SIAW seems to think there’s a contradiction between not knowing which individuals control the Republican party (is George Bush dumb and manipulated, or devious and acting?) and suggesting that, whichever individuals are in charge, a second Bush term enabled by the votes of religious fundamentalists will increase social oppression in the US.
To be expected, I guess: Marxists never were great on the ‘logic’ side of things. Or at recognising polemic (no, I don’t think the US is *really* set for a real-life Handmaid’s Tale any time soon. I do think it’s what the fundamentalists want, and I can see that they’re getting more power. This is scary enough to warrant some hyperbole).
(1) "Social oppression"? That’s a heavy concept, even when it’s spelled right … The second Bush term has been enabled, not mainly by "religious fundamentalists" as you hyperbolically suggest, but by, among others, a wide range of Christians, social conservatives and what used to be called "Reagan Democrats" – people who would have voted Democrat if they could have brought themselves to trust the patrician flip-flopper. Whatever minor adjustments in the general level of oppression in the US may follow, it’s hard to see either (a) how it would have been so very different under Kerry or (b) why it merits greater attention, and indignation, than the much greater levels of social oppression in many other countries.
(2) Actually, no, hyperbole is hardly ever warranted, and especially not in the course of what is claimed to be a serious discussion. The only effect is to make it look as if these issues are simply too big and complex for you to get your head round. We agree with you that hyperbole, like swearing and sneering, can be a useful weapon, but (as we’ve had to learn) they’re all more effective the more sparingly they’re used. Also, the more plausibly: the idea that Marxists are bad at logic seems surreal when a more effective criticism would be that (some) Marxists are all too prone to rely on the logic of their fixed categories in preference to paying attention to the messier aspects of reality.
(3) Thanks for your e-mail about previous presidential elections. On the nine occasions since 1948 when Vice Presidents or former Vice Presidents have run for the presidency (six Rep, three Dem), there have been five victories (Johnson once, Nixon twice, Ford once, Bush Sr once), so your assertion that "they’re even worse than senators at getting and staying elected …" looks wrong. Perhaps you overlooked the point that Nixon was an ex-VP?
Thanks for spelling correction, now fixed. And yes, I forgot about Nixon.
And the reason to get more excised about oppression in the US than elsewhere is because the US appears to be starting from a liberal democratic point and going backwards, which is worse than starting from an oppressive point and staying there.
This is also the good reason why Mugabe has received more attention than other murderous maniacs in Africa (the bad reason being that more white people are affected by Mugabe’s plans).
"(Johnson once, Nixon twice, Ford once, Bush Sr once)"
Ford didn’t win an election. It doesn’t change the balance much, mind. Perhaps a more accurate statement would be that Vice-Presidents are surprisingly poor at getting and staying elected given the seniority of their previous position.
thanks for the correction on Ford – we weren’t paying much attention to US politics in 1976, what with O levels and punk and all, but that’s no excuse … The five victories we referred to should of course have included Truman once (1948).
Five out of nine still doesn’t look that bad, but, yes, you’d think others might have done better. Maybe it’s because the VP position itself looks so pointless, while experience as a governor or (in LBJ’s case) a long-serving leader in the Senate looks more impressive?
Looking at the VP defeats, I’d say it doesn’t have much to do with the position itself. Nixon faced a strong candidate (and a ballot-fixer, lest we forget) in 1960; in ’68, both candidates were former Veeps; The Republicans were tainted by Watergate in ’76; Clinton ran a perfect campaign to beat Bush in ’92; and Gore ran a dreadful campaign to lose (sort of) to Bush jr in 2000. So every defeat was dependent more on the particular circumstances of the campaign than on public perception of the Vice-President’s role. On the victory side, I think it’s reasonable to say that the position of, say, Bush sr, was definitely improved by the fact voters knew him as vice-president, although again you would have to take into account he was facing a weak and easily beatable candidate.
In conclusion: not much.