- The old saying is that Jesus doesn't vote in American
elections, but that's wrong. He's a registered Democrat. True, he's too
modest to run for President, but he just endorsed his favorite disciple,
Howard Dean. Or maybe its the other way around?
-
- Dean was born into an Episcopalian family, and even went
to a Christian boarding school, but he ended up marrying a Jew. His kids
were raised Jewish. He left the Episcopalians, in Vermont, over a subtle
theological point: His pastor wouldn't give some land for bike trail that
Dean favored. So he joined the Congregationalists but got pissed off at
too many sermons denouncing folks who only attend once a year, and stopped
going to services altogether.
-
- Now he's running for President of the land of the freak,
home of the knave, so he's doing what other politicians have done before
him: nonstop pandering to any and all religions.
-
- In an interview a few months back, he declared that "I
don't think that religion ought to be part of American policy." But
in fact he had already shown that it was part of his. In November 2002
he went to Israel and announced that his "view" of the Israel/Palestine
issue "is closer to AIPAC's view," uncritical support for whoever
runs that country, than that of Peace Now, Labor Zionism's in-house anti-war
group. If elected, he solemnly swears that he will not meet with Arafat.
He supports targeted assassinations of Hamas leaders. He's for the Zionist
security fence, and hailed the bombing of Syria by Sharon: "If Israel
has to defend itself by striking terrorists elsewhere, it's going to have
to do that." In October he told the faithful at a New York synagogue
that he opposes giving East Jerusalem back to the Palestinians. He started
showing up in Synagogues on high holidays. He recited the prayers, in Hebrew,
over Hanukkah candles, in New Hampshire.
-
- That may help him with the minority of Jews still believing
in Judaism, but Jews make up only 2% of the population. As far as his party's
strategists are concerned, the name of the game is combining Zionist campaign
funds with Black votes, and then fighting tooth and nail against Bush for
every blessed Southern white Protestant voter. The New Republic called
him "one of the most secular candidates to run for President in modern
history." So now he's an out of the closet Jesus freak. Turns out
that he, like Bush, prays daily.
-
- Last week he told the Boston Globe that talking about
God and Jesus are going to be key to his Southern strategy. After all,
Christ was "his model." Don't we all know that "Christ was
someone who sought out people who were disenfranchised, people who were
left behind. He fought against self-righteous of people who had everything....
He was a person who set extraordinary example that has lasted 2,000 years."
-
- America being as full of religions as a pomegranate is
of seeds, he has loudly muttered "inshallah," God willing, while
discussing foreign policy. But, with a bunch of Midwestern and Southern
primaries coming up, Jesus is in his heart. "Don't you think Jerry
Falwell reminds you a lot more of the Pharisees than he does of the teachings
of Jesus? And don't you think this campaign ought to be about evicting
the moneychangers from the temple?"
-
- His sudden pious public proclamations naturally intrigued
the reporters who accompany him while campaigning and he was asked which
was his favorite New Testament book. Without hesitating he named "Job."
Except that, as everyone knows, Job is in the Old Testament, and he returned
an hour later to the reporters to say he had misspoken. Now, what does
he like? "Anything in the Gospels."
-
- Perhaps readers may remember, with fondness, his monkey
chatter about winning over those kind hearts and gentle people who fly
the Confederate flag on their pick up trucks? His present babble about
Job and Jesus comes out of the same kit. Modern 'mainstream' politics can
no longer officially pander to racism, so the 'consultants' of both parties
have fallen back on religion.
-
- Dean has two kinds of liberal supporters. Naive college
kids are the foot soldiers of his campaign. They lack the experience to
grasp what he is doing with all his crap about the Dixie flag and Jesus.
But the editorial hacks at the New York Times and The Nation know exactly
what it means: President Dean won't change anything important when it comes
to race relations, and he won't be found in the trenches when it comes
to resisting right-wing assaults on Jefferson's "wall of separation
between Church and State." This troubles them. But what choice do
these do nothings have? They don't have a party of their own. Wool sellers
know wool buyers. The Democratic hustlers understand that, as long as Dean
stays an inch to the left of Bush on Iraq, he doesn't have to give liberals
a damned thing. He can get caught in bed with an underage, unconsenting
lamb and they will vote for him, some even voting for him because of the
little beast.
-
- The peace vote also divides into two camps. Some liberals
show up at anti-war demos. But most do nothing beyond that to build the
movement, except to publicly worry about how ANSWER and other coalitions
are too extreme, especially about Palestine/Israel. It doesn't occur to
these mental powerhouses that there is something a wee bit wrong about
telling people to vote for a 'peace candidate' who has never in his life
showed up at even one anti-war march or civil rights demo.
-
- The other grouping consists of serious doers who organize
rallies and marches. They have been inspired by the wave of anti-Iraq war
demos, here and world wide. But now they, like the liberals, are confronted
with the fact that this year is an election year. Who is their candidate?
-
- The truth is that they have none and too many. Nader
is an iffy-maybe possibility. But he isn't looking for the Green Party
nomination, he isn't clear on Palestine/Israel, and is hardly building
demos re Iraq. The Greens will probably run a candidate, especially if
Nader doesn't run as an independent. ANSWER's leaders are in the Workers
World Party. They will run a candidate. So will the Socialist Workers Party,
who were the prime leaders of the Vietnam anti-war movement, but who haven't
done a thing to distinguish themselves since. The Peace and Freedom Party
is on the ballot in California, but it did miserably in the gubernatorial
race there, and it doesn't exist anywhere else. The Socialist Party is
running a candidate, but the party is minuscule and invisible to the public.
-
- So what do we do? Boycott the election? Vote for one
of the above? If so, which one? Or does it matter?
-
- It is impossible to see a left candidate winning. But
Dean's gallop into unblushing demagoguery opens up serious possibilities
of educating the youth and other healthy elements, in the anti-war movement
and beyond. Ossified liberals will denounce us if we tell people that a
vote for Dean is unprincipled, even if he were to win, and there is no
assurance of that. But so what? We will go on building the anti-war movement.
And we remind people, now, that the Vietnam era movement did get us out
of the war, even though the Democrats lost the 1968 and 1972 elections.
-
- Now is the time to start organizing public panels on
what the left should do re the elections. Don't wait for someone else to
do it. All groups with credibility on either the local or national level
should invite the above mentioned candidates, including Nader, to give
us the reasons why we should vote for them. And maybe, just maybe, they
could also begin to discuss building a serious party, opposed to the bipartisan
demagogues and imperialists.
-
- Lenni Brenner, editor of <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1569802351/counterpunchmaga>51
Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis, can be reached at <mailto:BrennerL21@aol.com>BrennerL21@aol.com
|
