Am
I a flip-flop? Or do I have a subtle consistency? John Kerry might not lie awake
at night worrying about that question. He's probably too tired. But I may be lying
awake tonight worrying. Throughout this campaign I've been writing columns
about the lack of difference between Kerry and Bush, especially on issues of foreign
policy and national security. Today I started knocking on doors and handing out
fliers for the Democrats. "Do I contradict myself?", Walt Whitman wrote. "Very
well. I contradict myself. I am large. I contain multitudes."
But I'm not sure
that I contradict myself. I think there is a consistency here.
I wrote those
columns about Kerry's reactionary stance on war and terror because so many progressives
I know seemed totally obsessed with defeating Bush. When they cast Bush as the
devil, they talked as if Kerry were some kind of saving angel. I feared that,
in their enthusiasm, they might lose sight of the larger issues, like saving the
people of Iraq from U.S. - inflicted violence (just for starters). I wanted to
remind my friends on the Left that politics does not end on Election Day.
Judging
from the emails I've received from CommonDreams readers, I may have misjudged
the Left. Most of the folks who write to me say they'll vote third party, or not
at all, rather than vote for Democrats. I understand and respect that view. But
I cannot agree with it.
In my state, a Democrat has a good chance to take a
Senate seat away from the Republicans and tip the balance in the Senate. Even
if Bush wins, a Democratic Senate could save us from the worst of his excesses.
And my representative in the House is the infamous Marilyn Musgrave, author of
the proposed constitutional amendment denying equal marriage rights to gays and
lesbians. Defeating her would be a service to all humanity, regardless of sexual
orientation.
Most importantly, I live in a presidential battleground state.
Only nine electoral votes. But you never know which state will make the crucial
difference. And on a wide range of domestic issues, the difference between Bush
and Kerry is truly crucial.
Some who will vote third party or stay home on
Election Daymight not agree. Perhaps they have the luxury of taking the long view.
True, they may say, if Bush wins millions more will lose jobs and / or health
care. In the long run, they may say, it's worth that risk to move beyond our Republocrat,
single-party-with-two-names political paralysis.
But I wonder how many of those
purists have lost their jobs and can't find another, or have been forced into
dead-end low-wage jobs. I wonder how many are living without health insurance,
or with inadequate insurance. Or is it just those of us with good secure jobs
and good secure health insurance who can afford the luxury of refusing to vote
for and help the Democrats?
I, for one, don't want to take advantage of my
luxury. I want to put myself in the place of those without jobs or adequate health
care and the ask: Are the differences between Bush and Kerry really irrelevant?
The answer I hear from those who are suffering under the Bush regime will be "No.
The differences really matter to us. We can't wait for the long run. We need relief
now."
I hear that answer coming from people who live on monthly Social Security
checks. The Bush plan to privatize Social Security will make their income unpredictable
at best, and perhaps too meager to live on.
I hear that answer from women who
can't afford a private doctor to perform a necessary abortion. That means they
can't afford to have new Supreme Court justices who will limit the right of choice.
I hear that answer from poor people, who are typically most victimized by environmental
pollution. They can't run the risk of seeing already weak environmental rules
further weakened.
I hear that answer from military reservists and their families,
who never signed up to fight an immoral war. They will have no choice under a
Bush administration that refuses to enlarge the regular Army, because it wants
to fight on the cheap.
I hear that answer from the people of Nevada, who are
fighting the Bush plan to truck huge amounts of nuclear waste into the unsafe
repository at Yucca Mountain.
I hear that answer from all sorts of people who
will suffer directly from four more years of right-wing Republican rule. Unlike
me, and perhaps you, they don't have the luxury of waiting for the long run to
come around. For years, I thought of those folks whenever I cast my vote for the
lesser of two evils.
Now, on domestic issues at least, the greater evil is
so much greater that I am knocking on people's doors, urging them to vote for
Democrats. I hope you will do the same. If you can't get yourself to do that,
I can understand. But please, if you live anyplace where the outcome appears uncertain,
get yourself to vote Democratic on Election Day. It will only hurt for a minute.
And there are millions of people, perhaps worse off than you, who will thank you
silently for it.
After the election is over, when you and I join together in
a reinvigorated progressive politics, we will need help from the people who are
most victimized by the system. We will want to enlist them in our campaigns to
end the war, get single-payer health care, legislate a real living wage for every
worker, etc.
Suppose they ask us: "What did you do to get Democrats elected
in '04?" If we have no good answer, they may wonder whether we really care about
them, or whether we are just affluent middle-class idealists (as the Republicans
want them to believe).
From November 3 on, we can afford to demand the very
best. But for the next week, it makes sense to get out there and do our damndest
to help the somewhat better get more votes than the very worst.
Ira Chernus
chernus@colorado.edu
is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder and
author of "American
Nonviolence: The History of an Idea".
###