Right is better than extreme right
Published on February 16, 2004 By O G San In Politics
So it seems that the die is cast; the next president of the United States will be George W Bush or John F Kerry. When the choice is presented in these stark terms, it’s a no-brainer for anyone to the left of Genghis Khan. All hail President Kerry! However, that’s exactly the problem. The only good thing about John Kerry is not what he is but what he isn’t. He isn’t George W. Bush.

The Democrats have gone, so we’re told, for “electability”. Once again they’ve chosen a middle-aged white man to represent them in a presidential election. And not just any old white man. Kerry happens to be a very rich white man both by birth and marriage. As a former Yalee and a Skull and Boner, the senator comes from the same blue-blood set as Bush. Of course there’s nothing wrong with this as such; after all a white man greets me every day when I look in the mirror. The problem is that there’s nothing in Kerry’s background to elicit any excitement. His election will not be announced by the smashing of any glass ceilings. He won’t be the first (insert marginalised group here) president.

His background isn’t his fault but his policies certainly are. Of the nine democratic candidates, Kerry is the most right-wing. He makes Dick Gephardt look like a dangerous radical. Kerry is pro-NAFTA, pro-PATRIOT Act and pro-Iraq war. He’s part of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the Clintonite wing of the party which took over in the 1980s. He and his fellow travellers in the DLC don’t believe in mobilising the poor and the downtrodden to come out and vote. For them it’s best to just be Republican Lite and hope that enough “swing voters” will go Democrat because they’re scared of John Ashcroft.

Bushies are bang on target when they mock Kerry for attacking “special interests”. The senator is playing the same corrupt game as the president – selling influence for money. It just happens that Dubya is better at this game than Kerry. Should he win the White House, Kerry will reward his big campaign contributors and to hell with the common good.

Why then should anybody vote for Kerry? Isn’t it better to have the real thing? Not quite. A choice between right and extreme right is still a choice. In some key areas having Kerry, or indeed any Democrat, in the White House will make a difference. In particular, a change of president could be vital in two areas: foreign policy and abortion.

When it comes to foreign policy Kerry is all at sea. As I’ve discussed in a previous blog, Kerry voted for war on the basis that he believed that Saddam was a threat to the US. This makes him either a liar or a fool. It certainly makes him easy meat for Bush. Any attack by Kerry on Bush about Iraq will fall flat because the man form Mass is guilty by association. He had the chance to take a stand in 2002 and he bottled it.

Nevertheless there is still a world of difference between starting a war (as Bush did) and not trying to stop a war (as Kerry did). For all that Kerry’s vote for war was despicable, had he been president the war would never have happened. If Bush gets another four years then more war seems almost certain. Such is his administration’s grandiose ambitions and bullying posture that conflict with Syria, Iran or North Korea looks inevitable.

If Kerry were elected then the prospects of further aggressive wars would diminish considerably. The world would be a much safer place if Cheney, Wolfowitz et al were removed from power and sent to join their friends in the hysterical neocon think-tanks. Who knows, with Rumsfeld gone from the Pentagon, the US might start to talk to its allies rather than insult them.

On the domestic front the future of legal abortion might rest on the result of November’s election. The right, having done everything to undercut Roe .v. Wade in the past twenty years, stands on the brink of final victory. A change in the personnel of the Supreme Court could lead to an end to a woman’s right to choose. If Bush gets a second term it’s unthinkable that he would nominate anyone but a strong pro-lifer to the bench. Likewise if Kerry wins it seems certain that he would nominate a pro-choice judge.

As I said, there’s nothing about Kerry’s background or policies which fills me with enthusiasm. All I can say is that, under his watch, America would drift rightwards a little slower.

Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Feb 18, 2004
Vichy North Africa was not part of the Nazi Empire. That is one of the common misconceptions people have about World War II. It was French troops fighting and dying defending their territory.


Actually, while it's true that Vichy France was a nominally independent nation, they had surrendered to the Germans, and were allies. If, as you say they were so free from the Germans, they wouldn't have opened fire on the British Navy in the mediterranean, or shot at allied forces on their way to Italy. By the time the allies invaded North Africa, Vichy France was an "Axis Power"

Cheers
on Feb 18, 2004
This is classic right-wing propaganda. First compare Saddam to Hitler, then anyone who speaks out against attacking Iraq is either a fascist or some naive Chamberlain figure. You're using the suffering of a past generation to justify a war of choice today.

"You would have been one of the ones to let Hitler take over much of Europe in the name of avoiding war."

This is just a meaningless jibe. I wasn't alive. I have hindsight, I know how it turned out in the end. Who knows how you or I would've reacted if we'd been around?

The comparison I see is between the rhetoric of your friends at "U.S.S. Clueless" and Hitler. The way they talk about Arabs in sweeping derogatory terms is similar to the way Hitler used to speak of the Slavs etc as "inferior".

Are you defending Vichy France? It was the most shameful regine in the history of France. It sent French Jews to their death in concentration camps. It was one of Hitler's satelitte states. Put bluntly it was "fair game".
on Feb 18, 2004
"We were attacked. The US didn't start this war."

I still can't get this quote out of my head. Is this a commonly held view amongst Americans?

Whilst there is no doubt that the 9/11 attacks were horrific and reprehensible and that the perpetrators must be brought to justice, is it the view of any one that there is or was any relationship whatsoever between Iraq and Al-Qaeda?

Marshall

(Melbourne, Australia)
on Feb 19, 2004
There was a poll last year that said that 69% of Americans thought Saddam had a role in the attacks of 9-11. There also was/is a widespread belief that some of the hijackers were Iraqis. To be fair Bush did (eventually) explicitly say that Iraq had no hand in 9-11.
on Feb 19, 2004

Unfortunately for you guys, most Americans have my view on this matter.

The United States had been suffering the attacks from Al Queda for nearly a decade. 9/11 was when it finally came home to most Americans that we were in a war.  Before 9/11, we had tried to handle the situation like a law enformcement.

O G San, it's pointless debating with you on this topic if you're going to twist what I say.  Either you're intentionally thick or unintentionally thick. If you looked at my analogy plainly, I was comparing Vichy France to Iraq -- to win the war against the Axis, the US had to go through Vichy France too.  And like you said, they were effectively an ally of the Axis powers even if not formally. Similar to Iraq and the Islamo terrorists.

Americans who are informed on these things know that Iraq wasn't directly involved with 9/11 just as Vichy France wasn't directly involved with Pearl Harbor. 

BTW, it is amazingly amusing for some left-winger to whine about Saddam being compared to Hitler (which I wasn't btw) when lefties are constantly saying Bush is Hitler or Cheney is Hitler or Rumsfeld is Hitler. 

on Feb 19, 2004
You have this habit of making sweeping statements about "lefties" etc. doing this or that when you respond to my posts. You'll notice that I never compared anyone in the Bush administration to Hitler. I don't agree with placards saying "Bush=Hitler" in fact I find them rather crude.

"If you looked at my analogy plainly, I was comparing Vichy France to Iraq -- to win the war against the Axis, the US had to go through Vichy France too. And like you said, they were effectively an ally of the Axis powers even if not formally. Similar to Iraq and the Islamo terrorists."

Not being thick (either intentionally or unintentionally) I do understand the analogy, I just don't agree with it. I disagree that Vichy France and Japan are analagous to Iraq and al-Qaida. The former were allies, the latter are not. I've made this case at least twice before so I don't see the need to go over old ground. Suffice to say, I understand what you mean and I disagree.

For someone who is always opining the lack of "civilised" debate these days, you were the one who descend into name-calling and insults.
on Feb 19, 2004
Again, to keep things civilized, some on both sides get the belief in their heads that people on both sides are stupid, ignorant, etc. I'm a moderate lefty, so are several others who post here, you know who you are, so, don't try to deny it. Brad is a righty, so are others. I think the problem Brad sees, is that there are some lefties who attack him as stupid, ignorant, etc., and so he lashes out in kind. I know I've done it, just so you know I'm not being holier than thou. Those of us who actually participate in the intelligent debate should know Brad, or any of the others aren't talking to us, or if they are, it's a fit of pique. So, the point of this long winded dissertation on human values? We should try and learn the lesson that the Democrats learned this year in Iowa, attack ads have a nasty consequence of back-firing.

My uncle served in Tehran before the Shah fell and he had something very interesting to say afterwards about the views the Islamic fundamentalists there had. He said in the beginning they had this belief that they would convert the world by their example, meaning they would be such good muslims that the whole world would see the rightness of their cause. He said towards the end, culminating months before the fall, the view changed to a belief that the only way to convert the infidel was to burn him. I think the first view is more positive and we should all aim for it, and not put up such petty snipets as Bush being like Hitler, or Kerry being an anti-american for protesting the war. Both indicate a kind of helplessness that the person posting them no longer believes in the rightness of their cause to convince, but instead must degrade the character of their opponent.

Cheers
on Feb 23, 2004
I'm a little late on this reply, but I am confused by the brief discussion of Roe v. Wade in this thread and the idea that President Bush is "investigating circumstances of partial birth abortions." He's doing more than investigating; in November, he signed a Ban on Partial Birth Abortions--designed to erode the protections of Roe v. Wade.

During the 8 years that it took to pass the bill, proponents clearly stated that it was one step toward the ultimate goal of eliminating the right to choose entirely. This makes President Bush the first President in history to ban safe medical procedures and marks the first legislation since Roe v. Wade that criminalizes abortion--in addition, it does so without exception for the health of a woman--even though the Supreme Court says it's constitutionally required. Moreover, the Bush Administration's Ban is remarkably deceptive. Claims that it only effects late-term abortions are wrong--the broad language of the ban covers procedures used as early as 12 weeks into the pregnancy.
on Feb 26, 2004
I don't think O G San is ignorant by any means. I do feel that the level of civility in this conversation has declined due to both of us. Not just me.

If you look on these blogs, they're full of ignorant left-wing zealots. O G San isn't one of them I agree. It is, however, hard to go from one post to another seeing the same nonsense. The whole "Bush lied" crap is just partisan crap just like some of the junk the conservatives threw at Clinton. I'm moderately right-wing overall. But I'm definitely a hawk on foreign policy and I don't see any problems with the way the US has waged the war on terror.

There are opinions that are educated that you can disagree with and there are opinions that are ignorant that are just as disagreeable. It is often difficult to differentiate the two. My opinions on US foreign policy are not formed from reading some right wing blog or Republican talking points. They come from a fair knowledge of history and years of following the actual events and then coming to my own conclusions.

As for Roe vs. Wade: I am Pro-choice. But I think Roe vs. Wade was an abomination. Note what the above anonymous poster said: "The protections of Roe vs. Wade". As if the courts have the right to write legislation. Partial birth abortion should be illegal unless the mother's health is in danger or there is some other really damn good reason for it.

on Feb 26, 2004
braaad, does anyone ever call you ans Aaasshole to you face?
on Feb 26, 2004
I am beginning to see that on 'values' issues I lean a little further right than Brad, and on monetary issues I lean a tad further left. Not that I am not three miles further right than most of you commies, LOL...

Abortion is the most hypocritical issue in America today. I think it is akin to little kids playing war. When you talk about it over coffee it all makes perfect sense and you can be all 'tough' about it, but if you had to face the gory reality, do it yourself or have it done to you, I think opinions would be much more middle-of-the-road. I have only known two women who have had abortions, and both were severely damaged. One physically, and one mentally. It need never get that far to me, because my tolerance stops with the death of two children, but the aftereffects are also a glaring consideration.

I don't like getting into abortion discussions online. I think Brad has witnessed at least one I have participated in. I get meaner than normal, believe it or not. I'll say what I have said and leave it at that.

I just wonder how everyone would feel if they could explore the ideal 'goal' world of either candidate. I have a feeling that I would feel very, very alien in Kerry's world.
on Feb 27, 2004
"Note what the above anonymous poster said: "The protections of Roe vs. Wade". As if the courts have the right to write legislation."

The above anonymous user was me simply because I had failed to log in. However, I'm not sure that my anonymous state is really at issue.. I never said the courts have the right to write legislation. But they do determine if legislation is constitutional, and in doing so protect rights of citizens. Roe v. Wade, in the eyes of pro-choicers, protects the rights of women to choice whether or not to be pregnant. In addition, it can, and has been argued that outlawing abortion is in direct opposition to Articles 1, 3, 12, and 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A woman who has been conscripted into motherhood is "not allowed to exercise her reason and conscience; she does not have liberty and security of person; she suffers arbitrary interference to her privacy and family and she does not have the right to work or free choice of employment! Compulsory motherhood is to be her occupation irrespective of her choice. Even access to adequate food and shelter can be jeopardised if she is unable to work or already has more children than can be managed by her family." (Source:Children by Choice)

As for the idea that abortion is emotionally wretching, I cannot argue with that. Please be assured that simply because people are pro-choice does not mean that they are advocating women having abortions as a form of birth control. Rather, the pro-choice movement simply wants to maintain the right to choose. The choice is not an easy one. However, I do have to raise objection to the fact that abortions are inherently dangerous (not exactly Bakerstreet's words, but usually what is contended when one argues about the physically damaging nature of abortions). In fact, Children by Choice note that abortions are 11 times safer than giving birth. Given the right to choose freely and to attend well run clinics, abortions are not the dangerous undertaking that they were in pre-Roe days.

Abortion is the most hypocritical issue in America today.

BakerStreet, I have to completely disagree with you on this one. First, I'm not sure how abortion itself can be hypocritical. Secondly, I am not sure why "having to face the gory details" would necessarily make me more middle of the road. In fact, I am well aware of all the gory details of abortions. Personally, I don't think I would ever choose to have one. That said, I still support the right of women to make the choice. That is why I am pro-choice; I believe that it is a decision that every woman must make and live with. It is not the goverment's job to regulate what women can or cannot do with their bodies. Full stop. Regardless of what you base your argument on. From your above post, I assume that you believe life begins at conception (I am infering this from your use of the word "children."). That's a religious argument which should not belong in the American court system which as a clear separation of church and state.

Brad-- you say that Partial Birth Abortions (PBAs) should be illegal with the exception of the life and health of a woman. Just so you know, the current ban on PBAs does not contain language protecting the life and health of the woman. Who got to decide that the future life of the fetus was more important than the life of the woman carrying it?
2 Pages1 2