Three
by Tom Barrett
What follows is an exchange of opinions by Bob Witanek, the coordinator of the Committee to End the Occupation of Iraq, based in Belle Mead, New Jersey, singer-songwriter Sharleen Leahey, of Somerville, New Jersey, and Tom Barrett, co-Managing Editor of Labor Standard.
Voting For War
By Bob Witanek
For many pro-war voters — a
vote for Kerry is a vote for war because they believe that Kerry will do it
right. Kerry is accusing Bush of retreating — attacking Bush from the
right — and goading on a massacre in Fallujah,
At the same time, many anti-war activists believe — I would say are under the illusion — that they are voting against the war when they vote for Kerry. There are those who have not taken the time to study the statements and positions of Kerry and they just have gone along with the anti-Bush hype at the rallies and in much of the buzz in the anti-war movement. In these cases, these folks believe however illegitimately that their pro-Kerry vote is a vote against war. I would charge that these people are giving their political support to a pro-war campaign of the Kerry administration out of ignorance and denial.
There are others however, who
concede that Kerry is as bad as Bush on
There are also those who are supposedly part of this movement who know full well that voting for Kerry has nothing to do with war opposition but they sinisterly promote the idea that it does. They are misleading and manipulating the movement to take pro-war action. They are doing it to elect their party man. That is their priority — not stopping war.
Folks can be personally, morally,
ethically against war. They march, rally, fax, call, lobby, vigil, etc.,
against war. But then they vote for war. That does not mean they support war on
a moral or personal level. But on the political level, the physical act of
voting for Kerry is a physical act of donating the small amount of actual
political power that we possess to supporting war — supporting a policy
that does not retreat from the precipice of massacre in Fallujah,
Najaf,
Bush is preparing these assaults
and Kerry is baiting the
All of the categories above amount to voting for war. In some cases it is explicit and in other cases out of ignorance. The bottom line is — they expend their only real political power to support war — regardless of the many reasons they give for their support, campaigning, donating and voting for war.
I am not making up these motivations for people. I have observed the arguments folks are putting forward. I am not making assumptions.
Many anti-war people claim to vote for Kerry to oppose the war. They say that. Others admit Kerry is pro-war and say they are voting for him for other reasons. They say that too. As for those who in my view know full well that Kerry is just as much a war monger as Bush yet still shill for him in the movement — I do not pretend to know their motivations but in any event — they are still expending their political capital in favor of war.
Bottom line is — you can lobby, march, rally, vigil, fax, phone, argue, cuss, throw things at your tv, pass fliers, all you want — but if you get out there and vote for candidates who are in favor of the war — you are voting for war — and you should not be surprised when you get what you vote for: WAR!…regardless of the motivation of such pro-war voters.
— Bob
Answer to Bob Witanek re: Voting for War
by Sharleen Leahey
Dear Bob,
Let’s get real…we are living in the most powerful, technologically advanced imperialistic empire to ever exist in recorded human history. Of course Kerry is supporting the war because our economic, political and cultural reality at the present time is defined by a huge permanent war machine and sickening macho-man rhetoric. But this election is about more than politics…it is about our very survival.
When asked if she supported Nader for president this time journalist and author Ariana Huffington recently
stated, “When your house is on fire it is not time to re-decorate.”
Well our house is on fire and we have to get Bush out of office or face dire
consequences on many fronts. For one thing, the people of
You spend your energy telling us how bad Kerry is but Bob…guess what? Obviously one of these two men is going to be President and it is going to make a huge difference…in the lives of billions of people all around the world as well as countless species of plants and animals currently being decimated in the wilderness areas being slashed and burned by Bush’s corporate controllers. And I haven’t even mentioned civil liberties…we are facing the end of our republic and the very real possibility of the establishment of a police state. I shudder to think what will happen to our peace movement under an unbridled 2nd term if Bush stays in the White House. This is not just an opposition Republican Party…we are dealing with fascists.
I voted for Nader
in two past presidential elections. Now I urge every person who believes in a
peaceful future to vote for John Kerry. I remember Kerry very well when I was a
kid taking part in the Vietnam War protests. He mesmerized a whole room of
After we finish celebrating the
defeat of Bush we must re-dedicate ourselves to pushing Kerry hard for an end
to the occupation of
Bob, how can you ask peace
activists to throw away the one weapon they have to defeat
Respectfully,
Sharleen Leahey
The Differences Between Bush and Kerry Are Tactical, Not Fundamental
by Tom Barrett
Dear Sharleen:
Thanks for sharing this exchange with us. Whenever peace and justice activists can express different opinions while recognizing that we share common goals and a vision for the future of the world, everyone can benefit from the discussion.
I have to tell you, though: I fundamentally agree with Bob. I don’t agree with everything he says, but I agree with his basic premise, and I will be voting for Nader and Camejo. I’m not enthusiastic about the Nader ticket, even though I have known Pete Camejo personally for over 30 years, but I have this thing about never failing to vote, and they are the best I can see running.
Just to start: you say that “this
election…is about our very survival.” Well, I
have heard that before. The first time I heard it was forty years ago, as a
teenage boy watching a campaign spot on TV of a little girl picking petals off
a daisy and then a nuclear blast. The tagline was: “The stakes are too
high for you to stay home,” with the implication that if Lyndon Johnson
did not defeat Barry Goldwater we could face nuclear annihilation. Johnny
Carson used to joke that he had a friend who told him, “Don’t you
know that if you vote for Goldwater, we’ll get in a land war in
Two years later I was involved in a
Democratic primary campaign for the governorship of
I gave the system “one more
chance” in 1968. As a college freshman, I went on several road trips from
my campus in
Since my teenage years, we have survived the Nixon administration, which crashed and burned which Nixon played games with our civil liberties. We have survived Reagan, a man who was far worse than the “madman” Goldwater. And we have survived both Bushes, not to mention the neoliberal Clinton, who gave us NAFTA, “welfare reform,” and a budget balanced on the backs of the working people. And though I do not minimize the very real threat that the Bush administration poses to our civil liberties, an older generation that I very much admire courageously stood up to Joseph McCarthy and the witch-hunts of the 1947–54 period. That was a terrible time: Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were put to death. Jimmy Kutcher (I knew him personally), who had lost both legs in World War II, was fired from his VA job and fought for 10 years for reinstatement. We know the rest. But fear did not defeat them. And it should not defeat us either. If Bush is re-elected, it does not mean that there will be nuclear annihilation or fascism. And if Kerry wins it does not mean an end to war, the assault on workers’ living standards, the continued destruction of our environment, or the domination of this world by the multinational corporations.
Kerry has not been dishonest with
us: he has said that his plan is to win the war in
Whenever fundamental change has come about in this country, the last people to get on board have been the elected officials. The struggle to end slavery began as soon as the Constitution was ratified. Abraham Lincoln did not singlehandedly emancipate anyone. For decades courageous men and women (and sometimes children) fought for the eight-hour day, a living wage, and safe working conditions, long before Franklin Roosevelt signed the Wagner Act and other New Deal measures. And the fight for equal rights for African-Americans had been going on for years, with sit-ins, freedom rides, boycotts, and unfortunately, martyrs, before the Kennedy brothers became involved (against the wishes of their father, by the way). The world will change for the better because of people like you and me, when, as Pete Seeger has written, two and two and fifty make a million. The politicians will follow; they will never lead.
In past years we have heard it
suggested that during an election year we should call off our public protests
so that the Democratic candidates can get elected. We heard some of this kind
of talk in response to the Million Worker March last weekend, and it had a
negative effect on it. But for the most part, we don’t hear this any
more, and this makes me optimistic about our future. When 400,000 people
marched in
On 2 November we will all cast a ballot (or boycott the election) as our consciences instruct us, but we will make real change by our united direct action. I certainly understand that the emotions involved in looking at four more years of Bush. Anyone with a social conscience can only be sickened by the prospect. But that is no reason to vote for someone whose differences with him are only tactical, not fundamental.
So, Sharleen, let’s work together, march together, sing together, and if necessary, fight together. I always respect your opinion, whether we agree or disagree.
Yours for peace and justice,
Tom