2-party system, presidential politics: a Green view
Lueko.Willms at t-online.de
Fri Jul 25 14:52:44 MDT 2003
in reply to:
# Subject: 2-party system, presidential politics: a Green view
# From: Dayne Goodwin <dayneg at aros.net>
# Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 05:10:58 -0600 (MDT)
Sending out this article:
> For a Green Presidential Campaign in 2004
> By Howie Hawkins, Syracuse Greens
> Presented at Regional Greens Meeting, Freeville, NY, June 28, 2003
I liked this article and can only recommend it.
Let me just quote some excerpts:
> Yes, a Democrat might beat Bush. But no Democrat is going to beat
> Just as electing Clinton did not beat Reaganism, but took Reaganism
> far beyond what Reagan and Bush Sr. could accomplish, so electing a
> Democrat will not defeat Bushism to change the basic foreign and
> domestic policies of the US.
> What was called Reaganism (to scare us into voting Democratic) was
> really a bipartisan consensus around neoconservative militarism and
> neoliberal economics. That bipartisan consensus was initiated under
> Carter, supported by the majority of Congressional Democrats during
> the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations, carried far beyond what
> Reagan and Bush Sr. could do by Clinton, and is now being taken even
> further by Bush, again with the support of the majority of
> Congressional Democrats.
> These policies were initiated under Carter, who increased the military
> budget beyond Ford's projections and got the US into covert military
> operations in Afghanistan with the hope, successful as it turned out,
> that it would provoke the Soviets to invade. The US began in 1978
> training the Islamic fundamentalists who we now know as Al Qaida.
> Bush's military occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq is the Carter
> Doctrine in practice, which stated in essence that the US would go
> to war for oil in the Middle East.
> Neoliberal austerity is the post-Keynesian economic policy of the
> corporate rulers as they ran into the internal limits to profits and
> growth under the Keynesian welfare/warfare state.
> The new ruling class consensus is the austerity/warfare state of
> neoliberal economics and neoconservative empire.
> And that ruling class consensus is the pro-war, pro-corporate
> bipartisan consensus.
> What is now called Bushism is not radical departure, but a
> continuation of this bipartisan consensus, with the majority of
> Democrats in Congress voting for Bush's key programs: the tax cuts,
> war budgets, war powers, and USA PATRIOT Act.
> nothing would be more inspiring than an all-out Green presidential
> campaign for what we believe in. That kind of Green campaign could
> be a rallying point for progressives and social movements and begin
> to turn the tide against the pro-war, pro-corporate bipartisan
I would only add, speaking to the audience that the author, Howie
Hawkins, spoke to, that to implement a real break from the bipartisan
policies promoting the interests of the ruling class, this needs to
be based on an organized force rooted in working people and
organizing working people to have their own force to lay their hand
on political power, and speaking to an audience of workers, that
workers need to organize themselves as a political force to advance
their interests as a class. And that in the end, this would require
to take the power out of the hands of this political machine
nobody else but the ownership of the corporations, big and small (but
certainly more the big than the small).
How this would be best expressed in the context of US-american
society, I'm not so sure, as I happen to live beyond the pond, in
But if I were part of a socialist group in the USA, I would argue
for having friendly relations with these people, without giving up
our independance, even inviting them to speak at our forums, without
giving up to present candidates ourselves.
In my view, the task of the day is not to take power in one big
electoral swoop, but to patiently explain and to pull together
people. If I misjudge the situation over there, please let me know...
More information about the Marxism