Al Gore attacks Bush on Iraq War

[Euphen]

Al Gore attacks Bush on Iraq War
By Bill Vann
13 August 2003

<snip>

Gore himself is neither a political innocent nor an independent actor. The former vice president is the son of a US Senator and scion of a prominent political dynasty. He knows far more than he chose to reveal in his New York University speech, including the fact that the Republican Party and the Bush administration are beholden to forces of an outright fascistic character—from the Christian fundamentalist right, to unreconstructed white supremacists and anti-Semites, to gun-crazed terrorist elements, to forces in the corporate elite who consider any restraints on private wealth and profit an intolerable infringement on the prerogatives of capital.

Gore’s interventions are carried out in consultation and coordination with powerful elements within the corporate and political establishment. In the final analysis, he serves sections of the same financial oligarchy that propelled Bush to power and has backed his policies.

<snip>

Gore’s choice of venue for his August 7 speech was significant. The meeting was composed primarily of students and organized by moveon.org, a group that characterizes itself as a “grassroots” movement of “online activists.” It represents the left flank of the Democratic Party. This has hardly been the political base of the former vice president, who was a leading figure in the Democratic Leadership Council, a caucus formed in the early 1980s for the purpose of shifting the party decisively to the right.

Gore’s turn toward student youth and the layers around moveon.org represents an attempt to breathe life into a party that has become a political semi-corpse. His aim in cultivating such elements is to gain some credibility for the Democratic Party, and provide it with a “left” face in order to better contain the mounting opposition to Bush and prevent an emerging mass movement of social protest from developing along politically independent and socialist lines.

.............

http://wsws.org/articles/2003/aug2003/gore-a13.shtml

[w13rd0]

1. That headline is wrong...

...Gore didn't just attack him on Iraq. Gore called Bush a liar on every front, an Administration that has systematically deceived and cheated...

[QuietStorm]

2. good commentary

"The public reappearance of Al Gore as a “progressive” critic of the Bush administration is a manifestation of a deepening political and social crisis in America, and the fear within ruling circles that not only the Bush administration, but the entire two-party setup is on the verge of breaking apart."

[RichM]

3. An analysis of the very highest quality --

Of the many parts one could point to:

"If Gore is once again testing the political waters for a possible second run for the presidency, he is doing so not simply on his own account. Rather, he is acting at the behest of elements within US ruling circles who are well aware of the profound and widespread popular opposition to the Bush administration, and the failure of the Democratic Party to provide a safe channel for rising discontent..."

Here is a concise statement of what the REAL function of the Democratic Party actually is. When Republicans loot the country so mercilessly that it begins to come unglued, Democrats are supposed to provide a safety valve for discontent. The rest of the time, however, they are supposed to accept a subordinate position, & allow (or help) the rightwing to proceed with the looting.

This is why the party fundamentally stinks. Despite a small group of excellent people on its progressive wing (Kucinich, Barbara Lee, Pete Stark, McDermott, etc), most Democrats are basically quislings. Most are there BECAUSE they accept this unsavory role of serving the existing capitalist order by being safety valves. The party's fundamental conception is wrong: it's not meant to lead, it's only meant to be a stability mechanism useful for averting revolutions. It's no mystery why Democrats keep voting for Bush's atrocities, or why Clinton goes on Larry King to bail Bush out of hot water -- all this is comes naturally to a party whose real allegiance is to the prevailing capitalist order.

[unfrigginreal]

4. Probably the most thought provoking statement you've ever made!

Here is a concise statement of what the REAL function of the Democratic Party actually is. When Republicans loot the country so mercilessly that it begins to come unglued, Democrats are supposed to provide a safety valve for discontent. The rest of the time, however, they are supposed to accept a subordinate position, & allow (or help) the rightwing to proceed with the looting.

I still think that you've got it wrong but it did make me pause for a minute. You're statement pretty much conforms to the "man behind the curtain theory." I don't believe for a minute that all of these brilliant Democratic politicians would knowingly allow themselves to be used like that. You don't think that if they we're being played in this manner that someone would have complained about it? It seems to fit in the same category as most of our conspiracy theories, a bucket that won't hold water for all of the holes.

[RichM]

9. If my 3 sentences made you pause for a minute, it just means you've

never read any good leftist analysis -- because the thought I expressed here is hardly original. I wish I could take credit for it as being all my own! But the truth is, lots of very perceptive people have been writing about it for decades. For example, the WSWS (where the above posted article comes from), and Howard Zinn ("People's History") both have talked about this "safety valve" function of the Dem Party for years & years.

As far as its being a conspiracy theory -- nope, not a bit. These "brilliant Democratic politicians" that you speak of are not exactly being "used" -- they are doing very nicely for themselves. And the way in which the Dems are useful for preserving the capitalist order doesn't require the players to think of it in these terms. (They don't even have to be conscious of it, let alone getting upset by the thought of being "used.")

You write, You don't think that if they we're being played in this manner that someone would have complained about it?
- Actually, "someone" HAS complained about it -- leftist writers. But they don't get much attention. It's pretty much the same as all the lies that pass as being "American History." Compare the story told by Zinn's book with what you learned about US history in high school. That kind of difference exists behind every single facet of American life: between the mainstream version, & what the real state of affairs is. The American socio-culturo-political system is set up so that first & foremost, the interests of the powerful are protected. That is Rule Number One. Nothing major is allowed to happen unless it conforms to Rule #1. The Democratic Party is allowed to exist -- thus you can be sure that in some substantial way it serves the ends of Rule #1.

The WHOLE POINT of it is to buy the cooperation of the masses by creating a party that postures as being "the people's party" -- even though it really isn't. It's a clever device. The Democrats are always "a little nicer, a little kinder & more generous" than the Republicans. The difference isn't great, but it's always there. When the people get sick of being raped by Republicans, they feel like they have an option: they can kick out the Republican, and elect the nice Democrat -- who still gives the rightwing 96% of everything they want, anyway. (See "The Clinton Presidency.")

[QuietStorm]

6. Fine Assessment: Preservation of Capitalist Order

It is the closest thing I have heard thus far to explain years of democratic party complicity. Although he seemed to indicate that a change in party would restore order from within the system, Gore's speech seems, thus far, the strongest indicator from the party that something has run seriously amok, short of the strong phrases that appear most outwardly in the commentary within the original post. However, if he were to get into the race, I am not sure it will impact things dramatically.

Might just be the whole system (both parties) has to fall. Might just be why I have this gnawing feeling the Republican party is going to win the next election. Not so much because of the failings of the Democratic party, but because of the cluelessness of the American public. One somewhat pointed speech is not strong enough ammunition to create the kind of shake down that is required here to get things back on track, especially since it seems to have been off track for quite sometime now. If on track what has gone so obviously amok wouldn't have succeeded.

[Gingergal]

5. good to get another slant on the speech.

Thanks...

[bigboy]

11. He should use a lot more words. how about motivating the troops (here)

yup to that!!!!!!

[Larkspur]

7. This is typical socialist B.S.

Gore’s interventions are carried out in consultation and coordination with powerful elements within the corporate and political establishment.

Gore railed against the powerful in his 2000 campaign, and contrary to the socialist ideology, Democrats have a much better economic record that Republicans. The stock market indicator, which shows that Democratic control of government returns just under 13% and Repukes 8%, is enough to show that Democrats are much better for business, investors, and workers.

Socialism does not work and neither does "robber baronism", which we have now. Regulated capitalism does work for everyone, rich and poor.

[RichM]

8. This is typical capitalist BS. You want to use the STOCK MARKET to

"prove" that Democrats are better for workers? Are you very impressed with the kind of dishonest machinations that drive market movements? Why did the Nasdaq get to 5100 a few years ago, if stock market movements are reliable indicators of underlying economic reality?

The stock market rises when increasing profits (however fraudulent) are reported. Increasing profits are reported when multinationals fire US workers from jobs with good benefits, & transfer the jobs to China, Mexico, or Indonesia. This simple mechanism indicates a little problem with your idea that a rising market is "good for workers."

Gore did NOT really "rail against the powerful" in 2000, incidentally. He did so for about 30 seconds on the night he was nominated -- then his advisors muzzled him. That was both the beginning & end of the "populist" part of his campaign.

[Aidoneus]

10. good piece

:kick: