Do not make the mistake of thinking that because my conclusion is the same as another person's that my reasoning is the same
Natalie at All Facts & Opinions spotted an interview with Jim Hightower wherein Mr. Hightower has some good advice for Greens and Dems:
Hightower: Yes. I think Nader was the best Democrat in the race. But it's not helpful for us to continue to fight that last Presidential election. There are those who say Nader cost Gore the election. Come on! Gore's got to take responsibility for his own campaign at some point.
But all of that aside, now we face the reality of an Administration that is absolutely nutty. There's that old country song, "It felt so good when it stopped hurting." So we've got to stop the pain. But in doing so, we should not fool ourselves that we have gained some progressive victory. What we will have done is to get us back to a ground level where we can build again for a progressive victory that is several years down the road. [P6: emphasis added]
You don't build a movement by running for President. It's got to be built by good organizing at the grassroots level around issues, bringing people in across lines, like privacy, like NAFTA and the WTO, like the USA Patriot Act. And then running people for mayor, state rep, then moving up to Congress, then to the Senate, and then President. I think we are eight-to-twelve years away from electing a President. But we are far along now because insurgent Democrats, Greens, the Working Families Party, the Labor Party, and others are making strides and winning seats and showing that government can indeed be different.
Q: Are you advising the Greens to run someone for President?
Hightower: I hope they don't. I think the Greens probably will, but the question is will they run someone of the stature of Nader. I hope not because I think it is detrimental to their cause, to building a progressive party for the future.
I agree with him. I'm only considering voting Green if somebody like Lieberman gets the nomination, and maybe not even then.
Principle won't allow me to vote for a Dem I do not respect. I am not a Democrat and have no responsibility to or respect for that party.
Natalie, time will tell. I'm assuming you'll recognize if the situation develops such that your vote against is as important as someone else's vote for.
I agree with P6. When the time comes, I will choose the course of action that I believe will bring about the greatest benefit or the least harm. It will probably involve choosing between bad (Bush) and less bad (a corporate Dem). What I don't know yet, and probably won't until the time comes, is the point at which the "less bad" becomes "just as bad". If I believe that the two major-party candidates would both be equally bad and it doesn't matter which one I choose, then I'll vote Green. But if I believe that the Democratic candidate will at least do less harm than Bush and by my vote I can help him win, then I will vote for him.
Nothing is more important than principle. Better to lose, even to lose one's life, than to violate one's principles and integrity. Doing the expedient, politic, popular thing is not the thing to do -- for me -- if I know it is the wrong thing to do. I can not and will not vote for someone I do not respect. The only voice I obey is that of my conscience, which tells me to do what I know is right. I don't support the Democratic Party. Voting for any Democrat than Kucinich (and whether I vote for him depends on whom, if anyone, the Greens nominate) would be, for me, the wrong thing, the immoral thing, the unprincipled thing. If that makes me unpopular, so be it. Do I want Bush gone? Yes, of course. But I am not willing to lose my soul in the process.
Natalie, you have to respect process.
You've got to get from here to there, and there is more than one step away. In order to get there you're going to have to occupy a position (or pass thru a condition) that is not precisely where you want to be.
I understand that. I will not participate in something, however, that I find immoral and unprincipled. And again, I am not a Democrat and don't support that party. You really believe the ends would justify means that require abandoning one's integrity? I do not.
Natalie, perhaps I was not clear. If voting for a candidate would violate my basic principles, then I would consider the two choices equally bad and vote third party.
However, it is ALSO one of my principles to take the action in each circumstance that I believe will bring about the most good or the least harm, even if that action is not ideal. If there is an action I can take that is not morally offensive to me, and that will make the world at least slightly better, then I am going to take that action, rather than have the worse reality come about through my inaction.
"If there is an action I can take that is not morally offensive to me, and that will make the world at least slightly better, then I am going to take that action, rather than have the worse reality come about through my inaction."
I agree with that. Problem is, in the vast majority of cases, voting for Democrats is morally offensive to me and the party itself is morally offensive to me.
But I have never been inactive in my life. I assume that if Kucinich doesn't win the nomination, which looks likely, the Greens will mount a candidate. And it might be Nader, whom I see as the one of the nation's few hopes. I don't support Nader to protest anything or anyone -- only because, IMO, he is the best candidate.
(I may be too late in this thread for him to see it, but) Al-Muhajabah: What is it that make someone "somebody like Lieberman" not worth your vote? I don't want to fall into the mental trap that I was railing against in the teacher-gorilla fight, but when I see it said like that from an Islamic name, it sure looks like you said, "I'm only considering voting Green if a Jew gets the nomination."
And what does it look like when Natalie says she won't vote for him under any circumstances?
Or when I say (as quoted in the Village Voice) that I'll vote for him absentee from whatever country I move to?
Lieberman's foreign policy positions are in line with those of the Republican party and not with mine. I feel that if he were elected, he would continue many of the policies that I feel are taking this country in the wrong direction. I also dislike the way that he constantly badmouths other Democrats. It makes me wonder why he's not a Republican, if he dislikes the Democratic party so much.
BTW, if you visit a site such as Daily Kos and search for posts and comments about Lieberman, you will find that most liberals in the blogosphere feel the same way as I do about Lieberman, and for the same reasons.
I would appreciate it if you would not attribute anti-Semtitism to me based on your assumptions about my screen name.
I've read your essays on anti-semitism, which is why the phrasing surprised me. You aren't going to get any sypmathy from me along the "oh, I'm just talking politics, why do you assume I'm racist from an innocent comment" line. I'm white, remember? I've lived with that my entire life. When P6 stops assuming that people joking with kids about gorilla pictures are racists and "Fire the bitch" isn't a normal reaction, then I'll be a little more tolerant of Muslim remarks about Jews.
(That should read "a little more tolerant". I changed my phrasing but didn't delete enough. I probably still mispelled tolerant. I barely know the meaning of the word.)
Phelps:
Since you made clear what you intened to write, I removed the extra word.
Now, what has MY positions and stated opinions have to do with YOUR positions and beliefs? You had them long before you ever heard of P6, didn't you? To imply there's some cause-and-effect, tit-for-tat or synchronicity going on here is just incorrect.
Aren't you an independant thinker?
Just to deflect stupid inferences that my refusal to vote for Lieberman could be a sign of anti-Semitism, I must note that I am part Jewish and proud of it. My reasons for not supporting Lieberman (as well as most of the other Demublican candidates) are represented well by what Al-Muhajabah wrote above.
That said, must Muslims support Jewish candidates or be trashed as anti-Semites? That's bullshit. If you are already familiar with Al-Muhajabah's positions, you should know better, Phelps. Particularly if people are launching charges of some -ism at you. Shame on you.
Phelps, you can think about me what you choose. I have stated clearly that I am opposed to Lieberman because of his policy positions. I am opposed to anyone else who holds those policy positions, most of whom are Republicans, and I do not shy in my criticism of them.
However, if you choose to believe that I have singled Lieberman out because he is Jewish and that I would support a non-Jewish candidate who holds those same positions, and if you further choose to believe that this is motivated by my own religion, feel free to do so. I have been called worse than that by people who assume that they know what I think and can't square it with what I actually say.
Let me try to make myself a little clearer. In my initial comment about Lieberman, I did not explain what I meant. You were perfectly within your rights to ask me to clarify. And I gave you my reasons, namely I specified Lieberman's policy positions.
You are now saying that you don't believe my words and that you know my "real intent". You have not brought any evidence of my writings elsewhere to support your claim, in fact you admit that my writings elsewhere point in the opposite direction. The only reason you have yet given to support your claim is that I am Muslim.
I find it ironic the examples you have cited. You say that you have been accused of being racist simply because you are white. And yet you accuse me of being anti-Semitic simply because I am Muslim.
You bring up the example of the teacher who made the gorillas remark. You criticize P6, Natalie, myself and others at this blog for imputing racism to the teacher simply because the student was black and the teacher white. Yet you impute anti-Semitism to me simply because Lieberman is Jewish and I am Muslim.
Think about what it is that makes you so sure that you have divined my "real intent". What makes you so sure that I have hostile motives, even though my actual words give no indication of it. Now turn it around. This is the same way that we (P6, Natalie, myself, and others here) feel when we assert that such-and-such thing is because of racism. Just put yourself in someone else's shoes for a moment.
You clearly do agree with us that someone can have a hostile and bigoted intent even when they don't say so nor do they use bigoted words. You clearly do agree with us that this intent can be detected from their actions. You just disagree with us about which groups are actually victims of bigotry and which individuals are guilty of it.
Your concern for rooting out anti-Semtitism is praiseworthy. I hope that you can extend it also into a concern for rooting out racism. Because, again, when we call racism we are simply doing the same thing that you are in calling anti-Semitism on me.
You are now saying that you don't believe my words and that you know my "real intent".
No. I did not. Try again. I said that you phrased it badly, and then I explained why I didn't dismiss the bad phrasing out of hand. When I said, "You aren't going to get any sypmathy from me along the 'oh, I'm just talking politics, why do you assume I'm racist from an innocent comment' line" it was in reply to this:
I would appreciate it if you would not attribute anti-Semtitism to me based on your assumptions about my screen name.
I'm sure you appreciate it. I'm sure that the teacher in Queens didn't have people attributing racism to her gorilla remark. Rush Limbaugh would have appreciated people not reading racism into his remarks on ESPN. It isn't going to happen.
You say that you have been accused of being racist simply because you are white. And yet you accuse me of being anti-Semitic simply because I am Muslim.
No. I said that what you said could be construed as an anti-semitic remark, and your name adds to the basis for that assumption.
Think about what it is that makes you so sure that you have divined my "real intent".
I have. This is it. It is why I didn't just call you an anti-semite and said instead:
I don't want to fall into the mental trap that I was railing against in the teacher-gorilla fight, but when I see it said like that from an Islamic name, it sure looks like you said, "I'm only considering voting Green if a Jew gets the nomination."
and offered you a chance to say, "Oops." You haven't said oops. You've just thrown straw men at me instead. I wasn't calling you out on your intent, I was warning you about your phrasing. It is the same as if I was to say, "I'm probably going to vote Libertarian if someone like Colin Powell get the nomination". It is true, but unless I point out that it is because I think he has been soft on foriegn policy, then I might as well have said, "if one of those people gets the nomination."
I have acknowledged that my initial words were not clear and explained what I meant by them. Namely "someone like Lieberman" means "a warmonger like Lieberman". Yes, I am sorry that I did not speak clearly. I am also sorry that you continue to attack me. And I continue to find it deeply ironic that you are engaged in the very same behavior you spend so much of your time at this blog criticizing others for; despite your citing this yourself, you seem to be unaware of the parallels.
My words and my explanation of them are here for each person to judge for themselves. Perhaps others will agree with you that I am a hypocrite and an anti-Semite and they are welcome to say so if that is how they feel.
Phelps, it's not a good idea to make your arguments by discussing the other guy. No one is taking you to task for being white, so I insist you be equally courteous.
And why do you keep reminding us you're white?
I keep reminding you because the paralells leap out at me. It looks like a double standard when white people have to dance around words and think twice about everything they say, but everyone else gets the benefit of doubt.
Perhaps others will agree with you that I am a hypocrite and an anti-Semite and they are welcome to say so if that is how they feel.
I never said it, and I don't think it. If someone were to accuse you of it, I would defend you. What I am saying is
When have you had to dance around words here?
Hell, I let you off the hook all the time. Like, I'm still waiting for an explanation of this:
When P6 stops assuming that people joking with kids about gorilla pictures are racists and "Fire the bitch" isn't a normal reaction, then I'll be a little more tolerant of Muslim remarks about Jews.
What has MY opinion got to do with your tolerance for Muslim remarks about Jews, especially since I'm neither Muslim nor Jewish?
When I diss some white person in what is as near universal a reaction as is ever seen in the Black community, you feel personally put upon. When I was on Limburger's ass you couldn't get past the "white" to see I was complaining about the "racist." You said at one point you feel attacked because you are white, and at another point that white people as a group don't care about being in a group.
When you justify your default assumption of Muslim anti-Semitism…applied to someone you specifically state had convinced you she was no anti-Semite…by implying it's somehow balanced by my intolerance of certain stuff coming from white folks, it would be very easy to deal with this as a "white guy" thing.
But I'm not, any more than I've made any "white guy thing" statements. I put each statement firmly in the lap of the speaker.
Let's take that teacher you're defending. The whole sub-human thing is a major insult to Black folks. It's how we were classified in order to justify slavery, and I don't know ANY Black person that's sanguine about it.
The teacher is either racist or too uninformed about her students to teach Black kids. Fire the bitch. Or send her to teach white kids in Iowa somewhere. But get her the fuck away from a position of responsibility over children she either doesn't like or are misinformed about.
Now I never said all that because I don't feel the need to challenge everyone and have the last word here. I felt my opinion was sufficiently expressed in the original post. And the original postdidn't say it was a white thing…merely that a white person was involved.
think about how you are saying things and how that is going to be taken (something white people have to do constantly, but it appears on this site that non-white people don't)
This is bizarre on several levels. It may take a whole post to properly address.
For now, let me say that the rules of decorum on P6 are the same as those in my mind, so if anyone is going to feel constrained it's not likely to be someone that agrees with me. And the feeling of constraint will be entirely self-generated.
think about this the next time something like "Stupid Teacher Tricks" comes up.
Again, do not make your points on other people's backs. If I start making YOU an example of how white folks are, you will not be happy…and it would be just as unfair as your trying to make an example of Al-M.
By the way, as long as things like "Stupid Teacher Tricks" happen, things like "Stupid Teacher Tricks" will be posted.
For now, let me say that the rules of decorum on P6 are the same as those in my mind, so if anyone is going to feel constrained it's not likely to be someone that agrees with me. And the feeling of constraint will be entirely self-generated.
Assuming that you are in rational mode, right?
Assuming that you are in rational mode, right?
No. Whatever gave you that idea?