Cross posted in my blog GrassrootsGrowth.org.

Here is why I am supporting Hillary in 2008, despite her stance on the war in Iraq…

Things change. And things have changed. The Bush administration caught me by surprise – big surprise. When I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 I did not fully understand what a difference there would be between Bush and Gore. While I thought then that I was doing the right thing (by forcing the Democrats to take note of their Left flank) I know now that the world would be far safer and the United States far more equitable, had all us Greens voted for Gore in 2000.

George Bush has been no ordinary President.  He has done more to damage the republic than any President since at least Nixon.  And I think that he actually trumps Nixon – perhaps taking the republic back to the days of Harding.  But no president has had both the power to change things and the distain for liberal democracy in the history of our republic like Bush has.  Bush is moving the imperial presidency into high gear, declaring new powers of secrecy, detention and warmaking that no other president has tried to do.  His administration has violated the most basic tenets of our legal system – from transparency to habeas corpus to gross kickbacks and basic incompetence.

Bush has smashed the International System that had been at the heart of America’s policy of supporting stability and gradual progress throughout the world.  While stability is not the only thing that matters in world affairs, it is the only way to prevent wars.  We are, as a world, much less safe today than we were before Bush became President.  Bush’s distain for the rule of law is pervasive.  His two elections both illustrate this.  And his illegal war of aggression, a crime against the peace, makes him a war criminal.

Things have changed.  George Bush is unlike any Republican before him.  For one thing, he’s anti-republican. He’s opposed to the legal principles on which our republic stands.  For another, he differs from Democrats and mainline Republicans in that he goes beyond merely not sharing the same priorities as his liberal counterparts to actually not sharing the same vision of a liberal republic.  Bush seeks absolute power based on his ideology of greed, base power and narrow-minded religion.

Worse is how things have changed at all levels of government.  A new breed of populist politics has led to consolidated power for the theocrats and corporatists in Washington.  This power for the rich is built on the backs of the working and middle classes who are told lies by Fox, Clear Channel and the other corporations that owe America’s news channels.  Armed with a massive propaganda machine, the zealots for the anti-republican agenda of the neocons and theocrats are tearing the moral fabric of this nation a part.  The Congress and the Supreme Court will soon both be in the hands of theses forces, and our nation may continue it massive slide from its core values to new values of empire and conquest.

I have changed as well.  Since voting for Nader in 1996 and 2000, I went from an avid Green to a rock solid Democrat.  It was not an easy path for me, since as I was moving to over to the Democrats they were failing big time. A party with no backbone does not build confidence. But despite this, I supported and voted for Kerry.  I did so even though his weak opposition and earlier support for Bush’s war appalled me.  I did so despite his “centrist” positions on the other issues that matter to me.  As a far left liberal, Kerry was not my first pick.  Kucinich, Dean and Sharpton all made far more sense to me than Kerry did.  But, after thinking long and hard, I decided that things had changed enough that it was time to add myself to the big tent that is coalition politics in the United States.  I did so knowing that nothing had been promised to the far left, and that things would keep sliding from my values even if Kerry had won.  Essentially I was admitting defeat – or at best I was retreating to the center until conditions got better.

After the election I was stunned.  George Bush (whether for real or not) had managed to remain in office.  I was stunned because the worst president in my lifetime was getting another four years to screw things up.  I was stunned because it seemed like the country was finally getting it, finally figuring out how much Bush had lied and cheated to get us into an immoral and illegal war.  I was stunned because of all of the energy I had put into the election, about how hard it was for me to become a Democrat.  I was stunned because this meant that things could only get worse, and that we were looking at thirty years of rebuilding to push back the Bush revolution.

All of this made me realize that the stakes were too high to idly watch things go so horribly wrong.  The process made me feel like a citizen, like a citizen of a republic with a civic duty to participate in the system in a very real and tangible way.  Gone was my hope that community-based organizing, academic theorizing and gradual cultural shifts were the right tactics for the time.  Rather, it was time to get into the game – however nasty and compromising it is – and to work within the current system to get back on track (no matter how misguided that track was).

The strategy that I think is called for now is for the Democrats to start winning elections by moving the center and by appealing to the same “common sense” base that the Republicans have a lock on.  These kinds of Democrats are not weak, quite the contrary they must be tough in order to win.  Whatever stance they do take, they need to take for real.  Fight hard, play dirty. Win.  Such a Party will not mirror my liberal Seattle neighborhood.  I will remain far to its left.  But for the Democrats to win, they will need to embrace all of the different regions of the country and be a tent large enough for a winning coalition to fit.

I am joining with the Democrats because I value liberal democracy at its most basic level.  The fabric of our republic is being threatened, and it’s paramount that the reign of power is returned to people who value and respect the institutions of a secular republic.  No Republican, not moderate and not otherwise, can be trusted with the institutions of state until the Republican Party is purged of its neocons and theocrats.  And that leaves only the Democrats to restore liberal democracy in America.

By liberal democracy I am not talking about New Deal liberalism, or progressivism.  I am talking about liberal democracy in the sense that that is what this country is founded upon – classic liberalism.  I believe that things are bad enough today that we must be first concerned about preserving the rule of law, equality of law, protection of the rights of all – including the minority.  I believe that the core principles of liberalism, of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, are at stake given the direction of America under Bush. And it because of this that I am willing to support any Democrat who is truly liberal (in the classical sense) and who can be powerful enough to restore balance of power, rule of law and sane foreign policy.  My choice for President is not based on who can win so much as it based on who can govern. And, I am sad to admit this, but that person will not be someone as far to the left as am I.

John Kerry’s performance in the election was not stellar.  He was essentially a B List candidate who was lucky to emerge because the top Democrats had strategically decided to wait 2004 out. Kerry was the least bad choice for many Democrats, who were choosing someone that seemed Vanilla enough to perhaps not screw things up in case Bush bombed.  I didn’t like this strategy one bit, and was annoyed at all of the settling.  But, then again, it worked – as I and many other former Naderites voted for Kerry despite everything.  We had admitted defeat and joined in with the big tent.

As we get ready for 2008 it’s clear that there will be no B List candidates making it to the top.  This is going to be a knock’em dead kinda race.  Democrats do not want to lose the general in 2008, since to do so may entrench neocon and theocrat rule for a half century.  Republicans will be divided, with the anti-liberalists and liberalists duking it out for country of their party.  And if the Republicans nominate a neocon or theocrat, they will fight hard to hold onto the massive power they’ve managed to build up under Bush.  The stakes are high.

And that is why I decided that this time I was going to focus on national partisan politics for the first time in my activist life.  This step is even bigger for me than was the step towards Kerry and the Democratic Party.  While I don’t expect to ever stop as a grassroots organizer, working with early educators and anti-poverty leaders, I am gearing up to do what at one time seemed impossible for me – which is to put more than just thoughts into national partisan politics.  I am gearing up to put hours of time and effort backing a major candidate for president, which will take time from my far left grassroots organizing work and will add even more to the system that I have always believed is off track, even before it got derailed by Bush.

All of this is why I am planning to organize a grassroots effort (coming soon) to draft Hillary and then to support her as a candidate for President in 2008.  Why Hillary?  For one thing, I believe that she is deep down a committed liberal who shares many (but not all) of my core values.  Hillary’s “It Takes a Village,” legal work for children’s rights, and attempt at solving the health care crisis align with my priorities.  In all but one (albeit major) way, Hillary’s voting record stands out as progressive and right for America.  She has been a consistent supporter of labor, the environment, children’s issues and American families.  I can easily stand by her rhetoric about the rights of women, the need for health care for all Americans and the value of caring for al children as a just society.

I believe that Hillary can hit the ground running, both as a candidate and as President.  She has already learned the hard way that Little Rock and Washington are not the same places.  The naïve Hillary stood out, as really wanting to shake things up, and I believe that we are better off with the more seasoned Senator Clinton.  Hillary is already positioning herself to govern, which will matter if she becomes president of such a divided country.  I am looking for a president that can skillfully turn back the Bush years and bring back America’s sanity.  I believe that Hillary is the one Democrat with the unique qualifications to do just that.

Of course, Hillary has taken stands on other issues besides health care and children’s rights, such as on the war. In this regard, I could not more disagree with her, I think her stance may even hurt her politically, as the support for the war dwindles and the pro-peace movement of in the Democratic Party builds itself up. But Hillary will not be the first Democrat I have supported whose war stance was opposite my own. She’ll be number two in this regard. I disagreed with Kerry just as strongly as do with Hillary, and yet I supported him because I believed that if elected he would do more good than harm than if not. I firmly believe the same with Hillary – and given the times that’s enough for me.

I like that I can support Hillary, not just accept her.  And I think that I am not alone in being drawn to her charisma and vision.  That also matters, as we learned with Kerry.  Hillary will get many Democrats excited, and she will forcefully talk about the issues that matter to Americans.  That is why I have decided to not only support Hillary, but also to devote my time to drafting her as a candidate and to getting America behind her.

disclosure