Lesser-evilism and third parties

B. Deutsch ennead at teleport.com
Mon Aug 28 16:14:56 PDT 2000

: I think there is a certain discomfort with these sorts of "good
: government" solutions since they play into the hands of the
: 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
: 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
: 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
: CEOs, does anyone know of a single person who would pay 7 cents to
: 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.)


More information about the lbo-talk mailing list