Sunday, May 23, 2004
(2:40 PM) | Adam Kotsko:
My Political Manifesto
I fully intend to vote for John Kerry, and indeed to vote a straight Democratic ticket, in November. I plan to do these things for two reasons:
- John Kerry is not George W. Bush.
- Democrats are (usually) not Republicans (Lieberman being the obvious exception).
I know that the modern nation-state is completely depraved, that it is incapable of being a community that sustains virtue, that it is a tool of capital and leads inevitably to imperial oppression, that its historical genesis is homologous to the formation of the mafia, etc., etc. I am aware of all those critiques, and I'm sure that if we reinstituted either a medieval theocracy or a Marxist utopia, everything would be a lot better. But I don't have the opportunity to vote for either a medieval theocracy or a Marxist utopia -- I just get a choice between (realistically) two people to administer the executive branch of our particular modern nation-state. It is possible to administer states well, and when states are administered well, things are generally at least less bad for people.
I view the welfare states of Europe as a desirable and feasible model for the state within the present political configuration, and if the United States achieved something akin to the European model, I would see no need for a radical overhaul of the system -- just prudent administration of what we had and the occasional tweaking when problems arise. Again: I know that such a model of the state is a "foreclosure of hope" or something like that, but at least in that model, people stand a good chance of obtaining food, shelter, and medical attention. I vote for Democrats because they seem less likely to want to completely destroy those aspects of the welfare state that we currently have -- and that still remains true despite the Clintonian "shift-to-the-right." I wish the Democrats were more consistently left-wing, but I view that as a problem to be solved within the Democratic party, not through the invention of a third party that splits the moderate-left vote and guarantees the victory of Republican idiocy.
Which brings me to my main point: contemporary Republicanism is stupid and destructive. I know there are responsible Republicans in government at all levels. I know it's unfair to paint an entire political party based on its worst elements. The fact remains, however, that in the contemporary Republican party, the worst elements have an overwhelming hegemony. I view the Christian right as a proof of the existence of Satan. I view market fundamentalism as a dangerously radical stance that, when implemented in actual policies in the real world, has wreaked untold devestation on entire populations (and yes, I know that Clinton was an advocate of the market-liberalization brand of globalization). Perhaps, in some fantasy world, it would be better to let the religious right and the market fundamentalists team up to completely fuck our nation and the entire world, so that "the multitude" could rise up. (On warm, sunny days, when I've eaten the right kinds of foods, I sometimes almost manage to convince myself that that could actually happen.)
I am sure that opting for "capitalism with a human face" through my voting practices exposes me as a moral coward. But really, if I have a choice between on the one hand, voting for a seasoned, experienced legislator who has firsthand experience of war, who took the appropriate moral stance against Vietnam, and who has been pretty consistently liberal-to-moderate; and a complete fucking moron who is surrounded by dangerous radicals whispering sweet nothings into his ear and who can't even be bothered to read a newspaper -- I don't see how it's even a choice. It's a categorical imperative: vote for John Fucking Kerry. He's not perfect. He won't completely reformulate U.S. foreign policy to respond to Noam Chomsky's complaints. Hold your nose if need be. Just make sure to register and to cast your vote against George W. Bush and for something that is bound to be noticeably less bad!
I am depressed that I just wrote that. But anyway, that is my contribution to the ongoing blogospheric debate about the relative merits of the two American political parties and, more specifically, their presidential candidates for 2004. Later tonight, watch this space for a post about Derrida's essay "The University without Condition."
