ETS! encourages comments, feedback, tips, corrections, and info! Please keep them as concise as possible so we can print as many different voices as possible: ETS!, P.O. Box 85541, Seattle WA 98145, or e-mail ets@scn.org.

[ed. note: in the 5-5-04 online issue, somehow in the editing process we matched the front of one letter with the end of another. Here are both in their entirety, with our red-faced apologies...]

The Real Spoiler

I'm really getting sick and tired of hearing people state that Nader was (and is) a spoiler. This argument makes those Democrats who state it sound like those who repeated Bush's line with respect to 911--it's about Saddam; or with respect to Iraq--it's about WMDs. By repeating the lie enough times the flock will start bleating the same line: "Two legs bad, four legs good."

The media has been in cahoots with the Democratic Party on this the whole way, repeating ad nauseam that Nader was (is) the problem. And so this mantra has sunk in to the otherwise astute brains of erstwhile fellow compatriots.

The facts speak for themselves. More registered Democrats voted for Bush than for Nader! That alone should shriek through one's cranium like nails on a chalkboard as to the extent to which the Democratic Party has degraded itself. Add to that the number of people, particularly the poor (regardless of ethnicity), as well as African Americans and Hispanics (which, by the way, is the very sector of society that would vote Democratic), who do not vote. Their apolitical stance is due precisely to the fact that they see little that Democratic politicians or elections can offer them (read: little difference between the Democratic Party and the GOP).

The same logic for deriding Nader could be equally used against Ross Perot or Patrick Buchanan. Why haven't I ever heard one liberal bitch about why Perot or Buchanan didn't run a more aggressive campaign in order to take more votes away from Bush?! Man, what spoilers they were!!!

What further surprises me, is how, whenever you start talking about Nader, Democrats' faces will start turning red. You can see the bile and fury rising up in their necks, and then all hell breaks loose. When you talk about President-Select Bush, they actually seem more at ease. They hate the guy, but they're less furious, even somehow apologetic. What really pisses me off is that these Democrats are least furious about their own party. The fact the Democratic Party hardly reflects the political and social convictions of its members doesn't seem to bother them. Democratic Party supporter after supporter will openly tell you how bad Clinton was, and how bad Kerry is. During the campaign many expressed support for Kucinich. On some occasions they will even go as far to state that Nader's positions are good ones. If you get them to take an on-line poll that will determine whom they should vote for, either Nader or a socialist will pop up. But voting for anyone but Kerry is out of the question, nonetheless. And, by the way, how the hell could you think otherwise?!

Kerry, however, is part of the problem, not the solution. If all the Democrats would stop boohooing for a minute and put their vote where their convictions are, maybe then we would finally have a government we could more or less have respect for and be proud to say we are Americans. Unfortunately, too many liberals are now caught up in the electoral game.

I have a couple of gripes about elections. In the first place, people are suddenly no longer apolitical. Damnit! Politics is not just a once-in-every-four-years activity. It should be a daily personal obligation. As long as you only remain active at election time, or just devote your political activity to getting some corporate slug into office, then you're doing very little to bring political and social change. My second issue is the fact that the energy of too many activists gets absorbed into the electoral circus. The Doupoly Parties have more than enough money to pay anyone they want to do whatever they want. What people need to devote their energy toward is not elections, but issues, and not just one. Kerry is saying that he's going to devote more troops to Iraq! Something most every Democrat I've talked to is opposed to. But these same Democrats are letting that slide as they have to get him elected. WHAT?! Look at Nader! He's calling for an impeachment of Bush. Now that's something to get behind. But godforbid those Democrats were to get behind a Nader initiative!

At this point I think I actually have more respect for Republicans. They know what they want and there will be blood if they can't get it. Democrats, however, are willy-nilly Charlie Browns. They're whining and apologetic. And it's as if the Democratic Party is the Catholic Church - it's always right. So, the last problem they're going to point their finger at is themselves. It's much easier to say the problem is Nader.

Well, sorry to ruin the democratic circus for you. The clowns aren't laughing, the horses have long been turned into glue, and the ring leaders have their heads so far up their corporate asses, that they are oblivious to the hopes and aspirations of the PEOPLE. Meanwhile, too many of the spectators still believe that, be what may, the show must go on. Well, enjoy the show. I'll be outside demonstrating regardless of whether Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum is sitting in the White House.

Curtis Vaughan, Seattle

More Deaths but Slower

I am quite disgusted with Trevor Baumgartner's logic in his ETS! article "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?" that John Kerry will be "less bad" for the world's people than Bush because of the latter's imposition of the Global Gag Rule. Underlying that logic is a racist/paternalistic "White Man's Burden" argument that poor countries can't provide social services unless the US pays for them. I'll ignore the part about how his example of the Philippines showing the difference a dime can make doesn't explain how or why Kerry would provide that dime.

Cuba is one country that provides family planning services not dependent upon US/UN money precisely because Cuba prioritizes healthcare independent of such money. Elites of poor countries often deliberately tie such services to foreign funding (while enriching themselves at their people's expense) so they can shrug their shoulders when that funding is cut off. A much greater positive impact would be achieved by forgiving 100 per cent of the global south's debt and ending IMF/World Bank privatization schemes-- but neither Kerry nor Bush will seriously suggest doing that.

The examples of extra deaths under Republicans must also be balanced against the examples of extra deaths under Democrats. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died from the Bushes' invasions, but up to 1.5 million Iraqis died from "UN" sanctions (actually, many hundreds of US-only Security Council vetoes of Iraqi import contracts under Clinton). And don't forget Democrat Johnson leading the US into the Vietnam War using the lie of the Gulf of Tonkin "incident."

Republicans aren't the only US Imperialists--Democrats are imperialists, too. A lower rate of death may actually translate to more total deaths if the system causing those deaths lasts longer than it would otherwise. And spreading illusions that Democrats are better because they're genocidal but at a slower pace than Republicans may simply delay the day when the corporate-controlled duopoly is deposed.

Dan DiLeva, via email