Dean Vs. Kucinich
Who'll win the progressive vote in 2004? And does any of it matter anyway?
2004 is going to be real test for the progressive movement. George W. Bush will, in all likely hood, win another election in 2004 and America will be united under one-party rule with Dubya at the head. The Supreme Court will become packed for the forseeable future with right-wing extremists. Roe V. Wade could be overturned. Environmental and Labor laws will likely be overturned. America, a nation that has changed so much in Bush's short time in office, will be changed permanently after 8 full years of Bush's administration. There are a whole host of countries that might get invaded: Syria, Iran, North Korea, Cuba? This one man, our current commander in chief, will be able to an entire century's worth of progressives' hard work. This cannot happen.
In order to rid George W. Bush from office, we need to accept some basic principles which are sometimes hard for Progs to swallow:
*First of all is the idea that electoral politics is worth the hassle. Many activists spend all their time organizing unions, sitting in trees, and leading protest marches that they poo-poo the world of national politics. For this reason, it is undeniable that Republicans have become much better at winning (By Any Means Necessary it would seem) elections. They are not afraid of money, power, or dirty tricks. They play to win, for the sheer egoist motivation of beating some other guy. Progressives tend to have these things called "ideals" and sometimes even "conscience" which have historically been unhelpful in getting people into public office.
*Third Party Politics ain't don' nothin'. I voted for Nader, I'm sure a lot of you did too. Nader didn't win. The Green party failed (did you hear that, let that sink in, THEY FAILED) to stop George W. Bush from becoming president. Granted, the Democrats didn't stop him either, but they came a lot closer, like 40 percentage points closer. We made our statement, our protest, the Dems said, "we heard you, now fuck off" and the Republicans said, "Yes, yes, keep taking away votes from the Dems, we love it! Go Nader!"
*The Democratic Party is loaded with losers. Me, I like Carol Mosely-Braun. She's smart, articulate, has foreign policy experience and she seems kind of like the black grandmother I always wished I had. But look at the front-runners: Joe Lieberman (eek), John Kerry (snore), Dick Gephardt (double-snore), and John Edwards (who?). They all suck. Let's play find the lesser of four evils, Gephardt's for universal health care, but he was for the war, John Kerry was sort of for the war and now he's sort of against it, but his health care plan doesn't cover everybody, John Edwards was the son of a mill worker, and so far that's about all he's been able to tell me about himself. And Joe Lieberman.
Progs have two choices (it seems, we'll see) as far as who to support early on in this election cycle:
Dennis Kucinich, or Howard Dean. Now for full disclosure let me say that I'm a Howard Dean supporter. I support him both out of ideology as well as pragmatism. I honestly think he's the best candidate both on the issues and when it comes to taking Bush out. I think Kerry and Dean have the best shot at taking Bush out, all the rest have no hope. Kerry's got the money and Dean's got the people and I'm placing my bet on the people. I'm a fan of Kucinich (as a poet) but I'm realistically doubtful about his chances. I'm also disturbed by his constituency which seems intent on scaring people away from Howard Dean in order to push Kucinich. Also the way my logic works, Kucinichites are a little racist. Al Sharpton's got just as good progressive credibility as Dennis, he's got a national following/name recognition, and is a much better public speaker. He clearly has a better chance at winning the White House than Kucinich, no? So why not support him? But anyway, I just wanted to get my thoughts out of the way and open up the floor to an Indymedia Debate:
The Question is (and if you don't answer the question, you don't get to play):
"Who is more likely to beat George W. Bush in 2004, Dennis Kucinich or Howard Dean?"
After you answer that question, feel free to expound on any of the following topics:
-Why 4 more years of Bush is actually a good thing
-Why Howard Dean is really a sneaky, lying scumbag
-How to spark a non-violent anarchist revolution in the next 14 months
-Why Dennis Kucinich is really a sneaky, lying scumbag
-Capitalism, what's up with that?
contribute to this article
contribute to this article
add comment to discussion