Give Kerry a Chance
    by Carla Binion
 
In an article, "Letter from a Minnesota Highway," http://counterpunch.org/nader10252004.html, Ralph Nader asked
whether Bush is a unique threat, more sinister than Nixon or more frightening than Reagan.  The answer is an unequivocal yes.
 
Nader criticized the academics, artists and writers who supported his candidacy in 2000 but plan to vote for Kerry this time.
He said those people must have lost their nerve and that they aren't doing enough to pull Kerry toward a progressive agenda.
 
This view doesn't take into account the fact that progressives can work to keep Kerry honest after he's in office.  It also fails
to consider the extent of Bush's destructiveness and the suffering his policies create.
 
It's Bush who has lied to the nation so often and so egregiously that his lying has been the primary subject of hundreds of
articles and dozens of books written over the past few years.  It was Bush who began the Iraq war, not Kerry.  It was Bush
who planned to invade Iraq years before September 11, 2001, and then tried to deceive the world into thinking the Iraq war
was a legitimate response to 9/11.  Kerry isn't the one who did those things.
 
Some progressives say Kerry would continue the Iraq war in the same way Bush has or that he might escalate the war.
We can't be certain that's the case (regardless of any campaign rhetoric) unless Kerry is given the chance to prove himself.
With Bush, we know we can only expect more of the same.     Bush has proved he's inflexible and closed-minded.
Kerry has shown he's willing to change his mind when given new information, and he's proved he's more open to
liberal ideas than other Democratic candidates have been.
 
Kerry embraced liberal Democrats (Rev. Al Sharpton, for example) at the Democratic Convention.  Previous Democratic candidates
shunned party liberals and too willingly took all marching orders from the rightwing Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) playbook.
 
Kerry at least deserves a "B" for bravery for defying DLC political correctness.  His courage stoked the wrath of rightwing Democrat
Zell Miller (Mr. "I-challenge-Chris-Matthews-to-a-dual").
 
Some on the left dispute the idea that Kerry would govern more liberally than he's campaigned, but I disagree.  I think his exceptional
openness to change, his willingness to listen to a variety of views, and his embrace of liberal party members indicate he'd be flexible,
open and, yes, liberal or even progressive as president.
 
With Bush, the country definitely faces certain endless war, regressive social policies, continued cover-ups and governmental secrecy,
ongoing lies, and new ultra-conservative members of the Supreme Court.  We know for certain Bush will never waver or give liberals
a voice.  Another Bush term equals a done deal, a shut-out for progressives.
 
Considering Bush's extremely destructive policies, the country should be willing to take a chance on a new direction.  Members of the
American left, including potential Nader voters entrenched in an anti-Kerry position, could use a little political agnosticism, a little self-doubt.
There's too much at stake now, too much real human suffering in the balance, for the left to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
 
In a recent "Rolling Stone" interview, http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/6562106?pageid=rs.NewsArchive&pagereg,
Jann Wenner asked Kerry, "If you were to look back over eight years of a Kerry presidency, what would you hope would be said
about it?"  Kerry answered, "that it always told the truth to the American people, that it fought for average folks.  And that we raised
the quality of life in America and made Americans safer.  I want to be the president who gets health care done for all Americans."
 
Nader said in his article that progressive Kerry supporters should consider their role in terms of the old labor ballad:
"Which side are you on?"  Hopefully, we're on the side of the truth, on the side that wants our political leaders to be honest with us.
There's a decent chance Kerry meant what he said.
 
I respect Nader for all the good he's done in the past and will no doubt do in the future.  However, this election will bring the country
either four more years of Bush or a fresh start with Kerry.
 
I see potential in John Kerry.  All I am saying is give Kerry a chance.


 Return to bartcop.com

Privacy Policy
. .