portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

government

Chomsky's Lesser-Evilism

There is no question that the Bush administration's policies are "cruel and savage", but John Kerry (along with the majority of Democrats in the Senate) supported most of them, including the war on Afghanistan, the Patriot Act, the war on Iraq, and the "No Child Left Behind" education act.
CounterPunch

March 20 / 21, 2004

Bush v. Bush-lite
Chomsky's Lesser-Evilism

By PHIL GASPER

An article in Saturday's Guardian reports that left-wing icon Noam Chomsky has given his "reluctant endorsement to the Democratic party's presidential contender, John Kerry". Chomsky's support for Kerry is far from enthusiastic. He describes the choice between Bush and Kerry as one "between two factions of the business party" and Kerry as "Bush-lite", only a "fraction" better than his Republican opponent. But Chomsky argues that the current administration is exceptionally "cruel and savage" and "deeply committed to dismantling the achievements of popular struggle through the past century no matter what the cost to the general population." He concludes that "despite the limited differences [between Bush and Kerry] both domestically and internationally, there are differences. In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes."

Chomsky's acceptance of the "anybody but Bush" position is sure to be influential, but on this occasion the arguments he offers represent wishful thinking rather than the clear-headed political analysis for which he is famous. There is no question that the Bush administration's policies are "cruel and savage", but John Kerry (along with the majority of Democrats in the Senate) supported most of them, including the war on Afghanistan, the Patriot Act, the war on Iraq, and the "No Child Left Behind" education act. As Marjorie Williams pointed out in the Washington Post recently, "Kerry voted for so many of Bush's major initiatives that in order to disown them now he can only argue that they were wrongly or dishonestly 'implemented.' This amounts to a confession that his opponent made a chump of him for the past three years. In fact, one might argue that Kerry is a poster boy for all the ways in which congressional Democrats have allowed themselves to be rolled by the Bush administration."

The Bush administration has pushed US politics sharply to the right, but this represents not a qualitative break with what came before but an extension and continuation of "cruel and savage" policies implemented by other administrations over the past 25 years, Democratic as well as Republican. Bush's attacks on civil liberties build on the legacy of Bill Clinton, including the 1996 Effective Death Penalty and Anti-Terrorist act (supported, incidentally, by Kerry). And while Bush is certainly committed to "dismantling the achievements of popular struggle through the past century no matter what the cost to the general population", nothing that he has yet done in terms of social policy has equaled the brutality of Clinton's gutting of the federal welfare system (again supported by Kerry).

In terms of foreign policy, the differences are even smaller. Kerry's criticisms of Bush are purely tactical, as was abundantly clear in a recent interview in Time magazine:

"Look, I'm prepared to take any action necessary to protect the country, and I'm prepared to act unilaterally if we have to," Kerry insists, noting that he backed the use of force in Grenada, Panama, Kosovo and Afghanistan. "But there is a way to do it that strengthens the hand of the United States. George Bush has weakened the hand of the United States."

In fact, Kerry wants to send an additional 40,000 troops to Iraq, advocates a "muscular internationalism" in the tradition of 20th-century Democratic presidents (whose foreign policy record was far bloodier than their Republican counterparts) and even refuses to rule out "preventive" wars. Chomsky is right that "small differences can translate into large outcomes", but this plays both ways. Kerry, for instance, may be in a better position than Bush to push through the reintroduction of the draft, just as it took a Democrat to implement welfare "reform".

Making decisions about the presidential election on the basis of the minute differences between the two major party candidates is ultimately a mug's game. Whoever wins in November, we'll need the biggest and most militant social movements on the ground to fight their policies, but when activists get sucked into support for the Democrats the movements are weakened and sometimes destroyed. In 1964, when the Republicans nominated the anti-communist fanatic Barry Goldwater as their candidate, anti-war activists thought they could go "Half the way with LBJ". But as the late Hal Draper remarked in a classic article on the politics of "lesser evilism":

... you know all the people who convinced themselves that Lyndon Johnson was the lesser evil as against Goldwater, who was going to do Horrible Things in Vietnam, like defoliating the jungles. Many of them have since realized that the spiked boot was on the other foot; and they lacerate themselves with the thought that the man they voted for "actually carried out Goldwater's policy." (In point of fact, this is unfair to Goldwater: he never advocated the steep escalation of the war that Johnson put through; and more to the point, he would probably have been incapable of putting it through with as little opposition as the man who could simultaneously hypnotize the liberals with "Great Society" rhetoric.)

"So who was really the Lesser Evil in 1964?" asked Draper. "The point is that it is the question which is a disaster, not the answer. In setups where the choice is between one capitalist politician and another, the defeat comes in accepting the limitation to this choice." The same is true in 2004. The most liberal administration of the past 35 years was led by Republican Richard Nixon, who was forced to respond to ghetto rebellions, wildcat strikes and radical social movements. But the historic role of the Democrats has been to muzzle such movements. If we choose Kerry over Bush, we make it more difficult to do the only thing that ever makes a difference for our side--building real activism on the ground.

Think again Noam.

Phil Gasper is professor of philosophy at Notre Dame de Namur University in California. He is a member of the National Writers Union and a frequent contributor to Socialist Worker and the International Socialist Review. He can be contacted at  pgasper@ndnu.edu.

homepage: homepage: http://naderoregon.org/

Bunch of hot air vanguardism 21.Mar.2004 19:33

tsalagi red

"There is no question that the Bush administration's policies are "cruel and savage", but John Kerry (along with the majority of Democrats in the Senate) supported most of them, including the war on Afghanistan, the Patriot Act, the war on Iraq, and the "No Child Left Behind" education act."

Yes, most, but not all. And that's the point. Kerry will slow down the move to the right and that will help some of us folks on the edge of the cliff from being pushed off, so we can fight another day.

All of you militant vanguardists are just a bunch of fucking hot air. "Yeah, revolutions the only way, follow me! You people being stepped on, tough shit, man."

Yeah, right. You're gonna rescue me, just like the Democraps and Repuglicans. Fuck you, too.

Act locally 21.Mar.2004 20:17

loco power of locality

Vote 3rd party locally or infiltrate the main parties or both. If you can't win locally than you have no national influence. Your just wasting your time, till you make it local. Look at the inpact boruoght to you by the county of Multnomah.

Get to the elected offices locally so liberty can be re-taught to the people.

We got to replace the jesus freeks with peace freeks. We got to replace the commisioner who give away the commonwealth

So hold your nose. Put your pride aside. Start locally and protect your kids, and your economy.

PS be cool and groovy

And fuck you red 21.Mar.2004 20:31

George Bender

Too bad you're too dumb to know who is on your side and who isn't.


Bender you asshole 21.Mar.2004 21:37

tsalagi red

You don't give a shit about people living on the edge, anymore than the vanguardist Trotskyites. I'm talking about people who are going to die next month because of Bush's policies, which Kerry will slow down. You're fucking theories don't mean shit to someone whose life is on the line.

You're a bunch of middle-class head-up-your ass jerks.

By the way, I supported Nader in 2000, I think he's the best candidate out there, and I defend his right to run. I tell the Democraps "fuck you," when they tell me I can't vote for Nader, and pal, I tell you "fuck you," when you call me shit for supporting Kerry. You are no different than they are!

But sorry, folks, we're talking about survival here, not making some fucking idealistic point.

Goldman says 21.Mar.2004 21:44

Jake

Well, Emma Goldman says "All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers, or backgammon, a playing with right and wrong; its obligation never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right thing is doing nothing for it. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority."
She also says "(Elections are) wire-pulling, intriguing, flattering, lying, cheating; in fact, chicanery of every description, whereby the political aspirant can achieve success. Added to that is a complete demoralization of character and conviction, until nothing is left that would make one hope for anything from such a human derelict. Time and time again the people were foolish enough to trust, believe, and support with their last farthing aspiring politicians, only to find themselves betrayed and cheated."
VOTE NOBODY

Goldman says 21.Mar.2004 21:44

Jake

Well, Emma Goldman says "All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers, or backgammon, a playing with right and wrong; its obligation never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right thing is doing nothing for it. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority."
She also says "(Elections are) wire-pulling, intriguing, flattering, lying, cheating; in fact, chicanery of every description, whereby the political aspirant can achieve success. Added to that is a complete demoralization of character and conviction, until nothing is left that would make one hope for anything from such a human derelict. Time and time again the people were foolish enough to trust, believe, and support with their last farthing aspiring politicians, only to find themselves betrayed and cheated."
VOTE NOBODY

Red you dumbass 21.Mar.2004 22:17

George Bender

Kerry, that man you're going to vote for, voted for the so-called Welfare Reform Act in 1996, a blatant attack on poor people. It abolished welfare as an entitlement and put a 5 year lifetime limit on it. The basic idea was to force poor single mothers off welfare and into deadend lowpaid jobs from which they would get laid off at the beginning of every recession. This is the guy you're counting on to slow down the U.S. practice of pushing all the poor people over the edge. He also voted for Nafta, so the corporations could export our jobs.

And then there are the Democrats in Salem who voted for the automatic budget cuts that will throw 50,000 people, including me, off the Oregon Health Plan at the end of July.

But hey, why not lick the hand that slaps you?

I'm not even remotely middle-class, never have been. I'm retired and live on $574 a month in Social Security plus $91 in food stamps. I'm also not a "vanguardist Trotskyite," nor even a socialist. I believe in a mixed economy, which is what we've always had. I'm a registered Green. I don't know of any study that has been made of Nader voters, but I doubt very much that many are middle-class Trotskyites, if there even is such a thing. One of the reasons we're so angry is that we've been screwed by the U.S. economy, and both political parties, for the last 30 years.

You need to put your brain in gear. There is no excuse for not thinking.


Gaspar Writes His Review Partially OUT OF CONTEXT. 21.Mar.2004 23:10

Chomsky ALSO ENDORSES NADER & KUCINICH.

the Guardian's brief 'excerpt' story by Matthew Tempest took selected remarks by Chomsky and put them into a piece making it appear as though Noam had somehow made an "official endorsement" of the Kerry campaign.  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/283584.shtml

this is not the case.

here's the complete Chomsky interview in context:

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/voices/story/0,12820,1168160,00.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"On the US election

Kerry is sometimes described as Bush-lite, which is not inaccurate, and in general the political spectrum is pretty narrow in the United States, and elections are mostly bought, as the population knows.

But despite the limited differences both domestically and internationally, there are differences. And in this system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes.

My feeling is pretty much the way it was in the year 2000. I admire Ralph Nader and Denis Kucinich very much, and insofar as they bring up issues and carry out an educational and organisational function - that's important, and fine, and I support it.

However, when it comes to the choice between the two factions of the business party, it does sometimes, in this case as in 2000, make a difference. A fraction.

That's not only true for international affairs, it's maybe even more dramatically true domestically. The people around Bush are very deeply committed to dismantling the achievements of popular struggle through the past century. The prospect of a government which serves popular interests is being dismantled here. It's an administration that works, that is devoted, to a narrow sector of wealth and power, no matter what the cost to the general population. And that could be extremely dangerous in the not very long run.

You could see it clearly in the way they dealt with, what is by common agreement, the major domestic economic problem coming along, namely the exploding health care costs. They're traceable to the fact that the US has a highly inefficient healthcare system - far higher expenditure than other comparable countries, and not particularly good outcomes. Rather poor, in fact. And it's because it's privatised.

So they passed a huge prescription drug bill, which is primarily a gift to the pharmaceutical corporations and insurance companies. It's a huge taxpayer subsidy. They're already wealthy beyond dreams of avarice. And that's their constituency. And as that continues, with significant domestic problems ahead, for the general population it's extremely harmful.

Again there isn't a great difference, so for maybe 90% of the population over the past 20 years, real income has either stagnated or declined, while for the top few percent, it's just exploded astronomically. But there are differences and the present group in power is particularly cruel and savage in this respect."
-------------------------------------------------------------------


this doesn't sound like Chomsky specifically and officially "endorsing Kerry".

we ALL know that either Bush or Kerry is going to win -

didn't need Chomsky to tell us that.

all this election/discussion/"who's gonna win" bullshit is therefore a waste of breath (and has been ever since Dean dropped out and Kerry sewed up the primaries).

Chomsky is making a valid point about "the choice between two factions of the business party" - a bit more specific and direct than a Neanderthal "lesser of two evils".

he's really out on a limb, though, about predicting foreign policy differences  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/282263.shtml - even Chomsky knows that the US empire will roll on, and on, and on, with either Bush or Kerry in office.

and the interview emphasizes he's more proportionately more concerned about the DOMESTIC rather than foreign policy implications of a continued Bush regime.


Actually... 21.Mar.2004 23:51

me

... Both Goldwater and Nixon thought of using nuclear arms in Vietnam, and may have if it weren't for Russia's retaliatory capacity and the threat of Chinese intervention from the north.

Just an Observation 21.Mar.2004 23:58

Chuckles

Ya'll could probably figure out a way to respectfully disagree and argue civilly, rather than sling profanity everywhere and call each other names. I'm just sayin. You know what I'm sayin?

'tsalagi red' - 22.Mar.2004 04:39

rationale

"people who are going to die next month because of Bush's policies, which Kerry will slow down"

--so that they die the following month?

as other commenters above have already made clear - the **local/regional** elections are perhaps of greater significance and importance to our long-term grassroots efforts for progressive change. we have a better individual chance to affect the outcome of smaller-scale, lower stakes, non-Electoral College elected office contests, and of gaining a foothold there, than in this viciously circular White House "race".

wasting our time and breath on this Bush/Kerry Skull & Bones Multimillionaire Blood Brother non-choice is pointless.

Because its not pointless 22.Mar.2004 09:05

tsalagi red

"wasting our time and breath on this Bush/Kerry Skull & Bones Multimillionaire Blood Brother non-choice is pointless."

No, it is not pointless. If I can live a few more months to fight the struggle, then you have a comrade for a few more months. I have been fighting for the revolution for 35 years. If you think it's coming next year, you are the one who is a fool, not me.

Bender, don't tell me I'm not thinking! I have been thinking about this for many years, and yes, my brain is in gear! Just because you disagree with me does not make me an idiot.

The original post was from a Trotkyist vanguardist. That's who I was aiming my ire at, not you. But it goes for you too, if you feel like you have the right to walk over poor people to get to your revolution. No, you do not have that right!

My death from lack of the prescription drugs I need to survive, obviously does not concern you in the least, except to advance some ideal which has no possiblity to succeed.

Why can't we have reform and revolution at the same time. We can, and most of the best revolutionary thinkers, including Marx, Rosenburg , Gramsci, Goldman (above), Chomsky etc. would agree completely. Rethink your assumptions!

Great article 22.Mar.2004 10:46

JR

I don't like hearing about how Nixon was our greatest liberal president, but otherwise that's an excellent article.

It's hard to tell how much of John Kerry is a manufactured image at this point, and how much is real. I get the impression that he's just kind of waiting for some input, from the media, from "the people" etc... about who to be and what to do if elected. He seems kind of like a mannequin, like Al Gore but much less lively. Like Clinton but taller and less enthusiastic. He seems bored at times.

Of course he has a long and adequate career from which to draw on. Expect his presidency to be much like his senate career.

Did Chomsky ever endorse Clinton? I didn't know he was required to endorse somebody, but I guess it helps out to a certain degree. It certainly doesn't jibe with anything I've ever read by him. In his future books when he writes about the disasters of the Kerry foreign policy, is he going to point out that he voted for Kerry?

I think when you're in the business of writing books it puts you in this awkward position. Chomsky has written so much, and so negatively, of Clinton's foreign policy, that you would have expected his head to explode when Iraq was finally penetrated.

But I guess by endorsing Kerry he's helping out a little bit.

Red 22.Mar.2004 11:17

George Bender

If you don't want people to get mad at you, I suggest you not use language like "Fuck you, too." To me that just puts you in the enemy catagory. I've had it with Democrat attacks on everyone to the left of them, and I'm not going to quietly put up with it. I also don't suffer from the middle-class liberal compulsion to be nice.

I don't know why you think any of us wants to "walk over poor people to get to your revolution." Neither Gasper nor I said anything like that. What we're saying is that, based on his record, we see no reason to believe Kerry is going to help poor people, or anyone else. I'm not expecting or working towards any kind of revolution. I think you've got both Gasper and me confused with someone else, some fantasy of yours.

I am working to force the Democrats to move left. They've been drifting right, deliberately, for a long time. Clinton and Gore came into office with the announced intention to drag the Democratic party to the right, pleasing the corporations and making Democrats more "electable." Thus the crime bills, Nafta, the Welfare Reform Act, cuts in other safety net programs, the wars. All of which Kerry supported.

Did you even bother to read what I wrote? I AM poor people. And yes I care about your prescriptions. I'm facing the loss of Oregon Health Plan coverage at the end of July. The Democrats in Salem helped make that happen. I don't trust Democrats and won't vote for them. I'm tired of being sold out and will not help them to keep doing it.


'tsalagi' 22.Mar.2004 11:32

rationale

"No, it is not pointless. If I can live a few more months to fight the struggle, then you have a comrade for a few more months. I have been fighting for the revolution for 35 years. If you think it's coming next year, you are the one who is a fool, not me."

--WHAT struggle, 'tsalagi'? you're delusional if you think it's "coming next year" to the U.S. I never said such a thing. I don't know or care if the "revolution" is coming (and if anything is 'coming', it's Peak Oil). if you've been WAITING and fighting 35 years - I applaud you for fighting, but I feel sorry for you if you're still hoping it will "happen someday". never give up and keep fighting, but don't "expect" anything to happen. except more illegal invasions and "terror".

9 out of 10 Americans [who actually bothered] writing and calling their Congresspersons in Fall 2002 urged them to **oppose** the Iraq War resolution. and what did the corporate puppets do?

this country CANNOT CHANGE. it will never happen in the current crypto-fascist-disguised-as-"liberal"-corporate-bought-and-paid-for-'politics', consumerist, warmongering, corporate-media-brainwashed, religious mental institution that is the 21st century United States of America.

if you want to live in a society that lives, breathes, evolves, or responds in the most minute way to the needs or desires of its citizens, then it's time for you to leave the United States of America. and that is not a threat or an idle suggestion. it's simple fact.

have you ever actually **lived** in another country for an extended period of time (even a European country)? do you have any understanding of just how kooky and bizarre US citizens, their behaviors and beliefs are perceived to be (especially since the post-Reagan era)? try doing this, if only to get a true sense of how pathetically degenerate, devolved, anti-educated, Pavlovian, and retarded today's average cable TV-addled American really is. THIS IS THE PERSON YOU NEED TO REACH. not the people reading Portland IMC, or even those reading 'enlightened leftist' or 'non-revolutionary but progressive' publications.

and good luck btw.

"Why can't we have reform and revolution at the same time. We can, and most of the best revolutionary thinkers, including Marx, Rosenburg , Gramsci, Goldman (above), Chomsky etc. would agree completely. Rethink your assumptions!"

--see above. revolutionary dogma and theory does not apply or have impact in the 21st century United States - not because it's "ineffective" or inapplicable, but because of the very genetic/biological/physical characteristics of the US corporate-brainwashed-sheeple themselves. It is physically impossible to penetrate or transform such cauterized and comatose membranes. they will continue to be gradually boiled just like frogs in their own water pot, while 1 or 2 million of us (<1% of the total population) immune to corporate media brainwashing actually get out into the streets and do something about it.

as far as reform, the only way to reach the cauterized is grassroots education, just as radicals have always done in a slow, painstaking, homespun way. the eternal question is: will that method be fast or effective enough to pre-empt the next 9-11, voting machine fix, or illegal war/invasion?

many progressives have underestimated or VASTLY MISUNDERSTOOD the overall impact and ORIGINAL INTENT of the 'Reagan Revolution'. it wasn't just Reagan or even his ol' CIA V.P. Daddy Bush that were supposed to put it in place, during their reign. it was really a *longer-term* strategy. Karl Rove himself was recently quoted: "G.W. Bush is Reagan, Phase III". it's been a gradual process for the corporate elites, but they finally have their near-ideal crypto-fascist welfare-state-dismantling dictatorship of the mass media in which two Multimillionaire Skull & Bones Blood Brothers can "coincidentally" be running for president at the *exact same time* - imagine that!!! would Reagan 'a thunk it?!?!???

the U.S. is an oil-fueled corporate-sponsored empire; that is its raison d'etre. its population is composed of teeming religious catatonics who are controlled via cable TV. the only thing that will "stop" or "change" it is economic or environmental collapse e.g. Peak Oil (perhaps not sudden/catastrophic, but maybe gradual degradation) - not some sort of "political" or citizen action.

and don't rehash any more bullshit about the agenda-less Democrats. say what you want about Nader, the Green Party, and even the Socialist Party, Labor Party etc. - at least they stand for something besides multibillion-dollar corporate genocide.

Chomsky would not endorse Kucinich 22.Mar.2004 11:43

Delilah

Chomsky, when asked by letter from a Kucinich volunteer, said he would not support Dennis and that he feraed for what would happen if he were elected. I don't know if he meant that he would be removed from office (or from the Earth!) or if he is against Dennis' platform. I like a lot of what Chomsky says and writes about, but lately he's getting too conservative for me. Look at his stance on 911.

Vote if you want to, don't if you don't want to. Please think about electronic voting and how THERE WILL BE FRAUD!

And please, for those who want to, lets keep working in our communities. We CAN create change from the ground up.

Peace.

Let's make this as simple as possible... 23.Mar.2004 00:57

Spudnuts

Chomsky says Kerry over Bush.

A majority of Greens reject Nader.

Kucinich says no to Nader.

Dean says no to Nader.

Voters of color, low income, women reject Nader.

On this side...

Kerry, Dean, Chomsky, Kucinich, Congressional Black Caucus, an overwhelming majority of established progressives with unimpeachable credentials, women and minority voters.

On the other side...

Nader.

Isolated from his alienated and increasingly bitter once-constituents.

And a hardcore 1% of middle class white guys.

Hmm.

Tough choice.

And yeah, I'll take Chomsky's characterization of the 2004 Kerry/Bush face-off as a full vindication of my position oft stated on this site. Chomsky's the 900-pound gorilla and he's standing in MY corner, kids.

I just don't understand how certain "progressives" on this board can continue to shit on people like Chomsky or Kucinich and accuse them of being drones for the CIA or Bush administration. Nader has no one on his side.

Except Karl Rove.

fuck you spudnuts 23.Mar.2004 05:42

fuck you spudnuts

"Nader has no one on his side."

--except his supporters. and according to the kind of 'national polls' spudnuts believes in he's the only presidential candidate with growing (7% + ) support  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/283147.shtml

Karl Rove is on the side of his "Reagan Phase III" protege, GWB. and you, spudnuts, are on the side of GWB's Multimillionaire Skull & Bones Chavez-Bashing  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/283826.shtml Blood Brother (no matter how much you've deluded yourself to believe he's "The Right Choice For The Job/Vote").

p.s. Chomsky has endorsed *no one* (and never does - he doesn't focus on or specialize in partisan politics) - but then again, spudnuts has no understanding or grasp of Noam Chomsky's writings, stances, or intellectual/professional background. the Guardian 'mini article' report was a slightly out-of-context twist on Chomsky's comments about the US election, making it appear as though he'd "endorsed" someone. Chomsky's original Guardian interview excerpt  http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/voices/story/0,12820,1168160,00.html is posted above in full (where he also "endorses" Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich, among others).

p.p.s. spudnuts - stay the fuck away from here. you are no progressive, radical, thinker, organizer, or community member. just an egotistical bourgeios asshole Troll who likes making brash statements and getting attention on Portland IMC. you fucking sack of shit. get the fuck away from here, go hang out with your democratic underground buddies, and stay away (you've been asked before).

http://naderoregon.org/
stay away, spudnuts. you brainless, incompetent fuck.

Nader @ 12% among Youth Voters, Kerry = Stupid White Man 23.Mar.2004 05:59

-

[Nader] drew twice the support among voters aged 18-29 as he did in a comparable poll of all registered voters. While the 47 percent of young voters who say they favor Kerry still gives the Massachusetts senator a nine point lead over the president, Kerry's support has dropped significantly from the 56 percent who said they would vote for him just one month ago.

One area of key concern to young voters seems to be the economy. While 46 percent of young voters approve of Bush's handling of economic issues as president, 53 percent disapproved. Interestingly, a plurality of young voters-47 percent-think the unemployment rate will stay the same in the next six month (28 percent think unemployment will go up while 24 percent think it will go down).

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/283846.shtml

------------

John Kerry says he wants to be America's second "black president," but sadly, his record on issues of racial justice makes him look more yellow than black.

Apparently Kerry saw no irony in giving this [1992] speech on an elite college [Yale] campus before an audience which undoubtedly consisted of rich white kids for the most part. Yale's faculty is 2.8% black and 1.9% Hispanic. Fortunately, it seems Yale has not been corrupted by the wave of "reverse discrimination" that is sweeping the nation. Nor did Kerry seem to recognize any irony in the fact while he lectures poor black people about "self-reliance," Kerry has essentially never had to do anything for himself. Kerry was born into an obscenely rich family that would go on yachting trips with the Kennedys. Since he became a politician his bank accounts have been generously stocked by corporate lobbyists. He has also married some of the richest women in the world, including his current wife, Teresa Heinz. It's hard to imagine how such a person could even have a concept of "self-reliance." John Kerry preaching to poor people about self-reliance seems rather like a blind person trying to teach people about the colors of the rainbow.

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/283773.shtml