First Published: Unity, Vol. 3, No. 19, October 10-23, 1980.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
The following opinion was contributed by a reader on why working people should vote for Jimmy Carter in this year’s presidential election. We encourage our readers to submit other views. For UNITY’S analysis of the election, see page 3 of this, issue.
* * *
As a reader of UNITY I will like to share my views with you on the upcoming presidential elections. I believe that the differences that exist between Carter and Reagan are significant in regards to the interests of our working and minority people and of third and second world people in general.
The ruling class is not all-together. There are serious differences on how to go about exerting their authority and these differences many times are important for our own self-interest. Some policies can be helpful to us, others can be very detrimental. My point is that some of the policies of those that support Carter are in our interest, while of Reagan’s I haven’t found one yet that will be in our interest. Let’s take a look at these differences. In foreign policy, both Carter and Reagan oppose the world-wide advance of the Soviet Union and its surrogates. But there are vast differences on this opposition. The sector that supports Carter sees the need to establish closer ties with the democratic forces of other countries in order to combat Soviet advances. The sector that supports Reagan, on the other hand, do not have the minimum interest in working out principled and respectful relations with other countries, believing that if America could just unleash its mightiness unimpeded by internal interference, it could destroy any opposition.
How do these differences work in our interest? In the world of today, the Soviet Union is the main danger of people’s national independence. On the other hand, third world countries’ main task is to prevent interference with their national independence and to develop their economies to provide their people a better standard of living. On this score we can see some examples of Carter’s policies, e.g., aid to Zimbabwe (let’s remember Mugabe’s statement during his visit here that if Carter had been running in Zimbabwe he would have won the election hands down. I don’t think that statement was just mere courtesy words), aid to Nicaragua, Panama Canal Treaty and non-recognition of the military coup in Bolivia. These are examples of policies that help third world people better their lot. Reagan opposes all this. If Reagan had been president I doubt very strongly if a solution would have been found to Zimbabwe’s struggle, no aid would have been given to Nicaragua, the Panama Canal Treaty would have not been signed, and the military coup of Bolivia would have been recognized immediately. Third world people’s struggle for independence and better internal conditions would be a lot harsher than it is now. To help third world countries achieve their independence and economic development is in the interest of the American people. No unjust foreign wars to fight, no runaway shops looking for super-cheap labor, no thousands of immigrants arriving to our shores because back home foreign interference and local oppression leaves no future. These are some of the reasons that it is in our interest to help third world countries to better themselves.
Another example to take into consideration is the case of the People’s Republic of China. Carter has not only normalized relations with socialist China, but we are seeing a growing friendship and exchange between the two countries. Our growing relationship with China is a vital step towards peace and stability in the world as long as it is based on mutual respect and non-interference in the internal affairs of each country. Furthermore, China has proven to be the clearest opponent of Soviet hegemonist intentions. If Reagan is true to his avowed political positions in regards to Taiwan, the growing relationship between China and the United States, will be jeopardized, both countries will suffer, and the Soviet Union will gain more room to maneuver.
Domestically there is not much to defend Carter on. But things could be much worse if Reagan was the president. With Reagan president, the most reactionary and oppressive sector of the ruling class will have their boy setting the tone for the nation’s policies. The possibilities of a total loss of democratic rights are not farfetched (Remember Nixon was planning exactly that). Many of us are very concerned with the growth of the Ku Klux Klan. I don’t think it is nothing to laugh at the fact that Reagan has been endorsed by the Klan. To me it means that the Klan is clear on where their interest lies. (Also I would like to point out that during Carter’s presidency there have been more appointments of federal judges of minority backgrounds than in all other presidencies combined. In general that is in the interest of our communities, e.g., Bruce Wright). To finalize this point, do we remember the Nixon years when from the White House the tone was being set so that all problems in America were placed on minority peoples backs?
I’m voting for Carter because with him as president, third world nations will have more room to breathe and a chance to strengthen themselves. I don’t expect Carter to solve our problems. The solution to our problems starts by standing up and fighting for our rights. With Carter as president, we have a better chance to survive, organize and fight for our rights.
* * *
Lorenzo Caņizares is an activist in the New York City area.