Three years after the terrorists’ attacks of 9/11, the
United States is a divided country, and an angry one. And, rightly or wrongly,
it is a fearful one.
In less
than a week, the country will select the president who will lead us, and will
serve as the leader of the world’s most powerful nation, for the next four
years. For the health and security of all of us, here and abroad, that
president must be John Kerry.
We are not
endorsing Kerry simply because he is the only electable alternative to George
Bush. We have watched Kerry closely throughout the campaign. We’ve studied his
record, and we’ve read his position papers. Ours is no qualified endorsement.
There is no
perfect candidate, in any race. And with few exceptions, none of the Democratic
candidates in last spring’s primary are as progressive as we would like. But
unquestionably, John Kerry is qualified to be president. His approach to
foreign and domestic policy is, in balance, intelligent and humane. With some
important exceptions, it is moderately progressive.
And it is
no overstatement to say that George Bush is a dangerous man, dangerous to the future
of this nation, dangerous to the stability of the world.
New York
State is considered solidly pro-Kerry, a “safe state.” Knowing that Kerry will
get New York’s electoral votes, some progressives will vote for Ralph Nader, on
the Independence or Peace and Justice Party line, to support Nader and those
parties and to send a message to the Democratic Party.
Unquestionably,
many of Nader’s stands are closer to those of this newspaper than Kerry’s. (The
same is true for Green Party candidate David Cobb, who is not on the ballot in
New York). We will continue to press for universal health care, for a large
increase in the minimum wage, for full gay rights, for an Israel-Palestinian
policy that recognizes both the threat to Israel’s security, the grievances and
needs of the occupied Palestinians, and the suffering of all of the people in
that troubled area. We will continue to criticize Kerry for his support of the
Bush war resolution.
But Nader,
astonishingly, persists in his campaign in swing states — and he has accepted
financial backing from Republicans who, he knows full well, are using him to
try to defeat Kerry. Both have severely harmed his credibility.
Aside from
those issues, the popular-vote totals will be important in this race. The next
four years will be a time of great difficulty, in the world and in Congress. If
John Kerry wins, it’s important that he take office with as large a mandate as
possible. (Readers who want to send a message to the Democratic Party can vote
for Kerry on the Working Families line.)
Nader has insisted that there’s little difference between Kerry and Bush. That is patently untrue.
“Anyone who says ‘I don’t care if Bush gets elected,'” Noam Chomsky has said, “is
basically telling poor and working people in the country, ‘I don’t care if your
lives are destroyed.'”
Chomsky is
one of 70 progressives who supported Nader in 2000 and have signed onto The
Unity Campaign, urging voters to support Kerry in swing states. Among the
others: commentator Jim Hightower, essayist Barbara Ehrenreich, political
scientist Theodore Lowi, educator and writer Manning Marable, farmer and writer
Wendell Berry, and educator and author Cornel West. (For the full list:
www.TheUnityCampaign.org.)
John Kerry
has repeatedly criticized the Bush tax cuts for providing great benefits to the
wealthy at the expense of middle-income and poor Americans and the US economy
itself. He would set a fiscal course that could begin to reverse the disastrous
actions of the Bush administration.
It is
obvious that Kerry would try to restore worldwide respect for America and try
to undo the enormous damage caused by the Bush administration. He understands
the importance of diplomacy. (It is no small thing that he and Senator John
McCain worked together to normalize US relations with Vietnam.)
Kerry has
stated clearly that his Supreme Court appointments would support the protection
of women’s reproductive rights — as would his administration. He is a deeply
religious man who respects the need for the separation of church and state. He
would be far more committed to protecting the civil rights of all Americans. He
is against the death penalty.
Kerry has a
strongly pro-environment history, and he would restore to the White House a
respect for scientific research. Kerry talks about energy conservation. Bush
ramps up usage and presses for oil exploration in the Alaskan wilderness.
Of immense
importance: Kerry would strive to be a president of all the people. George Bush
has been a harsh, sneeringly divisive president, and over the past four years
he has continually narrowed the constituencies with whom he has patience, and
for whom he has respect.
John Kerry
was right in his Vietnam War protests. He is right in his opposition to
privatizing Social Security. He is right on many, many issues. He would be a
good, strong, courageous, ethical president.
Corporate interests (particularly those of the oil industry), right-wing political interests,
Christian-right interests, ideologues who have been intent on invading Iraq for
years, fundamentalist religious fervor: Together, these have shaped the Bush
presidency, dramatically affecting US foreign and domestic policy in everything
from the invasion of Iraq to the federal deficit and health care.
We should
not have invaded Iraq. Our war and occupation have been plagued by incompetent
planning and execution. And the result has been disastrous: in lives lost
(ours, Iraqis’, citizens of other nations’, contractors’, humanitarian
workers’); in the torture and humiliation of fellow human beings in prisons; in
the spread of anti-Americanism and terrorism; in the alienation of allies whose
help we desperately need; in the destabilizing of the Middle East. We now face
very dangerous situations in Iran and North Korea, with few resources of our
own and no international credibility.
Bush and
Attorney General John Ashcroft have set about eroding civil rights, and they
threaten to erode them further. The administration has rounded up legal
immigrants, imprisoned them, and held them without access to attorneys. It has
expanded government’s intrusion into American citizens’ privacy. It has
threatened journalists with jail sentences.
George Bush
has been so fixated on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that he has clung
to them, and clings to them still, despite the deficit — despite the
escalating costs of his war — despite the country’s enormous domestic
security needs.
As the
lead-up to the war made clear, Bush not only does not welcome dissenting views,
he does not seek them. Most disturbing is what seems to be the foundation of
his actions: He believes God put him in the presidency. Religious faith can be
a source of great personal strength. But it can also be twisted into unquestioning
self-righteousness and delusion. And the ramifications and the danger of that
kind of belief cannot be overstated.
Few elections in this nation’s history have been as important as this one, few victories as
important to the nation as Kerry’s.
“We look
back on the past four years with hearts nearly breaking,” said the New York Times as it endorsed Kerry
earlier this month, “both for the lives unnecessarily lost and for the
opportunities so casually wasted.”
“It’s the most
important election of any of our lives,” said our sister alternative, the
staunchly liberal San Francisco Bay
Guardian, “and the choice couldn’t be more clear.”
“George W.
Bush is a threat to the republic and the planet,” said the alternative LA Weekly. “The only way to stop him is
to vote for John Kerry, a course the Weekly
recommends more fervently than any endorsement we have ever made.”
We, too,
look back on the Bush years with hearts nearly breaking. We look into the
future with great fear. And we urge readers in this “safe Kerry state” to join
other concerned Americans across the country in voting for John Kerry — a
recommendation that we, like the LA
Weekly, make as fervently as any we have ever made.
This article appears in Oct 27 – Nov 2, 2004.
