[Marxism] Mumia: VOTE? FOR WHOM?

Mike Friedman mikedf at mail.amnh.org
Wed Jul 28 22:31:15 MDT 2004

[Col. Writ. 7/17/04] Copyright 2004 Mumia Abu-Jamal

Let me state, from the onset, that I will not suggest who you should vote for.

Nor should I.

I have not voted for over 20 years, almost 25.

As a captive in an American gulag, I cannot vote. It is therefore 
inappropriate for me to suggest what others may do.

If I were a prisoner in South Africa, which has granted the vote to the 
imprisoned, it might be another matter. Indeed, if I were in several 
European countries, that might be the case. But, I am in America, and it 
makes little sense for me to do so.

That said, I do offer several observations, that may prove to be food for 

Please accept, or reject them, as you see fit.

Ultimately, it is virtually assured that many Americans, perhaps over 50%, 
in other words, a majority, will not participate in this year's upcoming 
election, as they did not in 2000.

It is a testament of the decline of democracy that so many Americans feel 
that a vote is a waste of time, and an empty exercise at the dawn of the 
21st Century. Millions of such people, predominantly young, and working 
class, seem to feel that elections are little more than a lost cause.

What is surprising about the current election campaign is the similarities 
between both major candidates.

Both are men of means, from well-to-do families. Both are Yalies. Both are 
members of the secret society, Skull & Bones.

I have seen an amusing cartoon-graphic of a sarcastic bumper sticker 
printed in a libertarian-type magazine, which reads:

BUSH [with graphic of US flag, with skull & bones] KERRY '04 REPUBLICRAT 
One Vote, one party NO choice

In the bottom, right-hand corner, in Olde English-style letters, is 
written: "Skull and Bones" [the graphic of this] "Yale University." It gets 
a grin out of me every time that I see it, for bumper stickers, which are a 
kind of witty shorthand of oversimplification, tend to do this, if they're 

It says a lot about the perceptions of millions of voting-age Americans, 
who really see these things that way, and as a consequence, refrain from 
even the pretense of voting for what increasingly looks like a single 
party, with two heads.

It also encapsulates rather nicely the gist of the now-flagging independent 
presidential campaign of consumer advocate, Ralph Nader.

To be honest, both men have varying styles, and different tones to their 
presentation. That given, Senator Kerry can, by no means, be seen as an 
anti-war candidate. On a recent news program, the Democratic candidate 
spoke about "staying the course" in Iraq; a use of terms that flashed back 
to the genocidal Nixon years, who said virtually the same thing when he 
wanted to shore up flagging support for the ruinous Vietnam War. I know 
that there are many people, perhaps millions, especially those most likely 
to hear, or read, these words, who feel, in their guts, that Sen. Kerry is 
the best possible choice. This arises from the growing ABB crowd ('Anybody 
But Bush').

The Sen. Kerry of today isn't the anti-war activist of yesteryear. He is, 
by his own words, a "tough-minded...internationalist", who wishes to "stay 
the course" in Iraq, preferably with European allies to split the cost in 
blood and treasure.

Who to vote for? That's your choice ... but I thought you'd like to know.

Copyright 2004 Mumia Abu-Jamal

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from 

More information about the Marxism mailing list