"Howard Zinn's Clothespin Endorsement" b/w "Shifting the focus of Blogs"

The latest issue of Punk Planet has an article where Howard Zinn is questioned on what he thinks what needs to be done this election. If you're familiar with Zinn's views on politics, his response may surprise you. It may also go to show just how evil the presidency of George W. Bush is if it can convert Zinn into a Democrat for 30 seconds, long enough to cast his vote for the "lesser evil." But, as Zinn notes, we can't stop with a vote.

In 2000, he voted for Nader. It was the "good and right" thing to do, he says. I asked him if this time around he was prepared, as many are, to vote for the candidate with the best chance of beating the president.

"Yes. I hate to say it, but yes," he replied.

"That doesn't mean that I would give up on a third party movement," he adds, "but I would give up on a third party presidential candidate. This is one of those rare situations where the lesser of two evils -- the difference between one evil and another -- is critical enough to justify voting for the lesser evil. [emphasis mine]

Zinn has even written a speech for whomever that "lesser evil" might be. [This article was written before the Iowa caucus.] The fantasy campaign speech, published in The Progressive, declares: "We can choose to use the wealth of our nation and the talents of our people for war, or we can use that wealth and talent to better the lives of men, women, and children in this country. We can continue being the target of anger and terrorism and indignation by the rest of the world, or we can be a model of what a good society should be like, peaceful in the world, prosperous at home.

"The choice," the speech concludes, "will come in the ballot box."

That said, Zinn still insists that he doesn't "think that people should throw all their energies into the electoral arena. I think that it will be very important, whomever is elected -- whether a conservative Democrat is elected or Bush is re-elected -- it will be very important to have a growing movement out there in the country which can at least try to limit what these administrations may do." [emphasis mine]

For decades Howard Zinn has tried to steer progressive hopes out of the ballot box and into the streets but in 2004, the 81 year-old activist and historian is urging a merger: "For 30 seconds, you swallow your pride. But before and after the voting booth you are a relentless critic of our foreign policy -- whether it's the Republicans or Democrats who urge it.

"And you must have a movement," he continues, "that makes it clear that it's not enough to elect an alternative to Bush. The policies Bush represented should not be perpetuated by a Democrat. There is a danger that people will be lulled, but that's the job of the movement --- to try to make sure that they are not.

"Whoever the president is, we need a movemet. Even Reagan was subject to some kind of recognition of what was out there int he country and Nixon certainly was too. Bush seems impervious to that and yet, if he's re-elected, we will need a movement.

"As difficult as it may be," Zinn adds.

Zinn brushes on a couple important points. The first one I noticed is that I don't feel like as much of a sell-out for supporting Kerry, the lesser evil. In 2000, I wasn't supposed to be scared of a Bush administration since the only alternative was Gore, and what alternative was that? But in 2004, if Howard freakin' Zinn is so scared of Bush that he's willing to vote for Kerry, I don't feel so bad about my fears bringing me to the same conclusion.

However, Zinn and I share the same views in not supporting Kerry. We'll put a clothespin on our noses for 30 seconds to vote for the man, but we do not trust the man to work in our best interests. We need a movement to keep the president, whomever that president is, in check so they don't perpetuate the policies that would just be put in place by a neocon administration. And let's face it, the Democrat Party, with as many times as their national leaders support the Republicans, isn't that movement.

So, where is this movement? It's going to have to be in the streets eventually, but where does it start? You're looking at where it starts -- with blogs. And I hope any blogger reading takes this to heart. One of the dangers I see coming from blogs is their nature of partisanship. The Republican bloggers think they're right 100% of the time and Democrat bloggers are fools, and visa versa. But neither side seems willing to apply the critical eye to those they support. You never see a Republican blogger criticize Bush about inflating job growth figures or increasing the size of government by a larger percentage then Clinton could ever dream of. And you'd be hardpressed to find a Democrat blogger who gives Kerry the big "fuck you" for supporting Bush's war in Iraq or being for tax cuts for the rich.

Also trouble among the blog movement in general is the emphasis on how change will come solely at the ballot box. We need to focus on getting Bush out of office, that's very important, but what Howard Zinn has touched upon is even more important: there needs to be a movement. We need to build this movement. Building our own media with blogs is a great frist step, but if we don't use it to organize our presence in the streets across this nation, then the movement well never progress. We'll simply become a bunch of blowhards behind a keyboard who can't stop bitching about problems that we can solve. To solve these problems, bloggers will need to go beyond the partisan lines of their party and become independent, because only an independent force which focuses on a set agenda will be able to hold our elected leaders in check in an unbiased manner.