FourWinds
|
Voting for the lesser of two evils
Aug 29, 2002, 17:07
|
Well, from what friends in Germany have told me there is quite a movement to make sure people vote for Schroeder in the forth coming elections in order to keep the other guy out.
It's like having to vote for Maggie to keep Enoch Powell out!
|
Pete G
|
Re: Voting for the lesser of two evils
Aug 30, 2002, 01:07
|
So would you vote for George W to keep George senior out?
"Don't vote! The goverment will get in!" Spike Millagan
Glod bless 'im.
PetG
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Voting for the lesser of two evils
Aug 30, 2002, 09:02
|
|
Another good analogy. That's the sort of choice they seem to have. Gawd help us!
|
necropolist
|
Re: Voting for the lesser of two evils
Aug 30, 2002, 10:38
|
Like voting for Thatcher to keep out Enoch Powell?
Uhhh, I’d have to disagree. Schroeder leads the German SDP, an organisation which like the Labour Party, still belongs to the Second, or (laughably named) Socialist, International. So it’s rather like voting Blair to keep out Hague (Christ, the amount of time it took me to remember that bugger’s name, how quickly we forget the instantly forgettable).
Obviously voting for Schroeder is a quite unpleasant task, but it aint (quite) like voting for a Tory! It’s kinda sad that people won’t vote Green/radical leftist (not sure if/which radicals are standing mind), but that’s because of THEIR failures, not any kind of keep out Stoiber feeling. The Greens have been appalling in office – pro-market, pro-war, not very anti-nuke – and the German far left has always been rather pathetic and split (really, they make the British far-left look like a hippy lovefest).
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Voting for the lesser of two evils
Aug 30, 2002, 11:19
|
Maybe I was over stating the comparison and the Blair/Hague one might be closer. However, in the lastest "How Right-Wing Are You?" figures Blair is now right of Hague (I had to think about his name and you'd just said it!), so perhaps it should be voting for Blair to keep Duncan-Smith out.
Eeeewwww - the thought sends shivers down me spine.
Why haven't the Greens been any good in Germany? That's a good question that no one can really answer. The fuckers even voted to allow German troops to re-enter combat again!!!???
|
necropolist
|
Re: Voting for the lesser of two evils
Aug 30, 2002, 11:55
|
Why have the German Greens been so crap? Because they’re liberal reformists, and so the important thing for them is to be in office (deluding themselves that office=power). So these ex-revolutionaries and ex-terrorists (in some cases) give up on matters of principal so that they can push thru tiny little bits of legislation that amount to bog all. Sad really. They should have read Rosa Luxembourg’s ‘Reform or Revolution’, might have stood a chance then .
(Actually, I bet they have read it, just forgotten everything that’s in there)
|
Popel Vooje
|
Re: Voting for the lesser of two evils
Sep 02, 2002, 12:58
|
|
Isn't that the same choice that we have, give or take a few anti-Euro sentiments? Maybe not quite, but it's not that far off, really.
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Voting for the lesser of two evils
Sep 02, 2002, 14:32
|
Well, it's not quite the same bacause at the moment Duncan-Smith does not stand a chance of getting in ... does he?
The problem in Germany is that t'other bloke (I keep forgetting his name!) could get in.
|
Merrick
|
Re: Voting for the lesser of two evils
Sep 03, 2002, 13:46
|
The reason why the German Greens are so crap in power is the same reason everyone is crap when they're in power - the proximity to power turns people authoritarian. Jack Straw said so much col stuff in opposition - much of it not big vote-winners - yet when he became home secretary he became the bastard son of Michael Howard. Ditto Blunkett.
Grufty Jim said he saw a half-hour interview with William Hague (who??) the other week, and he's turned into a humane and honest person. He openly admitted mistakes (listing his biggest as 'not stopping Jeffrey Archer sooner'). But when in power all issues pale beside the need to STAY IN POWER. And so they're always vicious, point-scoring and trying to seem in control and invincible cos they love their power so, irrespective of how they use it.
Centralised and parliamentary politics are the only true single-issue politics, the single issue being the acquisitiion of power.
This is why any change of government, or even any revolution leading to a new centralised power structure, makes only superficial changes and can only give us authoritarianism and misery.
This is why i'm just as against the elite vanguard socialists as much as the capitalists and fascists.
|
necropolist
|
Re: Voting for the lesser of two evils
Sep 03, 2002, 14:20
|
"Centralised and parliamentary politics are the only true single-issue politics, the single issue being the acquisitiion of power."
that's a bloody brilliant line, and spot on.
i will use it again and again!
the difference (i think) between anyone coming to 'power' by election and by revolution, is that in a revolution the great mass of the population take part and are ACTIVELY changing things, unlike an election which is almost the most passive way of doing anything there is. And once people have become active, realised that there actions CAN have a real effect, then the ability of any party, vanguardist or otherwise, to hold them back is greatly greatly limited. But vanguardist parties MAY (and I say may, cos I'm really not sure any more) have an important role in getting us to that revolution.
Oh, and i put 'power' in inverted comma's, becasue i think the main problem is actually a LACK of power. Once they're in office any party, but especially a minority one like the greens, finds they don't really run things, and there powers are incredibly limited. So they settle for jack shit, and then - as you say - will do anything to desperately cling on to that shit.
|
