Why vote for David Price?

Why should progressives vote for Price, when he supports imperialist policies and squanders opportunities to resist the Bush Administration?   Consider some of his recent votes (details at thomas.loc.gov and www.house.gov/price):

 

House Resolution 921 in July, which supported Israeli aggression in Lebanon and Bush's support for it, painting that aggression as a response to "completely unprovoked" attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah, praised Israel's "continued efforts to prevent civilian casualties," and implied that Syria and Iran should be "held accountable" for supporting Hamas and Hezbollah.   It didn't call for military action, but it points that way, and "diplomatic" measures can kill millions too (think Iraq in the 90's).  Price called the bill "significantly flawed," yet he voted for it!   His form letter to me only mentions concerns about Lebanese civilian casualties and the lack of peace leadership from George Bush, and called Hezbollah's rocket attacks "a threat to [Israel's] very existence as a sovereign nation," as if that was the cause of the war.   He supports the bankrupt position that Israel is an innocent victim of Hamas and Hezbollah, indigenous national liberation movements, not the predatory occupying power Israel really is.   His July 28 letter to Bush says "Hezbollah's unprovoked raid across the internationally recognized border between the two nations, and its subsequent rocket attacks – explicitly aimed at civilian targets – left Israel no choice but to defend itself."   A large factor in Price's vote might have been to appeal to the Zionist vote by supporting Israel, no matter how much it is in the wrong.  If this is so, Price didn't give those who support justice for Palestine and Lebanon a lot of consideration.      

 

The Henry J. Hyde United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act of 2006 (House Resolution 5682), certifying Bush's nuclear technology agreement with India, breaking the Non-Proliferation Treaty and rewarding India for its development of nuclear weapons.   Ironically the only representatives in the State to vote against it were Republicans Walter Jones and Charles Taylor.  After that vote, how can those who voted in support of the deal condemn the DPRK for its nuclear weapons program?   Price even joined Etheridge, Watt, Jones, and others in voting for another bill, which failed, but would have required that India support US anti-Iran policies before the Bush deal would be in force.   If Price wins the election next week he might have to vote on aggressive actions against Iran or the DPRK, and his record offers little assurance that he will resolutely resist chauvinist double standards and aggression.    

 

Some other bills Price supported H. Con. Res. 65, commending Turkey for its military contributions to the "War on Terror" (meanwhile Turkey is oppressing northern Kurdistan and attacking the Kurds in Iraq), H. Con. Res. 83 to condemn China's human rights record at the UN last year (I'm sure there are violations, but I say first deal with our own crimes), H. Con. Res. 723, seeming to call for NATO intervention in Sudan, a bill, H. Res. 900, supporting full investigation of terrorist financing, barely mentioning that that investigation should be lawful and with Congressional oversight, and a bill allowing US survivors of terrorism to sue foreign governments for involvement in terrorism.   

 

Price could easily have provided a symbolic reason for progressives and liberals to support him next week, but refused to merely be on record as a co-sponsor of bills to resist Bush policies.   He did not cosponsor Barbara Lee's resolution to investigate how the USA and UK planned their aggression against Iraq or John Conyers' bills (H. Res. 635) to investigate whether there have been impeachable crimes and to censure Bush and Cheney (H. Res. 636 and 637).   Regarding the domestic wiretapping he joined a California representative to ask Bush to appoint a special counsel to investigate his Administration.   Of course, Bush refused and said the source of the leak should be found.  Price co-sponsored H. Con. Res. 148. commemorating the revolutionary Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence, the first declaration, but only a few bills to combat modern tyranny in America.    

 

This is not to say that Price is all bad (though his vote supporting Israel is a huge mark against him in my opinion).   He at least politely listens to constituents (at least that has been my impression so far), he says he agrees with many of our demands, and he is socially liberal.  Price and Miller introduced House Joint Resolution 70 late last October, requiring Bush to present a plan to end the occupation of Iraq and "prosecute without quarter a war on terrorist organizations and networks around the world." He co-sponsored H. Con. Res. 391 (a month after it was introduced), which says that past acts of Congress do not give Bush the authority to attack Iran and that it is a "legal and constitutional requirement" that Congress be consulted before he does (not that it is wrong to attack Iran over the nuclear issue).   He co-sponsored bills to force the Bush Administration to release information about the affect of climate change on this country (H. Res. 515), domestic wiretapping (H. Res. 643), and the Plame leak (H. Res. 363), the White House Iraq Group (H. Res. 505), and H. Con. Res. 197, prohibiting permanent US bases in Iraq.   He co-sponsored several bills supporting Medicare (H. Con. Res. 213)  and Medicaid (H. Con. Res. 215 and 231), open bidding in Katrina and Rita recovery efforts (H. Con. Res 251), to temporarily ease sanctions on Cuba after Hurricane Dennis (H. Con. Res. 206), and equal rights for the sexes (H. Res. 67 and H.J. Res. 37).  He supports Iranian-Americans (H. Res. 367), Haiti debt cancellation (H. Res. 888), gay rights, and he helped improve water quality in the Haw River basin.   However, most of these bills disappeared into committees, and they were not far reaching, and possibly not as good as they might sound.  Price did vote against the Iraq War initially, though it has been argued that he did so because activists occupied his Chapel Hill office.   Price is at least better than Rep. Bob Etheridge and possibly better than Brad Miller on impeachment.     

 

People might also object that if Price doesn't win we will have Steve Acuff, a conservative retired Air Force colonel who actually supports the Iraq War, a flat tax supporter, is against choice, "pro-marriage" (?), vaguely in favor of deporting unauthorized immigrants, and has other reactionary views, (see www.steveacuff.com, which isn't very detailed for such a high post).  This is lesser evilism, leading to the obnoxious arrogance of some Democrats I was confronted by in 2004.  So we should support someone who, among other things, supports Israeli aggression and doublespeak, international nuclear double-standards, and does not go far enough to resist Bush and assert Congress' rightful authority, which he advocates, instead?   This blog post is not part of a far-reaching campaign, so I very much doubt that Price will lose this election on account of me.  Price is in a pretty liberal and heavily Democratic district, so it should be very safe for him, yet he doesn't take great risks for his voters on the Iraq War, Lebanon, holding Bush accountable, or other issues.    

 

The Democratic Party leadership supports the capitalist elite (just with a different tact than the Republican leadership), so it is not going to automatically support most reforms progressives want.   If the Party is stung by the temporary loss of its liberal and progressive, working and middle class base, they might give our demands more support.   Voters have to take risks to hold the Democrats accountable, and not voting for the Democrat is a small risk in a district like ours.  The alternative is continuation of the deadly status quo and the doormat treatment for the Democratic Party's base.    

 

Ultimately we need a party that actually represents interests of the majority of the American people, a real working class, democratic, and socialist party.   The working class is the bedrock of progressive ideas, and it is a sorry state of affairs when the Republicans can call a group like the Democrats socialists.   Price is liberal, (supporting soft empire abroad and placating the masses at home) and ineffective and defeatist (as long as the Republicans control Congress, etc.) at that, when we need people who will completely oppose the Bush Administration's war for the rich, on American and international workers, from Durham and New Orleans to Falluja and Beirut.   Bipartisanship is okay, but not at the expense of the principles politicians are elected to serve.  A few Democrats do serve the working class relatively faithfully, but not our NC representatives.            

 

For these reasons, I plan to write in Kent Kanoy's name as a protest vote, if it is possible to write-in on the ballot.   Kent Kanoy ran to the left of Price in the primary in the spring.  And after the election we need to increasingly hold Democrats responsible for abetting the crimes of the Bush Administration and progressive people need to organize to be independent of the Democratic Party and to carry forward the progressive and democratic ideas the Democrats can't and won't take up (ever).   If there is a "Blue Revolution" next week it will be even more important to hold the Democrats accountable, because without pressure little will change in Washington.   The Marxist-Leninist Organizer (see www.mltranslations.org) has a good article from 2003 about the need for a united front to unite our causes in opposition to the united capitalist program we confront (for example, compare who is being served by reconstruction in New Orleans and reconstruction in Iraq under the neo-cons and the Democrat leaders).   Others say the same thing, and it is an issue of life or death everywhere today.