Mark is right, I think, despite the fact that I often have a "plague on both
their houses" impulse. There is a difference between having Democrats
controlling the government of the US & having Republicans control it. None
of the candidates from either party are revolutionaries, except maybe Rudy
Giuliani, who seems to be a genuine brownshirt. The mantra of "change" is
something Americans seem to be attracted to -- it goes along with their
belief in "progress." That said, this election represents a potential
tipping point. A McCain of Huckabee presidency would almost certainly send
the country irretrievably into authoritarianism. Clinton or Obama or Edwards
(my choice) would at least put a brake on the slide. Any of these Democrats
would also be somewhat better at pushing for a reasonable distribution of
wealth in the country. There is a difference, in pragmatic terms.
jd
On Jan 8, 2008 6:53 PM, Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> We've heard that before--it gave us Bush instead of Gore, and the
> deaths of close to a million people, thanks to third party voters in
> Florida who thought they were the same. Change at the systemic level
> is incredibly difficult, given that disparities in population mean
> that most states are effectively rotten boroughs with two senators.
> The Republican majority in the Senate two years ago represented 42%
> of the electorate, and as a then-Californian my Senate representation
> was 1/74th of that of a citizen of Wyoming. But the most liberal
> member of the Supreme Court is now 88 and will certainly be replaced
> by the next president, and the president has enormous discretionary
> powers, including guns but also environmental regulations.Yeah, it
> makes a difference. But if you don't think so, don't vote.
>
> Mark
>
> At 06:03 PM 1/8/2008, you wrote:
> >Difficult problems when Democrats and Republicans are alike; when
> >there is no representation of organised labour. Female, Black, White
> >- if they're all singing from the same hymn sheet of neoliberal
> >economis and world policy, why vote? Hilary Clinton is awful because
> >she supported Imperial US war on Iraq. Now she's finding that out.
> >
> >Trouble is, can you honestly get a cig paper between any one of them?
>
--
Joseph Duemer
Professor of Humanities
Clarkson University
[sharpsand.net]
|