Scary, Scary John Kerry, and Ralph?

By Josh Frank

Finally a reason to get excited, as we now have before us an electable candidate worthy of taking on George W. Bush and his coterie of neoconservatives next November. Well, at least that's what the scared liberals out there would have us believe. But John Kerry is neither electable nor exciting. He is a Zionist sympathizer who supports Bush's "road map for peace" in Israel and Palestine, as well as a corporate Neoliberal, who voted in support of NAFTA, normalized free-trade with China, and the US's $17.9 billion dollar "aid" package to the IMF.

Not to mention Kerry is also a proclaimed War Criminal, where he participated in bloody swift boat patrol missions on the Mekong Delta near Cambodia in Vietnam. And as he put it in to Crosby Noyes of the Washington Evening Star upon his return in 1971, "[During those missions] I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 caliber machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions."

However, Kerry's defenders still claim that at least he's better than George W. Bush. Under a selective microscope perhaps, but by and large Kerry and Bush see eye to eye on the critical issues of our times.

For instance, Kerry criticizes Bush for not having enough troops in Iraq and says he will increase the US count by 40,000 within his first 100 days in office (this statement came prior to Spain's announcement that they will be pulling out their 1,300 troops by the end of June). Kerry also chastises Bush for abusing his authority by invading Iraq, but defends his vote authorizing unilateral force and says, "I can pledge ... to the American people: I will never conduct a war or start a war because we want to." Looks like he'll just vote for one instead.

Back in 1998 Senator Kerry voted along with Dennis Kucinich in support of Clinton's "Iraq Liberation Act," which has served as political leverage for Bush's Iraq "regime change". And one year after that horrid display Kerry voted in favor of allowing US air strikes against Yugoslavia, which gave General Wesley Clark the green light to bomb, as William Blum put it, with "an almost sadistic fanaticism".

Well at least Kerry is an environmentalist though, right? Not exactly.

Despite John Kerry's cozy relationship with ghoulish green organizations like the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters, he should not be mistaken for a friend of nature. Kerry does not support the Kyoto Protocol, and as he told Grist Magazine in an interview last year, "[The Kyoto agreement] doesn't ask enough of developing nations, the nations that are going to be producing much greater emissions and which we need to get on the right course now through technology transfer." Somebody should mention to Senator Kerry that currently, despite the US accounting for only 4% of the world's population, we still emit over a quarter of the globe's CO2. But no, Kerry won't call on the US to set an example to developing countries, that would asking too much of the US.

And just last year Kerry decided not to cast a vote against a portion of Bush's chainsaw Forest Plan (HR 1904), which authorized $760 million to thin out dense national forests under the pretext of increasing ecosystem health. This, combined with his support for Fast Track legislation, bombing of Afghanistan, and chemical fumigation in Colombia to counter coca and opium production -- provides us with a clear indication that not only is Kerry not an environmentalist, he's also not that good at pretending to be.

So how about Kerry on the home front? Let's see, although Kerry did oppose Clinton's 1996 Effective Death Penalty Act, he embraced Attorney General Ashcroft's Patriot Act as well as the Homeland Security bill. He also decided not to vote against Bush's Tax Cuts for the wealthy, and as Public Citizen notes, Kerry has missed ten crucial Senate votes while campaigning for the Presidency including; an amendment to prevent energy market manipulation, a medical negligence bill, and a vital fuel efficiency amendment.

So what is all the fuss about? Call it the real life version of "Fear Factor", where soft-shelled liberals are forced to swallow empty hopes that John Kerry can save them from the clutches of Bush's wrath. Time will tell whether or not swing voters see any real difference between Kerry and our sitting president. And as Kerry continuously fails to challenge the US's global Empire or its domestic fractures back home, he will continue to fail the American people -- not to mention the rest of the world.

The Nader Question

So does this mean progressives should back Ralph Nader? Well regardless, things may be shaping up nicely for Nader, who could very soon receive an unlikely endorsement from the Ross Perot founded Texas Reform Party. This may prove to be a huge victory for Nader’s solo candidacy, as the support from the conservative Reformers could help him gain ballot access for the upcoming November election.

As you well know, Texas is not renowned for its democratic virtues or integrity (remember Trent Lott’s legislative redistricting?). And now Nader faces numerous hurdles as he attempts to get his name on the state’s ballot. Texas requires over 64,000 signatures by its May 10th deadline, and nobody who cast a vote in its presidential primary can sign his petition. But that’s where the Reform Party may lend a helping hand.

Un-registered Third Parties are required to garner only 45,540, with a slightly later deadline of May 24th. Independents are not currently recognized as a Third Party, and in Texas only Democrats and Republicans are reserved special access to the state’s ballot.

Nader would of course openly embrace the Reform Party's support, but claims he is not seeking it out. And now the Green Party is actively debating whether or not to endorse the consumer advocate during its National Convention in Milwaukee Wisconsin in June. With no high profile candidate of their own, and a ridiculously late start, many Greens feel throwing some weight behind Nader could be their most resourceful option. Nader did receive a blow in early April as he failed to gather 1000 supporters in Portland, where he had hoped Oregon would be the first state to place his name on the ballot. Now he must gather 15,000 signatures, which he says will be no problem.

The Greens and the Reform Party’s added funds could shove Democratic loyalists, who continue to wrongly blame Nader for their 2000 defeat, into the emotional deep-end.

A poll released by the Associated Press in late March showed Nader coming in at a strong 6%, with Kerry and Bush in a virtual tie. However, we all know the popular vote doesn’t mean as much as we’d like, as it’s the Electoral College that really counts.

This could mean good things for the Nader camp, as the alienated classes of American voters could unify behind his candidacy. Such an alliance could force the Republicrat controlled Commission of Presidential Debates to allow Nader to pass through the locked doors of the televised Presidential debates. If this does happen, one can expect that the “Nobody But Kerry” crowd will chastise such an invitation wholeheartedly—for they won’t care to hear the real deal about their beloved Bush slayer, John Kerry. The good liberals will claim that including Nader would be far too much for our democracy to handle.

With that said, a never before seen progressive loathing has set in across the US, and it is split right in two. Faction Number One utterly detests Nader, and anyone for that matter, who dares stand up to the Democratic Party. If said person does raise a few qualms, they are typically labeled as a maniacal egotist, or worse yet, a Republican plant. And then there is progressive faction Number Two, which loathes not only Bush, but also the broken system that continues to fail Americans year after year.

This group sees Bush not as the embodiment of all that is evil, but as a product of a fractured democracy that’s been on its last leg for too long.

Sure Nader’s run could sift vital resources away from grassroots activism, and waste it on the “lose-lose” electoral game. It is also true that Nader isn’t beholden to any progressive ideology but his own. However, at least we can conclude that Nader is not in the back pockets of the power elites like Kerry and Bush.

Democracy is for everyone. And if liberals and progressives do decide to hold their nose and pull the lever for John Kerry, they better be able to consciously handle the ramifications of their pragmatic choice if he's victorious. Here is a short list for which they’ll need redemption:

* A continued US endorsement of Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territories.
* A US supported occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
* A continued adherence to neoliberal policies throughout the free market world.
* An American health care system controlled and run by private corporations.
* An increase in the level of income disparity among rich and poor citizens in the US.
* And an almost exponential decline of the natural environment and endangered species of North America. And much, much more.

It is true that Ralph Nader may not be the answer to all that ails us, but he is at this moment the only Presidential candidate willing to challenge the status quo we call American politics. A vote for John Kerry may amount to a vote against a vile Bush administration, but it is also a vote cast in support of a degraded structure that continues to ignore the majority of the American people.

Perhaps the Green and Reform Parties are on to something, and their support of Nader's candidacy could be done more in protest than solidarity. Regardless it would be wise for us to realize that Kerry is part of the problem, not the solution.

-Josh Frank is the author of an upcoming book, Left Out; How Liberals Helped the Bush Administration to be published by Common Courage Press in the fall.