You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Won't vote for the Dem in 2004? Read this, or ignore it. :-) [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-04 11:29 PM
Original message
Won't vote for the Dem in 2004? Read this, or ignore it. :-)
Advertisements [?]
Edited on Fri Feb-20-04 11:33 PM by jpgray
Here are my own opinions on this--feel free to accept them or discard them:

Kerry and Edwards represent marginal and slow turns away from disaster, but Bush reigns supreme as the radical authoritarian. While Kerry and Edwards are merely comfortable bourgeois territory, Bush and his ilk are the gateway to something much worse. Another term of Bush in office risks too much for me to turn up my nose at either Kerry or Edwards in the GE. I'd prefer Dennis, but either the people or the system won't accept him, and you don't change that by letting the Republicans dominate all three branches of government. They are already persecuting Green party leaders, consolidating the media, stealing elections, and trampling on civil liberties. Has this Republican stewardship of the system made it more or less difficult for people to elect the best candidates?

I'll grant you that a plan to fix the system by not liking it is within our means, but it hasn't been terribly effective thus far. :) Heading towards the iceberg, I should rather work to turn the ship away at even the slowest speed if I'm unable to turn it away rapidly. I don't think I would sit on my hands and refuse to turn the wheel at all, waiting for the sea, the ship or the iceberg to change into something more amiable.

The big fallacy of eschewing the nominee is the assertion that either Bush or Kerry/Edwards will just maintain the status quo. After making this argument, the same folks will tell you the country has moved to the right and has abandoned liberal principles. So here one has to ask some questions. Who were these perfect, no-compromise-necessary liberals we had running around? The ones who fought imperialist wars to make the world safe for Standard Oil, or were they the ones who interned the Japanese? When was the country a magical land where the status quo wasn't represented by the two intrenched political parties?

The answer is, of course, "never". I like to think I would have voted for FDR, for example, but if I wanted to vote without compromising my values, Norman Thomas probably would have been it, or later, Henry Wallace. You're probably never going to find a major presidential candidate who doesn't have some *major* flaws. But you can find one this year that's better than Bush if you want to.

But as always, no one is entitled to your vote, and casting one for a third party with liberal values is something no one should demonize you for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC