easy. Ever since the 9/11 attacks and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the American people have faced a complex and dangerous international crisis.

On one hand, as a people, we faced the task of cooperating with other countries and peoples in a justified effort to defend all concerned against the terrorist attacks of the reactionary theocrats led by al-Quaeda. On the other hand, we faced the task of stopping the Bush administration's ill-conceived 'War on Terror,' its drive to an unjust war with Iraq, and, now, the ongoing brutal occupation of that country.

The White House policies on these questions have brought failure and disaster in every respect. The bombing and invasion of Afghanistan removed the Taliban, but only managed to install a rump regime in Kabul. Meanwhile warlordism took command elsewhere, the Taliban re-emerged and al-Quaeda remained at large, active and deadly around the world. In the midst of the Afghan debacle, without any just cause, Bush shifted his focus and resources to Iraq. The ensuing invasion removed Hussein, but plunged the country into chaos and strife. The occupation is meeting with resistance from all forces, progressive and reactionary, while Iraq's peoples refuse to be pacified.

War Aims Defeated Politically

Now, with the global exposure of the torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners, Bush has suffered a severe and irreversible defeat politically in the Islamic world and elsewhere. Historian and defender of the British Empire, Sir Michael Howard, saw it coming back in 2001, predicting how the images of the World Trade Center would fade and new, anti-U.S. images would come to the fore:

"I hate having to say this, but in six months time for much of the world that atrocity will be, if not forgotten, then remembered only as history; while every fresh picture on television of a hospital hit, or children crippled by land-mines, or refugees driven from their homes by western military action, will strengthen the hatred of our adversaries, recruit the ranks of the terrorists and sow fresh doubts in the minds of our supporters.'

The longer the U.S. maintains an unjust occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, the worse things are going to get. Bush has lost the battle for hearts and minds, certainly in the Islamic world, and can only defend an unjust occupation with more injustice.

'It is a time for truth, writes Pat Buchanan, the conservative columnist on May 14. 'In any guerrilla war we fight, there is going to be a steady stream of U.S. dead and wounded. There is going to be collateral damage, i.e., women and children slain and maimed. There will be prisoners abused. And inevitably, there will be outrages by U.S. troops enraged at the killing of comrades and the jeering of hostile populations. If you would have an empire, this goes with the territory. And if you are unprepared to pay the price, give it up.'

Bush's reactionary approach to the problem of terrorism, moreover, reaches beyond Iraq. It has spurred, for instance, Israel's Sharon regime to new recalcitrance and atrocities in its occupation of the Palestinians and new cycles of terrible violence from both sides of the conflict there.

Less Secure Than Ever

The net result so far: the U.S. and other countries, most recently Spain, are still the target of al-Quaeda's terrorists. The U.S. is further bogged down in failing occupations in two countries, has never been more despised in the Islamic world, and has never been more isolated and estranged from many other peoples, countries and traditional allies across the globe.

Still Bush urges us to 'stay the course.' Despite a 'few bad weeks,' he claims 'steady progress' is being made in both Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition to questioning the patriotism of his critics, he and his underlings are clearly playing the fear of terrorism card to win support. National Security advisor Condoleezza Rice raised the specter of the bombings in Spain and the defeat of the conservative government there as a forecast of what might happen here between now and November. Attorney General John Ashcroft and Bush himself are making the rounds, warning of domestic terrorists and calling for more restrictions on civil liberties by making the so-called Patriot Act more repressive and 'permanent.'

Yet hardly a day goes by that another top official of the national security establishment doesn't break ranks and challenge the administration's direction. They expose factional strife and deceptions, either by leaking information to the press, testifying in hearings, appearing on news shows or writing books challenging the White House line. Sidney Blumenthal, former Clinton advisor, writing in the May 13 Guardian (UK), shows how the divisions are even erupting in the officer corps and the Pentagon:

'William Odom, a retired general and former member of the National Security Council who is now at the Hudson Institute, a conservative thinktank, reflects a wide swath of opinion in the upper ranks of the military. 'It was never in our interest to go into Iraq,' he told me. It is a 'diversion' from the war on terrorism; the rationale for the Iraq war (finding WMD) is 'phony'; the US army is overstretched and being driven 'into the ground'; and the prospect of building a democracy is 'zero'. In Iraqi politics, he says, 'legitimacy is going to be tied to expelling us. Wisdom in military affairs dictates withdrawal in this situation. We can't afford to fail, that's mindless. The issue is how we stop failing more. I am arguing a strategic decision.''

Politics of Deception and Confusion

All this is having a profound impact on the 2004 election. The confusing politics, bewildering consequences and steady stream of outright lies surrounding these events is the critical factor behind the deep division in American society. We are divided from top to bottom; there are deep divisions among the ruling elites, as well as among the people themselves over what to do about terrorism, the invasions, the occupations and all the dangers and outrages unleashed across the board.

The electoral contest, at this point, appears to be very close. In these circumstances, it is in Bush's interest to maintain and deepen the confusion by merging wars in defense of Empire and terrorism of any sort into one single danger aimed at the homeland and the American people themselves. In fact, Bush has made the “War on Terrorism' the main cover for his foreign policy from 9/11 onward. He has done everything in his power to link Iraq and bin Laden, and to use 'expanding democracy' as a cover for U.S. hegemonism and Empire. The entire right wing hammers away daily at both the Democrats and the peace movement, suggesting treason and sedition. Now the drumbeat is against John Kerry for being weak on war and terrorism, for his protests against the Vietnam War three decades ago to his tactical disputes with Bush and the GOP over Iraq and military spending today.

'It's a puzzling paradox,' says Arianna Huffington in an April 28 column. 'Recent polls show that voters are more worried that we are losing the war on terror, more convinced that we're about to be attacked, and more certain that the invasion of Iraq has put America at greater risk from terrorists. And yet, these same voters overwhelmingly believe that President Bush will do a better job of protecting them from terrorists than John Kerry.'

If we are going to organize an opposition strong enough to defeat Bush and the neoconservative clique around him, we are going to have to deconstruct his 'War on Terrorism' in an effective and mass way. The key to that task is making distinctions between just and unjust causes, and asserting a value-centered politics in opposition to the wealth-and-privilege centered politics of the ruling class. There is no other effective way to build and mobilize the new grassroots majorities required for progressive, systemic change.

Need for Unity and Clarity

First and foremost, we have to take a clear stand on the war. The invasion of Iraq, and now the occupation, was and is wrong and unjust. Weakened by years of war and sanctions, Iraq was no clear and present danger even to its neighbors, let alone to the U.S. This is not to say the Hussein was not a tyrant and that international support to develop an internal, democratic alternative to Hussein was unneeded or unwarranted. But we must say that there was no just cause for this war, and that every cause advanced by Bush, from elusive weapons of mass destruction to sham concern for fascist atrocities or lack of democracy, has proved to be a tissue of lies or hypocrisy or both.

How do we unite a majority of Americans around a plan to get out of Iraq? Noam Chomsky, writing in the May 6 issue of the Nation, summed up the 'US Out, UN In!' perspective as clearly as anyone:

'A large majority of Americans believe that the UN, not the United States, should take the lead in working with Iraqis to transfer authentic sovereignty as well as in economic reconstruction and maintaining civic order. That is a sensible stand if Iraqis agree, as seems likely, though the General Assembly, less directly controlled by the invaders, is preferable to the Security Council as the responsible transitional authority. Reconstruction should be in the hands of Iraqis, not delayed as a means of controlling them, as Washington has indicated. Reparations--not just aid--should be provided by those responsible for devastating Iraqi civilian society by cruel sanctions and military actions; and--together with other criminal states--for supporting Saddam Hussein through his worst atrocities and beyond. That is the minimum that honesty requires.'

Next we have to take a deeper look at the issue of terrorism. Terror has been a tactic deployed by both progressive and reactionary movements in various times, place and circumstances. There is both state-sponsored terror and the terror of non-state, insurgent movements. There is the terrorist violence described by Franz Fanon in the Algerian war of liberation. On the other hand, there is the terrorism in the classic definition of fascism, put forth by Georgi Dimitrov in the 1930s, where he describes Germany and Italy as 'the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, chauvinist sections of finance capital.'

As for state-sponsored terrorism, if we are honest, we have to say that the U.S government, at least over the past 50 years, has been the chief terrorist and sponsor of terrorism in the world. We can never forget that our government has the blood of a million Vietnamese on its hands. Most Americans do not even know that ours is the only country actually convicted of terrorism in a world court, for the atrocities of the U.S. sponsored Contras in Nicaragua.

War Combined with Racism

Bush and Rumsfeld have gone to great lengths to claim that the abuse and torture prisoners in Iraq are not part of the America character. Really? Not all of America, to be sure, but organized terror, especially again those with darker skin, is a deep strain in our history. As Tim Wise pointed out May 13 on ZNet:

'The images from Fallujah were not unique to Iraqis, and those from Abu Ghraib [prison] are not exceptional in the least. It wasn't that long ago, after all, that literally thousands of white Christians in this country would regularly engage in weekend lynch parties, or at least observe as spectators, giving the events all the spectacle of a three-ring circus. The lynch mobs would, with full approval of the demented white Christian crowds that gathered to cheer them on, drag blacks to death behind cars, torture them with blowtorches and burn them to death in what were advertised as "Negro Barbecues."

The 'white blindspot' is deeply embedded in the defense of empire. In any case, if terrorism of whatever sort is a tactic and a method of rule, it makes no sense to declare war on it, for the simple reason that there is no end to it. One can declare war on a state or an organized movement—such a struggle has a beginning and an end, victors and vanquished. But tactics and methods can be passed on, time and again, as long as there are those who find a need for them. Moreover, terrorism can be highly political and its meaning can shift with changing political events and perspectives. For many years, governments in the West called Nelson Mandela and the ANC terrorists; now they are statesmen and national liberators.

But what about the terrorism of 9/11? This is the main form of terrorism that is front and center in the consciousness of the American people and the people of many other countries terrorized by al-Quaeda today. First, it is the method of a semi-feudal oil-rich oligarchy and the center of a reactionary movement to restore and expand a theocratic dictatorship. This is the essence of al-Quaeda's drive to destroy “Jews and Crusaders,' “restore the Caliphate' and impose its Wahabi version of Islamic law over all lands ever dominated by Islam throughout history. Its 'anti-imperialist' rhetoric is no more genuine than the 'anti-British imperialism' invoked by the German fascists in another time.

Broad Cooperation & Collective Security

In truth, the events of 9/11 are best described as crimes against humanity, and not as acts of war. Why is the distinction important? The conservative right flies into a fury when it's made; to them it's war and nothing less. But Nelson Mandela, Fidel Castro, many other leaders in the UN, and progressive voices worldwide stressed the first approach. It saw the battle with bin Laden as mainly a political and economic struggle, requiring broad coalitions of countries working together on collective security and intelligence, which would require armed force to arrest and disorganize the culprits only at the end of the process, by which they would be brought to justice.

Bush's unilateralist, militaristic approach, on the other hand, granted the other side a political victory from day one. He conceded to bin Laden and his ilk the desire to see this conflict as a war, albeit a 'holy war.' Moreover, it allowed the US to be portrayed as opposed to Islam in general, and not just to al-Quaeda. Again, the UK’s Michael Howard, drawing lessons from British counter-insurgency efforts, makes the point:

'But we never called them 'wars': we called them 'emergencies'. This meant that the police and intelligence services were provided with exceptional powers, and were reinforced where necessary by the armed forces, but all continued to operate within a peacetime framework of civil authority. If force had to be used, it was at a minimal level and so far as possible did not interrupt the normal tenor of civil life. The object was to isolate the terrorists from the rest of the community, and to cut them off from external sources of supply. They were not dignified with the status of belligerents: they were criminals, to be regarded as such by the general public and treated as such by the authorities. To 'declare war' on terrorists, or even more illiterately, on 'terrorism' is at once to accord them a status and dignity that they seek and which they do not deserve. It confers on them a kind of legitimacy.'
It is not enough, however, for an effective 2004 campaign to distinguish itself from Bush on the war, terrorism and related issues only tactically. To defeat Bush, a new majority of both regular voters and new voters must be mobilized. Movements like these require a just cause, not tactical disputes, to become active, grow and win.

Two Campaigns: Their & Ours

This is important because the campaign against Bush divides into two. Kerry and the DLC Democrats, for their part, are campaigning--so far anyway--by trying to minimize or even eliminate differences with Bush over the Iraq war and terrorism. Their hope is to win over the ever-shrinking number of undecided Bush-leaning voters in the center. Putting all their eggs in this basket is a strategy that has led Democrats to defeat time and again over the past decade or so.

Our intervention in the election, on the other hand, can move forward and have an positive impact independently of the tactics Kerry and the DLC—even in spite of them, if need be.

Our task is not to make John Kerry into something like Dennis Kucinich; nor is it to show how far apart he may or may not be from us on a range of progressive positions. Both of these projects miss the point.

Kerry mainly has two things going for him. One, his past history in VVAW and opposition to the Vietnam war, which will always distinguish him from Bush regardless of where Kerry stands now. Second, that Kerry represents a multilateralist, globalist faction of US imperialism that is at odds over some key issues with the unilateralist, U.S. hegemonist faction represented by Bush.

The latter point is more important, since it is the one the will enable him to marshal the financial resources needed by November to defeat Bush. In other words, there should be no illusions about Kerry and what he represents, nor any desire to prettify his stands today. It is enough that Kerry can play a role in ousting Bush's gang, since it is not a matter of indifference to us which faction wins. Nonetheless, it is up to us to continue to wage the ongoing struggle for peace and justice against the new gang in the White House, should there be one, from that point on. That's why we must develop tactics maintaining our own independence and initiative both within and outside the electoral arena.

So how do we go about it? Chicago's Peace and Justice Voters 2004 is providing a positive and successful example. We continue to take part in the mass antiwar mobilizations, but we are also developing an electoral capacity. With nearly 700 deputized registrars in our ranks and over 10,000 new registrations so far, we are implementing our program in three phases: first, we are expanding the electorate in a progressive direction; second, we are educating and identifying our supporters in the electorate on our core values of peace and justice and, third, come election day, we will bring our base of new voters to the polls in a big way. There are several key features to our work:

We are a value-centered organization. Based in Chicago neighborhoods, schools and movements, our main slogan for this campaign is 'Regime Change Begins at Home.' We stand clearly against war, occupation and the economic impact of militarism; we oppose racism and support affirmative action; we defend civil liberties and oppose all forms of discrimination. We do not have to tell our people who to vote for; the overwhelming majority will vote against Bush.

We are nonpartisan. This means we don't endorse any party, but include people from many parties in our ranks—Democrats, Greens, Socialists, Independents and even a few stray pro-peace Republicans.

We don't endorse any candidate. Instead, we work in alliance with all the campaigns—Kerry, Kucinich, Nader and, in the Illinois Senate Race, Barak Obama—that want to expand the electorate in a progressive direction through voter registration, education and mobilization. Of course the great majority of people we bring to the polls are likely to vote for Kerry, either because they agree with him to one or another degree, or because they simply want to oust Bush. A few may decide to vote for a third party candidate, such as Ralph Nader, if the option exists. All of that is fine. That's democracy. Each person's vote belongs to them, and any thinking that says, ahead of time, that my vote or your vote should belong to this or that candidate without being earned, is opportunistic short-cut thinking that leads to bigger problems in the long run. Besides, most Nader votes this time around are most likely to be people who wouldn’t vote at all otherwise, and thus should not draw that much from Kerry’s totals.

We form broad alliances. Antiwar activists can't bring about regime change on their own. So we work closely with labor organizations, the League of Women Voters and feminist groups, Rainbow/PUSH, Citizen Action, People for the American Way, City Council members who worked on the Cities for Peace Initiative, Gay and Lesbian Rights Advocates, civil liberties groups opposing the Patriot Act, Members of Congress from the Progressive Caucus, the Black Caucus and the Hispanic Caucus, and, especially, progressive neighborhood-based organizations geared up to work in elections.

We build grassroots organization. The main thing for Peace & Justice Voters 2004, is that we are strengthening our own organization, rather building the Democrat’s organization. We are not encouraging one person among those we reach to join the Democratic Party or to give Kerry a dime. We are building our own organizations--with our own lists, members in base communities, and bank accounts--so that no matter who wins this election, we will have a better means to continue the struggle against war and injustice no matter who is in the White House. Not only that, but more strategically, we will also have started and expanded the foundation building of what can become a mass party of the people, hopefully in the not-too-far-distant future.

Carl Davidson is co-chair of Chicagoans Against War & Injustice and a founder of its project, Peace & Justice Voters 2004. This article, now slightly updated, was initially presented as a paper at the 3rd Annual Global Studies Association conference held at Brandeis University in April, 2004. Web: www.cyrev.net and www.noiraqwar-chicago.org Email: carld717@aol.com.
Read more!

Welcome To My Weblog

Hi. This will be an informal space to post articles of interest to me and my readers, along with back-and-forth commentary. My special interests are philosophy, politics, social issues, changing the world and a lifelong journey seeking an awakening into the true nature of the universe and all it contains and does not contain. Feel free to jump in at any time. Carl Davidson, Chicago.

Read more!