Gabriel Kolko -- in this writer's estimation, our most indispensable historian -- argues in a recent piece on the Counterpunch website that because a second Bush term would possibly intensify the international enmity elicited by its bumbling unilateralism, it could be preferable to a Kerry Administration:

Kerry is neither articulate nor impressive as a candidate or as someone who is likely to formulate an alternative to Bush's foreign and defense policies, which have much more in common with Clinton's than they have differences. To be critical of Bush is scarcely justification for wishful thinking about Kerry. Since 1947, the foreign policies of the Democrats and Republicans have been essentially consensual on crucial issues -- "bipartisan" as both parties phrase it -- but they often utilize quite different rhetoric.

Critics of the existing foreign or domestic order will not take over Washington this November. As dangerous as it is, Bush's reelection may be a lesser evil because he is much more likely to continue the destruction of the alliance system that is so crucial to American power.

Kolko echoes thoughts that have been rattling through your narrator's head -- regarding the domestic political milieu -- since witnessing the apoplectic reaction to Ralph Nader's announcement of his candidacy.

It is becoming clear that all-too-many Kerry supporters view November's plebiscite as an end in itself. That, if Kerry should prevail, the reaction of a too-large proportion of his voters will be overwhelming relief -- "Whew! That was a close one!" -- followed by a repeat of Clinton-era apathy and apologetics.

Whereas, a Bush victory couldn't but propagate the amazingly diverse and widespread lobbying and protest movement which saw the New York Times declare public political involvement the World's "second superpower." From the unprecedented pre-war protest mobilisations, to the hundred-plus official municipal renunciations of the PATRIOT Act, to the overwhelming response to the FCC's proposed further relaxation of media ownership restrictions, to the virtual implosion of the WTO, to the solidarity actions of "internationals" in Iraq and Palestine; the accomplishments have been many, and the momentum is gathering.

So even though a Kerry administration would no doubt be marginally less nefarious in its designs, in the absence of activist mitigation of these designs, the net effect could well be more disastrous than a second Bush Administration.

Kerry has learnt from Howard Dean that inflammatory rhetoric scores political points. But if he wants our votes, he should promise, no later than the Democratic Convention; to (at a minimum) unilaterally withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan and cut off military aid to Israel; to repeal the PATRIOT Act, the Bush tax cuts, the "No Child Left Behind" Act, the Medicare Act, and the "Help America Vote" Act; to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and the International Criminal Court; to pull out of NAFTA and the WTO; to disavow "salvage" logging and drilling in the ANWR; to disentangle church and state; to extend full civil- and due-process-rights to so-called "illegal combatants", women, homosexuals, immigrants, the elderly and disabled, and minorities; to implement universal health care and renounce the attempts to privatise Social Security and develop "useable" nuclear weapons.

For, these are not the fringe propoundings of Mescaline-eating hippies and Molotov-throwing anarchists. They are the bread and butter issues of moderate-liberal voters who regard George Dubya's reign as the most horrific Presidency in their lifetimes.

If Kerry can't at the very least promise (irrespective of whether he actually plans to keep his promises) to differentiate himself from George Bush as concerns the most pressing issues of those most inclined to vote for him, why in the Holy Hell should anybody vote for him?

If he won't do so, those opposed to the Bush Presidency ought to write in Dennis Kucinich (who would make such promises, in a heartbeat) come November, and then, regardless of whosoever the voting machines tell us has prevailed, redouble our activist and grassroots organising efforts. Casting a ballot once every for years cannot be considered an in any way acceptable substitute for persistent participation throughout the duration of each four-year cycle.