Lesser-evilism and third parties

[B. Deutsch]

: I think there is a certain discomfort with these sorts of "good
: government" solutions since they play into the hands of the
technocratic
: wing of the Dems who assume that all problems have to do not with
: institutionalized social and economic injustice, but with poorly
: engineered governmental machinery. So while I agree that
proportional
: representation would help, as a strategic matter I think
progressives are
: better off organizing around issues which go directly to the heart
of the
: increasing class polarization which "good government" types (such as
Gore
: and Bradley) have been directly responsible for in recent decades.

I can see it both ways.  I've spoken to literally dozens of democrats
who agree readily enough that Gore is the pits, and who say they
prefer Nader - but for the chance of electing Bush.  A policy like IRV
could give people more confidence that they won't flush themselves
down the toilet by voting for a progressive candidate they believe in.

I agree that "good guvmint" solutions won't get us anywhere without a
broader analysis of what's wrong.  But in combination with such an
analysis, they might be a useful tool.


: Btw, is everyone clear on the fact that Nader sold out the Portland
: Colliseum at $7 a head? With the exception of lobbyists and
corporate
: CEOs, does anyone know of a single person who would pay 7 cents to
see
: Gore.

The final count was 10,597 people!  In contrast, when Bush appeared at
the University of Portland two weeks ago, he only drew about 2,000
people - and that event was free.  (Maybe W should have tried paying
folks to attend - he could certainly afford to.)

--BD