Why Dennis Kucinich Should Be the next President
November 28, 2007 by Joshua Davis
In the mid 1800s with slavery at it’s peak few actively spoke out against it. Now we consider the Quakers, John Brown, and others who championed the cause of captive peoples as heroes. Their simple ideology was that all people are equal. Dennis Kucinich embraces these same views of equality and he is unafraid to speak up about it.
In a debate a few weeks ago Kucinich was asked his stance on illegal immigration. He replied “No human is illegal.” Any person who truly is compassionate would embrace this same ethos. But it is Dennis Kucinich’s forward thinking that offends many people and makes him unelectable.
Even though I want to see a Kucinich administration, I know that is futile, so I have spent my time and money supporting the person who seems more electable, yet closet to Kucinich. That person would be Obama. He reminds me of Bill Clinton when he was running for presidency in ‘92. Clinton presented a moderate and conciliatory image, but when he got in office he was more liberal.
The core issues that America faces in the future relate to humanitarian equality. The Pentagon recently released a long term strategy, which basically outlines what they’ll research. According to their strategy they’re preparing for many more wars in the slums of 3rd world countries like Iraq.
Waging wars for oil with the cost of innocent civilians defiantly isn’t compassionate. Neither is denying health care to people - especially children. And lastly why do the coordinates someone is born at make them a legal person or an illegal person? Kucinich’s congressional voting record definatly shows if he was president he’d come out on the right side of the history books.
I should write an article promoting Kucinich! At least I wouldn’t state in the article
that he won’t win so I’m supporting someone else. Is this an article promoting Kucinich or Obama?
[Reply]
Jeffrey Pritchard Reply:
November 29th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
He’s just saying the truth about the Kucinich campaign. I like Dennis too, but he’ll never win.
[Reply]
He’ll never win because no one believes that he will ever win! So I’m an idealist. Many people seem to use “idealist” as an insult, but I’m glad to be one.
And I have to say: no wonder that the country is so backwards, everyone just keeps settling for less in the name of electability to support the less progressive candidates. Well, we’ll get exactly what we deserve.
If you ignore the most progressive candidates and settle for the more “electable” ones, then you’ll end up with policies like “Don’t Ask, don’t tell” and NAFTA.
Personally, I would rather support a cause that I truly believe in, and fail, than support a cause that I only somewhat believe in, and win.
But I’m just an idealist fool. Here, let me get a few more old quotes out on this subject, from some people who are perhaps more credible than myself:
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.†- John Quincy Adams
“The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just.†- Abraham Lincoln
“Democracy is a device which ensures that the people will be governed no better than they deserve.” –George Bernard Shaw
[Reply]
Jeffrey Pritchard Reply:
November 29th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Once again, Obama IS a cause I truly believe in.
[Reply]
Good, I’m glad to hear that.
[Reply]
I wish this presidential race was about the classic progressive vs conservative issues. But this election is about weather the American republic will destroyed or preserved.
If any of the top four Republicans win I can assure you, we will have reduced civil liberties, more wars, perhaps even a terrorist attack due to further antagonizing of mid east countries. They will also continue to drain the national treasury, and sell America out to corporations.
Hopefully in 2012 I wouldn’t mind throwing my time and vote behind someone who is a long shot candidate. But now it is a battle between which is the lesser wrong.
One last thing. I heard a European once say that conservatives in Europe are like our liberals, but American conservatives would be considered extremists in Europe.
[Reply]
Do you really think that just having a new Democratic President in office will erase the fact that the Executive Office now has greatly overreaching authority? Bush has greatly expanded the powers of the Executive office, testing the American people to see how much he can get away with, and we have allowed him to get away with a great deal of illegal activity. I don’t think that things will necesarily change with a Democratic president because of the simple fact that it takes a person with a very strong will, like George Washington, to refuse excess power if it is offered to them. The issue is not whether we elect a Republican or a Democrat, it is the specific person that we elect. The main question that we should ask of all of the candidates: would you engage in the exercise of excess, unconstitutional power, if you knew you could get away with it? That is the real question.
I’m pretty sure that the top four Republicans wouldn’t refuse the excess power if they knew they could get away with it, but I’m slightly less certain about the top three Democrats, although they, like the Republicans, are ambitious and greedy politicians. The only candidates who I am certain are capable of refusing excess power are Gravel and Kucinich. It is very probable that some of the others, like Biden and Dodd and Paul, would be able to, but I lack certainty.
Hey, and listen, Bill Clinton didn’t treat parts of the Middle East especially well either; there were sanctions on Iraq during his time in office, and hundreds of thousands died as a result. The sanctions crippled their economy, but Saddam Hussein probably didn’t miss a meal. Antagonizing the Middle east didn’t start with Bush, and it is not reserved solely to Republicans, although the Republicans certainly have antagonized the Middle East enormously.
And, lastly, I agree with you that the Republicans will sell out America to the corporations, but, on the other side of the coin, have you looked at the Democratic party lately?
[Reply]
I understand Joshua’s reasoning here, Elizabeth. Listen to our interview with Max Blumenthal on the podcast. He pretty much directly speaks to this dilemma.
We are not at a juncture right now to support a candidate like Dennis Kucinich wholeheartedly. The change he’s proposing is sweeping and far-reaching. He’s advocating the kind of change that will come after years of having allowed the Progressive agenda to take root and make strides before the Progressive agenda has really even begun to do either.
We can be idealistic about our ultimate goals, but, in the interim, we have to be realistic about how we can get there. We get there by electing capable leaders who may not be as liberal on certain issues as we would like, but who will lay the groundwork and make small advancements towards the end result of the Progressive agenda.
As advancements are made and accepted by the American people, advancements can be made upon those, and so on. In 20 years, a candidate like Kucinich could very well be widely considered mainstream. I don’t share your strident pessimism about the current field of Democrats running to be president. I think an Edwards, Obama, Biden, or even Clinton Administration would be good starting points in our effort to overhaul American government.
[Reply]
We, this generation of youths right here, right now, are the future. We have the ability ourselves to remake America to the point that Dennis Kucinich is considered mainstream. But that will only happen if we, the youth, disavow the mainstream and less progressive ideas of today and strike out on a new path for ourselves for tomorrow. We are the future, don’t waste that privilege. Don’t waste it on the old ideas of today. We have the ability to become the ultra-progressive generation which you describe, if we would only take that opportunity.
Now, I would like to apologize in advance, because I’m sure that there is some thing or another which is objectionable about what I wrote. But if everyone is solidly realistic, then they will not try anything outside of the bounds of the reasoning that they know, and therefore nothing new will be done.
[Reply]