home 
|
| contact
|
| action
|
| theory
|
| resources
|
| what we
fight for
|
| programme
|
| join |
| search
|
| university
|
| links
|
| european social forum
|
| our history
|
|
related articles
|
Enjoy
the
Weekly Worker?
How about
showing us your appreciation? Producing the Weekly Worker costs a substantial
amount of money. Our only source for that financial backing comes from
people like you: readers and supporters of our newspaper. You may not
agree with the CPGB on every dot and comma, but we know that 1000s of
comrades appreciate our open, critical and democratic press
Send cheques, payable to CPGB, BCM Box 928,
London WC1N 3XX or donate online:
Weekly Worker 542 Thursday September 2 2004
Martin Schreader, editor of Appeal to Reason, paper of the revolutionary Debs faction of the Socialist Party USA
An insult to intelligence
Elections have never been an easy time for working people in the United States. From spring through autumn, it is a non-stop assault on our senses and sensibilities - one insult to our collective intelligence after another.
This year has been no exception. On the contrary, if one can say anything
about the 2004 presidential contest, it is that it is a textbook example
of what working people have had to endure for decades.
As I write these lines, delegates are meeting in New York City for the
Republican National Convention (as are hundreds of thousands of anti-RNC
protestors). By the time you read this, they will be on the cusp of re-nominating
George W Bush to be their candidate for president.
I mention this because, as I recall, this is the first time that one of
the two main capitalist parties has held its nominating convention so
late in the year. Usually, at this point in the cycle, the candidates
are preparing for their first ‘debate’.
The reason for the tardiness in the scheduling of the RNC is, of course,
as obvious as the choice of location. You do not have to be a media pundit
or Washington insider to figure out that the Republican Party is looking
to capitalise on the events of September 11 2001 in this campaign. Because
this is the first post-9/11 presidential election, supporters of both
parties are seeing it as a referendum on the course of the so-called ‘war
on terror’.
If you only listened to the rhetoric in the media and at campaign rallies,
you might think they had a point. Both sides have gone to great lengths
to portray their man as ‘vastly different’ from the other. Even
the two candidates themselves, Bush and the Democratic candidate, senator
John Kerry, work night and day to present themselves to the public as
having fundamentally different outlooks for the future.
Thus, it is unfortunate for the two candidates, having made the mistake
of putting their positions in writing, that they have a literate population
to contend with.
Traditionally, socialists and radical leftists in general spend the year
denouncing the two main candidates and writing them off as having ‘not
a dime’s worth of difference’. Conversely, social democratic
and liberal elements of the left (and the ‘official’ communists)
work overtime to prove the existence of great, fundamental differences.
“Across the country there is a growing anti-Bush feeling, but that
alone is not enough,” writes Communist Party USA national chairman
Sam Webb in a recent issue of the CPUSA newspaper, the People’s Weekly
World. “To win requires that millions be convinced that the differences
between Bush and Kerry are real, substantial and consequential to their
lives on the whole range of issues” (August 28).
Comrade Webb then goes on to list a number of areas that he sees as representing
those “real, substantial and consequential” differences, including
reproductive rights, gay rights, civil liberties, Cuba, pre-emptive war
and the occupation of Iraq. So, what are the differences? Comrade Webb
does not say, and that is probably for the best. After all, if he actually
read the positions Bush and Kerry take on these issues, he might have
to rework his entire strategy.
For example, on reproductive rights, both Bush and Kerry are personally
against a woman’s right to have an abortion. In the US Senate, Kerry
has voted on many occasions to restrict access to abortions for women.
While he mouths a lot of words about ‘choice’, his actions show
him to be as anti-choice as Bush and the Republicans.
Same-sex marriage has become a major social issue in this election. On
this point, Bush and Kerry stand side by side. Both of them oppose the
right of same-sex couples to obtain a marriage licence from the state,
offering non-binding, second-class ‘civil unions’ as an alternative.
Kerry voted for the anti-democratic Patriot Act, and his running mate,
senator John Edwards, helped write some of it. Kerry might want to tinker
with some of the more outrageous provisions, but he has already made it
clear that he will not work to repeal it.
Both Kerry and Bush support ‘regime change’ in Cuba, and have
backed a plan of terror and sabotage by the fascistic émigré
community in Miami meant to bring that about. Both have also stated their
support for the overthrow of president Hugo Chávez in Venezuela,
and both have backed ‘regime change’ in a number of other places.
Even though they use slightly different language, both Bush and Kerry
have stated their support for pre-emptive wars of aggression. Whether
they call them “coalitions of the willing” (Bush’s formulation)
or “coalitions of the able” (Kerry’s formulation) is irrelevant.
As for the occupation of Iraq, both candidates have declared their support
for maintaining it until the occupiers ‘win the peace’ - or,
to put it in the language of a generation ago, to ‘win the hearts
and minds’ of the Iraqis. In order to do this, both candidates support
sending more soldiers to Iraq (Bush proposes moving them from Europe and
Asia; Kerry wants to just add another 40,000 to the active duty roster).
If you are not seeing the “real, substantial and consequential”
differences, do not be surprised. As I said at the beginning, this year
is a textbook example of what workers have had to tolerate for decades.
And that goes double for the cheerleading from large sections of the supposed
‘anti-capitalist’ left. Far from having major, life-or-death
differences to deal with, working people are being offered a ‘choice’
of formulation and image.
But that does not stop those who have a need to find differences between
the candidates from fabricating them - if only in their own minds - and
attacking those who have the gall to declare that the emperor has no clothes.
In the words of Sam Webb: “The responsibility of left and progressive
people is not to spend their time bellyaching over Kerry’s shortcomings
[!], but to convince millions that there is a choice and that the outcome
of this election will have enormous consequences for our nation’s
future” (People’s Weekly World August 28).
I think I’ve just been insulted.
