Fireworks are cool, so I'll probably take a look at them tonight. But on this day, I always like to go back and read parts of Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States:
"When the Declaration of Independence was read, with all its flaming radical language, from the town hall balcony in Boston, it was read by Thomas Crafts, a member of the Loyal Nine group, conservatives who had opposed militant action against the British. Four days after reading, the Boston Committee of Correspondence ordered the townsmen to show up on the Common for a military draft. The rich, it turned out, could avoid the draft by paying for substitutes; the poor had to serve. This led to rioting, and shouting: 'Tyranny is Tyranny let it come from whom it may.'"
This passage, today, makes me think about our upcoming election, where we must choose between two, wealthy, spoiled, white guys with very similar politics. Everyone I know hates Bush, but will we really benefit from a Kerry presidency? The risk is great that his presidency will do more harm than Bush's, because people will let him get away with a lot more.
It also gets me thinking about the situation in Iraq. For all the talk about how evil Saddam Hussein was, it must confuse some Americans when they hear so many Iraqis are saddened by his capture and criminal charges. Saddam is a jerk and a murderer, but so is George W. Bush, and so was Ronald Reagan, and so is the royal family in Saudi Arabia. What will the new Iraqi government be like? Maybe like the new Afghanistan government? Tyranny is Tyranny.
Happy Fourth of July!
2 comments:
"The risk is great that his presidency will do more harm than Bush's, because people will let him get away with a lot more."
I don't agree. I think that Kerry will be under such intense scrutiny that he will have to answer for everything he does. The GOP will be out to destroy him and the Dems will have a coalition that is rather tenuous; as soon as they left/progressives smell tyranny, they will bolt, splitting the Democratic party.
Bush, on the other hand, will have nothing to lose during a second term. Furthermore, if he continues in power he will be able to further the Norquist goal of destroying the Federal Government and the Cheney goal of creating permanent war. It is vital that these programs be stopped before they can do any more damage to the American system.
If for no other reason, it is imperative that Bush be relieved from duty in November so that he does not have the opportunity to stack the courts any more than he already has. We cannot afford to have Alberto Gonzales appointed to the Supreme Court.
While Kerry may not be an ideal candidate for many, he certainly represents the only realistic choice for those who wish to move towards a more progressive society. Rejecting Kerry as not progressive enough is short-sighted, in my view.
Progress is slow - a Kerry presidency can usher in a new beginning, but a Bush presidency can only bring untold harm. I'm not willing to sacrfice the country to another Bush term because Kerry isn't progressive *enough.*
Bush has nothing to lose in a second term. This is an important point; and one I will have to think about for awhile. Certainly Bush has proven that he has the ability to ignore all critics and still shamelessly, and with a smirk, continue crazier and crazier policies. So maybe you're right.
Post a Comment