Michael Moore has sold out.
In 2000, Moore was among the bold few to take a stand against the two-party system. Ralph Nader’s 2000 campaign, with Moore’s endorsement, prompted thousands to abandon the Democratic Party in favor of movement activism. Further, Moore helped deliver an ideological blow to the establishment — empowering millions of voters with the confidence to reject the Republicans and Democrats.
Like in 2000, the primary roadblock — barricade rather — to progress is the two-party system that thrives on its miniscule spectrum. As long as slight differences keep us voting for the slightly less evil, the spectrum only shifts rightward.
As Moore said at a Nader rally in 2000, “We are at the place we are at now because we have settled for so less for so long. If we keep settling, it is only going to get worse. [With] the lesser of two evils, you still wind up with evil. We are being asked to choose the second-worst candidate.”
Yet Moore, like dozens of former Nader supporters, changed his mind this year, thus setting back his own progressive platform.
John Kerry on the Iraq occupation: “I’m not talking about leaving; I’m talking about winning.”
Saturday night, instead of opposing Kerry’s position, Moore offered excuses for Kerry: To paraphrase Moore, ‘Bush started this, and it won’t be Kerry’s fault when more people die when Kerry tries to fix it.’
So Moore has preemptively apologized away the tens of thousands of deaths Kerry could inflict by trying to “win” in Iraq. Moore opposed Clinton’s persistent bombings of Iraq and the UN sanctions that killed more than a million Iraqis. Moore should know that Democrats, like Republicans, are incapable of helping Iraqis. Unfortunately, campaign contributors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing and yes, Halliburton come first.
Saturday night, Moore made strong calls for gay marriage and abortion rights. Yet he also called for voting for Kerry. Moore forgets what he once knew about the American political system. When the right wing wants to ban gay marriage, this is what they do: they get Republicans to push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Democrats exclaim “No! We can’t write bigotry into the Constitution! Let states decide.” And then the Democrats, as Kerry is doing, lead the charge to ban gay marriage one state at a time.
The right wing gets their way thanks to Kerry, not in spite of him. This is the logic of Lesser Evilism.
Abortion? Republicans: “Overturn Roe vs. Wade!” Democrats: “No! We’re a friend of women! Just refuse federal funding of abortions for the poor, require parental consent and ban late-term abortions.” Thanks to Democrats, the right wing gets its way.
Corporate tax cuts? Republicans: “20 percent tax break for corporations!” Democrats: “No! We’re a friend of labor! Only 10 percent cuts.” Thanks to the “Lesser Evil” the corporations get their way.
Just as you oppose the wolf, you must oppose the wolf in sheep’s clothing leading the true sheep directly into the sheep-processing machine.
Moore attacked Republicans for scaring us into voting for Bush. Yet Moore scares us into voting for Kerry. Without trumpeting Kerry’s conservative positions, Moore reminds us how bloodcurdling Bush is. To counter, consider Hitler’s rise to power — a much more extreme case of the Lesser Evil receiving left-wing support. In 1932 the German left ‘got out the vote’ for right-winger Von Hindenburg (the Lesser Evil) to defeat Hitler. Hindenburg won. Victory for the left, right? Wrong. Hindenburg in turn appointed Hitler to the Chancellorship of Germany and the Nazis started taking power.
The Nazis succeeded because the left politically neutered itself by lining up with Hindenburg. To be clear, 2004 America is not 1932 Germany. The claim that Bush is approaching Hitler is as ridiculous as the Republicans say it is. Rather, the Hitler example makes my point, in the negative. American Socialist Hal Draper explains: “The stakes were extreme. This is exactly why 1932 is the classic case of the Lesser Evil, because even when the stakes were this high, even then voting for the Lesser Evil meant historic disaster … when the stakes are not so high, the Lesser Evil policy makes even less sense.”
Martin Luther King Jr. said, “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”
King wasn’t trying to convince racists. King’s audience was the ‘realistic’ liberals resisting his radical platform.
In 1999 Michael Moore understood all of this when he chastised liberals’ supporting Clinton’s bombing of Kosovo.
“It is amazing to watch all these ‘liberal’ congress members line up behind the president. In a way, I’m glad it’s happening, if only to show the American people there is little difference between the Democrats and the usually war-loving Republicans.”
Yes Mike. Truly, truly amazing.
Chris Dols ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in civil engineering and a member of the International Socialist Organization.