DEPARTMENTS
ANTI-WAR
DEATH PENALTY
ELECTIONS
ENVIRONMENT
GLBT ISSUES
HEMP
INTERNATIONAL
NATIONAL
REVIEWS
|
Departments Election Issues Electoral Politics and the War: Lessons from 2004 and What the Anti-War Movement Should do in 2006 Kevin Zeese: First, tell me about your new book “Left Out!.” What did you learn about the 2004 campaign while writing it? Joshua Frank: I learned a lot from the 2004 elections and this book is my attempt to put it all together and make sense of what went down. In “Left Out!” I shovel through the muck of our current political arrangement, where progressives and those on the left are continually told that we have real options within the so-called two-party system. Many told us during the 2004 elections that George W. Bush was so darn bad that we had to, just had to, vote for John Kerry. There was no other choice. The polluted climate, as you well know, was “Anybody But Bush.” Or better put, “Nobody But Kerry.” Hatred of Bush drove the support for Kerry. We had buses to Ohio, we had DVD parties, and all were targeting Bush rather than trumpeting Kerry. That should have been sign number one that the Democrats were on the wrong path. The candidacies of Ralph Nader and even that of the Green Party’s David Cobb were seen as far too dangerous to support in the states that could have actually put pressure on Kerry (i.e. swing-states) to take on issues we believed in. The strategy, endorsed by so many respected activists and intellectuals on the left, including Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Medea Benjamin, Norman Solomon, to name just a few - was all about expediting the process of removing Bush from office. Not issues. Their strategy was a miserable failure, however. The Democratic alternatives were grossly inadequate. The left asked absolutely nothing of Kerry and guess what? They got absolutely nothing in return. That’s what you get when you give someone’s candidacy unconditional support, despite the fact that the Democrats mirrored Bush on so many crucial issues - from the economy to civil liberties to trade to foreign policy to the environment. It was textbook lesser-evilism and it was a loser. The left had succumbed to the plague of ABB. Their unconditional support made Kerry worse and undermined everything the left supposedly stood for. And this is where I think we must be crystal clear as to what the costs of expedient choices are, even if the benefits seem predominant. As I argue in “Left Out!,” backing the lesser-evil, like the majority of liberals and lefties did in 2004, keeps the whole political pendulum in the US swinging to the right. It derails social movements, helps elect the opposition, and undermines democracy. This backwards logic allows the Democrats and Republicans to control the discourse of American politics and silences any voices that may be calling for genuine change. Despite all this, there are still many that are not convinced that the Democrats are virtually identical to their Republican counterparts. So to argue this point, I focus a bit on one Democrat whom many argue represents the liberal end of the respectable mainstream Democratic Party - and that’s DNC chairman Howard Dean. At this time Dean, along with Barak Obama, is thought to be a beacon of hope within the Democratic establishment. He wants to transform the Party. He wants to empower the grassroots. But there’s a catch, and that’s that Howard Dean really doesn’t disagree with his party’s own platform, which is virtually the same as the Republican’s. So his quest for change is not grounded in any ideological divergence. No Dean’s “new” path is a strategic one. He simply wants to corral all the progressives into the Democratic fold. He certainly doesn’t want them to leave the Party and go join up with some progressive third party. And that is really what Dean’s job is now: keep the party activists in-line while he cashes their checks. Take their money and don’t let them stray. Because when and if they ever do, real change could be possible. And lord knows that nobody in power out in Washington wants that to happen. They like business just the way it is. Zeese: What happened to the anti-war issue in 2004? We had developed a large base of activists, massive demonstrations, the war was going down hill - indeed all of our worst predictions were coming true during the presidential campaign -- yet the anti-war issue was not on the agenda during the presidential race. What happened? Frank: What happened was the anti-war movement supported a pro-war candidate, which not surprisingly, was an utter disaster. How can a movement back a candidate that supports everything it opposes? There is no question that during the campaign John Kerry was a relentless warmonger, as William Safire put it, Kerry was the newest neo-con who even out-hawked Bush. True enough. Most people that supported Kerry didn’t support his position on the Iraq war, which was shown by a USA Today poll taken during the Democratic convention in Boston. If you mentioned this paradox in mixed company during the campaign you were likely to hear all sorts of tepid excuses. Like, “oh, Kerry really isn’t for the war, he’s just being tactical,” or, “well, at least he’s not a neo-con, they are really dangerous ya know!” Or something ridiculous like that. All these excuses, despite the fact that Kerry during the 1990s supported the Iraq Liberation Act, which endorsed the military removal of Saddam Hussein. All this despite the fact that Kerry continues to support some of the most violent and grisly US military ventures in Colombia and elsewhere. This, despite the fact that Kerry’s key foreign policy advisor Richard Holbrooke, played a significant role in perhaps the largest US backed genocides of the last century - as Holbrooke helped supply Suharto’s bloody regime in Indonesia with bundles of illegal weapons. Apparently it didn’t matter at all to these supposed anti-war folks that Kerry stood shoulder to shoulder with President Bush claiming that Iraq had those pesky weapons of mass destruction hidden under its turbulent soil. None of this mattered in the least. Talk about the collapse of a movement. How can you stand for something and yet completely capitulate your ideals? The answer is simple: you can’t. Again, this gets back to the main point: you cannot support any candidate sans specific demands. You cannot profess to stand for issues you know to be just, and still surrender those stances and convictions at crunch time. It’s like training to run a marathon for a year or two and then getting inebriated right before the big race. All the training you did up to that point is now irrelevant. You’re bound to fail. And it’s safe to say the anti-war movement was drunk on ABB last year. All the good work they did up to that point was irrelevant. They should have stuck to their issues despite the alleged consequences - which turned out to be ill-founded anyway. Not only did the anti-war movement not elect the man they wanted, John F. Kerry, they in fact helped reelect the very man they wanted to defeat, George W. Bush - simply because they didn’t ask anything of the candidate they supported. Zeese: So what should the anti-war movement done during 2004? Frank: The anti-war movement should have backed a candidate that embraced their call to exit Iraq at once. They should have forced Kerry to take this position or risk losing their support. The best way they could have done that was to support a candidate that was willing to put pressure on Kerry in the states that mattered most to the Democrats. They should have supported Ralph Nader in swing-states, plain and simple. They should have told Kerry that he wouldn’t get their votes unless he took on their positions. Of course, some of us were saying this during the election, but few in the anti-war movement were listening. They thought that supporting Nader could tilt the election in favor of Bush. They were wrong. What they didn’t realize was that by curbing their own important anti-war convictions, they were making Kerry unaccountable. They were making Kerry worse than he already was. By not opposing his Iraq position, they helped tilt the election to Bush. Remember how Kerry just couldn’t get anything right? He was constantly in flux. That’s why more people were mobilized against Bush than for Kerry. If we learned anything from 2004, we should realize that hatred of an incumbent is not enough to elect a challenger. Had the anti-war movement mobilized behind an anti-war candidate, despite who he or she was, and despite the alleged consequences – Kerry would have felt tremendous pressure to differentiate himself from the Bush agenda, and particularly Bush’s position on Iraq. But Kerry couldn’t do it. Nobody was pressuring him. So he wavered, collapsed, and lost a monumental election. In the end it wasn’t just the election that was lost, the soul of the anti-war movement was lost too. Zeese: What do you think the anti-war movement should do in 2006 during the congressional elections? Frank: Well, the anti-war movement should do what they didn’t do in the 2004 elections: hold candidates feet to the fire. The body count in Bush’s illegitimate war on terror seems to be almost exponential at this point. Every month there are more deaths than the last. Each day the resistance fighters in Iraq seem to be gaining more and more control. There is no end to the occupation in sight. If candidates do not embrace the exiting of US led occupation forces at once, they must be opposed with the full-force of the anti-war movement (or what’s left of it). In certain cases this may mean running third party anti-war candidates against pro-war Democrats like Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California. It’s time for the antiwar movement to step up and oppose candidates who support Bush’s war agenda. And if the Democratic candidates continue to support Bush’s ghastly foreign policies, they must be defeated until they learn. We need to monkeywrench this issue. The anti-war movement must learn from the 2004 elections where so many activists and scholars caved in and supported Kerry, simply because they saw Bush as such an extreme threat to world peace. The threat isn’t Bush’s alone; both parties have a long bloody history of employing military aggression. We aren’t going to get what we want if we keep supporting candidates whose positions we oppose. We are only going to get what we want when we start voting for what we want. |
|
Recent Election Issues Articles An open letter to the Election Assistance Commission Diebold hack proven in county test! Diebold Inc. in a tailspin after resignation of CEO and filing of a class action fraud lawsuit Orr thinks machines make voting simpler, more secure Diebold "hack test" - Sec. State / Black Box Lawyer square off With new legislation, Ohio Republicans plan holiday burial for American Democracy Important daily voting news Poll shock Ohio's Diebold Debacle: New machines call election results into question Diebold attempts to evade election transparency laws Supreme Court stabs another GOP knife into US democracy by upholding ex-felon vote ban Has American Democracy died an electronic death in Ohio 2005's referenda defeats? What John Kerry definitely said about 2004’s stolen election and why it's killing American democracy Scrap the "secret" ballot - return to open voting Clarification of NEDA's withdrawal of Ohio exit poll paper Clarification of NEDA's withdrawal of Ohio exit poll paper Watergate-style money laundering indictments stoke Ohio's stolen election fires Powerful Government Accountability Office report confirms key 2004 stolen election findings Did you erase your own vote? Why can't the left face the Stolen Elections of 2004 & 2008? Carter/Baker Report can't face how the GOP stole America's 2004 election & is rigging 2008 Two Steps Forward, One Step Back FEMA Chief Brown Paid Millions in False Claims to Help Bush Win Fla. Votes Ohio recount lawsuit set for trial; election workers indicted Ohio Governor's ethics violations expose money trail to stolen 2004 election Diebold's failure in California Did the GOP steal another Ohio Election? Conyers-Kaptur seek special counsel for Noe probe Dramatic new charges deepen link between Ohio's "Coingate," Voinovich mob connections, and the theft of the 2004 election None dare call it stolen - Ohio, the election, and America's servile press Civic Engagement and the Restoration of Community from a voter activist’s view My report from Hocking County, July 5, 2005: An update on Sherole Eaton's unfolding Story Handbook for Ohio Voter Activists, Version 2.0 Direct testimony: Presented to Election Assessment Hearing Log Cabin Republicans in Ohio With a limp election theft report, Dems prove why they're unworthy Voting problems and uncounted votes in Lucas County, Ohio The DNC 2004 Election Report: An indictment of incompetence Corporate control of the election process Introduction: Did George W. Bush steal America's 2004 election? Voter Confidence Committee Calls For Rejection of CA Special Election Activists from 25 states lobby for paper ballots on June 9 and 10 Fear of riffraff Electoral Politics and the War: Lessons from 2004 and What the Anti-War Movement Should do in 2006 Optical scan machines hacked in Florida Does ES&S really want to sell the Automark machines? Attack on election board whistleblower and leaked Blackwell threats re-fire Ohio's election theft scandal Franklin County, Ohio Election Procedures – April and May 2005 Carter Gets It – But Will His Electoral Commission? Voter Perceptions and Political Deceptions: Federal, Ohio and Knox Electoral reform groups call for James Baker's resignation from electoral reform commission National Conference on Election Reform Opens with Civil Rights Panel View from Another Planet Democrats! Paper “Trails” Aren’t Good Enough. Count The Damn Ballots! Democrats, Paper ‘Trails’ Aren’t Good Enough; Count The Damn Ballots! Scientific Analysis Suggests Presidential Vote Counts May Have Been Altered As Blackwell Says, Ohio’s in 2004 was a National Model Understanding the difference between paper ballots and paper audit trails Save Our Democracy Republicans maneuvering to get Voting Rights Act killed Legal filing highlights Blackwell's hypocrisy in Ohio recount case Selma 40 Years Later Exit Poll Madness - Analyst Steve Freeman & Company Offer False Choice Libertarians To Testify in Ohio House: Modernize Ohio's Election Laws The New Voting Rights Movement Begins Here Today Voting in America The Mighty Texas Strike Force Blackwell presidential election sanctions briefs Representative Conyers and others file amicus brief in Ohio Supreme Court Congresswoman Tubbs Jones Outraged at Blackwell's Failure to Appear During House Administration Hearing Ohio Attorney-General's attack on election protection attorneys draws mountain of documentation on state's stolen election, including new study on exit polls Prominent Statisticians Refute 'Explanation' of 2004 U.S. Exit Poll Discrepancies in New Edison/Mitofsky Report and Urge Investigation of U.S. Presidential Election Results The last man to concede... Report on Washington DC, January 6, 2005 Arkansas in 2004: Did Bush Really Win? New links Voting Problems and Uncounted Votes in Lucas County, Ohio Plan B: Parallel Elections & Signed Ballots Open Letter to Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro from Representative John Conyers, Jr. Open Letter to Warren Mitofsky and Larry Rosin from Representative John Conyers, Jr. Ohio's GOP Attorney General launches revenge attack on Election Protection legal team What are they hiding in New Mexico? In the Shadow of Dr. King, counting the vote remains a civil rights issue Did the “Liberal Media” Get the 2004 Election All Wrong?
'COUNT EVERY VOTE. EVERY VOTE COUNTS' Moss v. Bush moves on and movement continues Rally Continues Drive for Democracy Estimated vote count in Ohio January 6 Washington, D.C. rally report Together, we moved three mountains What the election challenge means Progressive Democrats lead historic voting rights protest as Congress ratifies flawed 2004 Electoral College tally Arnebeck letter to Congress re Presidential Electoral Challenge Senator Barbara Boxer, D-CA and Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-OH contested the election The "Crime of November 2": The human side of how Bush stole Ohio, and why Congress must investigate rather than ratify the Electoral College (Part Two of Two) Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff Seven key reasons why the vote must be challenged at the electoral college Ten preliminary reasons why the Bush vote does not compute, and why Congress must investigate rather than certify the Electoral College (Part One of Two) Verified election contest petitions and documents in Ohio Supreme Court Distribution of voting machines by county in Ohio Did We Bounce An Election? Presidential election congressional hearing transcript Read Election Issues Articles by Year: |
FREE PRESS EMAIL UPDATE
Donate to the Free Press Election Protection Fund to help us investigate and monitor election fraud in this year's election.
FOLLOW US ON
twitter
facebook
SEARCH THE FREEPRESS
1021 E. Broad St. Columbus, OH 43205 | 614.253.2571 | truth@freepress.org
All content © 1970-2012 The Columbus Free Press
Disclaimer