Reply #125: Removing Bush does no good, if he's replaced by a smoother more [View All]

[RichM]

competent version of much the same thing. What defines Bush is not the individual; it's the set of interests he's willing to defend.

If he is replaced by someone who is a defender of the MIC (or simply NOT a strong opponent of it), it is not going to change any of the dangerous underlying social forces that brought him to power. If a replacement comes in who is not truly committed to challenging corporate dominance & the lopsided concentration of wealth & power in our society, it is not going to do any good. If Americans are given the message that Yes, now the world is indeed so scary that we must choose a leader whose area of expertise is the brute force of the military, this in itself can cause great harm -- even if Clark himself turns out to be personally beyond reproach.

When Clinton won in 1992, he had some initial intention of challenging some of the basic undercurrents of American life. However, he was rebuffed so sharply on his overtures in that direction, and his "good intentions" were so mushy & irresolute, that he wound up delivering a program not much different than what Daddy Bush would have delivered. During his term, the concentration of wealth & power continued apace. No damage whatever was done to the right wing; they merely grew stronger, through those 8 years. By 2000, they were strong enough & had laid all the necessary groundwork to be able to steal an election in broad daylight. By giving them the Telecom Act, & by singing their song on Welfare Reform (& "The era of big government is over," etc), Clinton wound up actually handing the rightwing some of the keys to the palace.

What is needed is NOT just replacing Bush. He has to be replaced by someone absolutely committed to fundamental change. He has to be replaced by someone who, for example, will say loud & clear that the war & occupation are criminal outrages. It isn't enough to say that they were "flawed policy."

A slogan like "ABB" encourages people to oversimplify something that is in fact not at all simple. After you come out endorsing Clark, people are going to be saying things like "Clark's da man!" and "I support Clark because he kicks ass!" You will have succeeded in promoting stupidity & cynicism, when promoting courage, thoughtfulness & wisdom would have been preferable, & more appropriate to the kind of crisis we face.

We are where we are today because the Dem Party made so many concessions to "pragmatism" over the years, that they became unable to seriously oppose rightwing power. And here you are, urging yet more "pragmatism." The road that leads to selling out consists of nothing more than many individual steps based on "pragmatism."