Tactical voting for Bush?
by nimc
Tue Jul 13, 2004 at 06:05:21 AM PDT
At times I wonder if it actually wouldn't be better if Bush were reelected in November. My thought is that if Kerry is elected, nothing will change much. Sure, we probably won't be invading innocent nations and killing innocent civilians (at least not as much), but will very much really change? It will still be politics controlled and designed for the benefit of the rich and the status quo will continue onward.
However, I often think that if Bush had another four years in office things would get SO bad that people might start to wake up. Maybe it's just what the United States needs to make us more responsible citizens and really change the status quo. Bush would continue with his neo-consevative agenda and things like security, economy, poverty, environment, anti-american feelings, and so much more would get so much worse. The world would hate us even more than they already do, and the resistance movement would really grow. People would wake up to the reality of this type of politics.
Do you think this is a reasonable thought? Should we root for George Bush? Or is it more morally responsible to vote for Kerry, who will obviously do less damage?
Here's his reply:
Conceivable, but I think unlikely. There have been such arguments in the past, in the early 1930s, for example. I'm old enough to remember the slogan "the worse the better" from the left. It led to Hitler. That doesn't prove the argument is wrong now, but it's very hazardous to take the chance.
Noam Chomsky
Links: first log in as guest here, then it's possible to list the replies - i also added that in the external links of the wikipedia chomsky article (btw, if anyone have an idea whether it's possible with this forum to make a one-click link that automatically logs you in as a guest and lists the search results?)
It seems that there isn't much info on the internet about this shameful historical slogan, but i do find one-line comments such as:
Assuming we agree with the above, not voting for Kerry can be justified either by people who think that Kerry would be even worse than Bush, or people who don't see a significant difference between Kerry and Bush.
Personally, I recommend voting for Kerry (in swing states), because otherwise I think that the rest of the world would view the American people in a very bad light.
However, I suspect that kerry and his admin will be horrible. Specifically, his proposed secretary of state is not a nice person. But we'll have to wait and see... here's one hint:
In case it'd indeed become clear during 2005 that Kerry is similar to Bush, I wonder if progressive movements might want to start a Kucinich 2008 campaign, or an intense campaign to change the voting system (see wikipedia:voting systems, dkosopedia:votings systems, and specifically wikipedia:IRV), as discussed for example in the Dean-Nader NPR debate.
Comments are welcomed... thanks for reading...
- nimc's diary :: Permalink ::
- Discuss (46 comments)
