Stalinists for Kerry! and Other Roars from the Crowd

by John Lacny

is polite, but we can tell he’s pretty mad at us.

Dear Cockburn:

Here’s you:


“Listening to Democrats screaming about Ralph Nader’s entry into the presidential race we finally understand the mindset of those Communist dictatorships that used to take such trouble to ensure that the final count showed a 99 percent Yes vote for the CP candidate.”

I knew, just fucking knew, that you people would eventually resort to old-fashioned red-baiting to attack the People’s Front against Bush. Knew it. Old Claud Cockburn is spinning in his grave right now, a man who had the gumption to call the POUM what they were for firing on the however-imperfect Spanish Republic from BEHIND the lines even as the falangists closed in for the kill. For that, he’s been called a “totalitarian” ever since, and his son has hitherto at least had the courage to defend him against Orwell, Hitchens, Ron Radosh, and the rest of that offal. No more, it appears; the son has thrown in his lot with the Trotskyites.

Well, here’s one former CounterPunch subscriber who wears the bullshit “totalitarian” slanders of red-baiters as a badge of honor. Self-righteous fools on their way out of the left have always taken the ultraleft and Trotskyite route first, just as Hitchens did, and so are you, as your longtime alliance with the fascist sympathizers at “antiwar.com” should have indicated long ago. Their nonsense is already creeping into your polemics, as can be seen from the loathsome scribblings of your buddy Bruce Anderson, who writes elsewhere in CounterPunch about the Democratic Party being the party of “limo labor,” “ethnic demagogues,” and “gays in wedding gowns.” I fully expect smug diatribes against affirmative action and “special rights” and “union bosses” in the near future.

Your citation of Nader’s previous record is about as relevant right now as a citation of CounterPunch’s own noble record in other times and places. The point is that Nader — and you — are traitors. You are splitters, wreckers, left in form but right in essence and function, every bit as worthy of the turncoat label as David Horowitz. You know it’s true.

So what are you going to do now, call me a “Stalinist”? Maybe it would be better if you just gave up on CounterPunch and skipped a few steps, and just started writing rants for Reason Magazine or the Ayn Rand Institute about how Hillary Clinton is interfering with your right to smoke or something. The part where you hawk Socialist Worker on the street is pretty boring, anyway.

John Lacny

And here’s a tough one (we got lots) about Bruce Jackson’s attack on Nader.

Dear Professor Jackson:

You said:

“Religious fanatics like Nader live in their minds, not in the real world: the rest of us live in the real world, a place where our choices and actions do matter.”

Take me to your real world, o wise one. I am but a lowly high school dropout and I still believe my own eyes. Explain to me, professor, how civil rights and women’s rights and education and jobs and the environment “don’t seem to matter or exist” for a man who has worked tirelessly for them for forty years.

I’m so stupid. All this time I thought Mr. Nader’s hatred of corporate America and the two-party system was a logical response to the untold death and destruction they’ve wrought. Now I know it’s just a symptom of his monomania and religious fanatacism. Thanks for clearing that up.

Thanks, too for putting my weak little mind through the mental gymnastics necessary to process this one: ” most votes cast for Nader would have gone to Gore or they wouldn’t have been cast at all. If Nader had not run, Gore would have won New Hampshire and Florida.”

Again, I’m just a high school dropout. I still can’t figure out how votes that wouldn’t have been cast at all actually belonged to Gore.

I’m also having some difficulty with the concept that Nader should “give a hoot” if his opponent loses. Being one of the dullards who thinks that Gore did actually win Florida, I can’t understand why Democrats are still mad at him.

You higher education guys sure are hard to figure out. Like when you say Nader should be honored, and in the same piece you call him a monomaniac, an idealogue, a lunatic, an egomaniac, a religious fanatic who cares not a bit for real people and someone who is posing and weasling. But I guess a couple of semesters in one of your classes and I’d start to understand all kinds of stuff that’s absolutely mysterious to me now in my inferior mental state.

There’s one mystery, however, I’m certain that I’ll never ever get, one that I know will baffle me until the day I die. How is it that a man can insult his political adversary, abandon basic rules of logic, indulge in vicious little poodle-like attacks and even in jest, even in jest, mind you, call for his adversary to immolate himself, thereby potentially inciting violence on his adversary and disgracing the memory of those brave and immortal souls who made the ultimate sacrifice for the noblest of reasons- and that man is called “Distinguished Professor”.

I guess it is true after all. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Jim Priest

And another…

There’s another aspect of the Democrats’ reaction to Nader’s campaign which you’d failed to mention. It’s their new complaints about how Nader will be doing damage to his own work. Many people cite the fact that Public Citizen lost a lot of its support because of Nader’s 2000 campaign, even though Nader hasn’t had a lot to do with that organization lately.

But such complaints have the whiff of both the bully and the habitual victim. The people making these complaints never try to _prevent_ such damage from happening. No one says, “People shouldn’t punish Public Citizen because they dislike Nader.” They say that Nader shouldn’t raise his head, because then angry Democrats’ll start hurting the hostages. In other words, these critics are _glad_ that irrational liberals are being vindictive against progressive causes, because it gives them moral leverage over Ralph Nader. That’s the bully. The “habitual victim” is the fear that lies under the argument.

Imagine if someone said that Kerry, or the Democrats in general, should refrain from making any criticisms of the Bush administration for these reasons. Don’t offend Dick Cheney, the argument might go, because he might fast-track drilling in Alaska out of spite. Don’t criticize John Ashcroft, or he might start demanding that Democrats provide three kinds of photo ID at airports. That’s not too far removed from the wails of “Nader doing damage to the Left” that we’ve been hearing since 2000.

Until this past weekend, I was ready to swallow my pride and vote for whoever the Democrats were going to nominate. But the reaction to Nader is sickening, and I’m tempted to vote for him out of sheer disgust.

Angry CounterPuncher

And a final word from Fred Feldman, who hits the nail right on the head: NBK NOBODTY BUT KERRY!

Who are they to get in the way of our election? This is not what democracy looks like. Democracy is when everybody but the good candidate pulls out of the race.

I think that the only way to save democracy is for all candidates except Kerry to withdraw from the race. That should include Bush too, of course.

If there is more than one candidate, the horror of 2000 may be repeated! More than one candidate means vote-stealing, reactionary advertising campaigns, the possibility of Republican and Green and socialist candidates, and unpredictable outcomes. The good candidate may not win. The result will be the ruin of democracy.

Only a one-candidate election with Kerry as the candidate can save the nation! Just to be on the safe side, voters who oppose both Kerry and Bush should be required to vote for Kerry. Why should they be allowed to possibly affect the outcome by staying at home or abstaining on the Presidential vote? The Democratic primaries have spoken. Anybody But Bush is named Kerry. For any reasonable, ego-free, other-directed individual, this should be enough to settle the matter.

Four candidates is treason! Three candidates is a crime! Two candidates is one too many! In a democracy, there must be one candidate and all democratic-minded people must vote for him as one! Lets make our vote count in 2004!

Fred Feldman

Weekend Edition
October 9-11, 2015
David Price – Roberto J. González
The Use and Abuse of Culture (and Children): The Human Terrain System’s Rationalization of Pedophilia in Afghanistan
Mike Whitney
Putin’s “Endgame” in Syria
Jason Hribal
The Tilikum Effect and the Downfall of SeaWorld
Paul Street
Hope in Abandonment: Cuba, Detroit, and Earth-Scientific Socialism
Gary Leupp
The Six Most Disastrous Interventions of the 21st Century
Andrew Levine
In Syria, Obama is Playing a Losing Game
Louis Proyect
The End of Academic Freedom in America: the Case of Steven Salaita
Rob Urie
Democrats, Neoliberalism and the TPP
Ismael Hossein-Zadeh
The Bully Recalibrates: U.S. Signals Policy Shift in Syria
Brian Cloughley
Hospital Slaughter and the US/NATO Propaganda Machine
John Walsh
For Vietnam: Artemisinin From China, Agent Orange From America
John Wight
No Moral High Ground for the West on Syria
Robert Fantina
Canadian Universities vs. Israeli Apartheid
Conn Hallinan
Portugal: Europe’s Left Batting 1000
John Feffer
Mouths Wide Shut: Obama’s War on Whistleblowers
Paul Craig Roberts
The Impulsiveness of US Power
Ron Jacobs
The Murderer as American Hero
Alex Nunns
“A Movement Looking for a Home”: the Meaning of Jeremy Corbyn
Philippe Marlière
Class Struggle at Air France
Binoy Kampmark
Waiting in Vain for Moderation: Syria, Russia and Washington’s Problem
Paul Edwards
Empire of Disaster
Xanthe Hall
Nuclear Madness: NATO’s WMD ‘Sharing’ Must End
Margaret Knapke
These Salvadoran Women Went to Prison for Suffering Miscarriages
Uri Avnery
Abbas: the Leader Without Glory
Halima Hatimy
#BlackLivesMatter: Black Liberation or Black Liberal Distraction?
Michael Brenner
Kissinger Revisited
Cesar Chelala
The Perverse Rise of Killer Robots
Halyna Mokrushyna
On Ukraine’s ‘Incorrect’ Past
Jason Cone
Even Wars Have Rules: a Fact Sheet on the Bombing of Kunduz Hospital
Walter Brasch
Mass Murders are Good for Business
William Hadfield
Sophistry Rising: the Refugee Debate in Germany
Christopher Brauchli
Why the NRA Profits From Mass Shootings
Hadi Kobaysi
How The US Uses (Takfiri) Extremists
Pete Dolack
There is Still Time to Defeat the Trans-Pacific Partnership
Marc Norton
The Black Panthers: Vanguard of the Revolution
Andre Vltchek
Stop Millions of Western Immigrants!
David Rosen
If Donald Dump Was President
Dave Lindorff
America’s Latest War Crime
Ann Garrison
Sankarist Spirit Resurges in Burkina Faso
Franklin Lamb
Official Investigation Needed After Afghan Hospital Bombing
Linn Washington Jr.
Wrongs In Wine-Land
Ronald Bleier
Am I Drinking Enough Water? Sneezing’s A Clue
Charles R. Larson
Prelude to the Spanish Civil War: Eduard Mendoza’s “An Englishman in Madrid”
David Yearsley
Papal Pop and Circumstance
October 08, 2015
Michael Horton
Why is the US Aiding and Enabling Saudi Arabia’s Genocidal War in Yemen?