Thanks for this. While it gives good arguments, both principled and strategic, for why an alliance with a reform party led by Buchanan might not be a good idea, it is a significant jump from this to the position stated above, namely that "anti-elitism, anti-government critiques, anti-repression arguments and anti-globalization arguments" should not be a fundamental component of the progressive critique.
Nor does it indicate any particular "lack of understading" on Nader's part. For example, perhaps Nader does not share your unequivocably negative reading of the history of "repressive populism with a producerist narrative." Or maybe he agrees with your reading but has reasons for believing that this particular historical model is not relevant to current historical circumstances. Or maybe he agrees with you on both points but feels that should a real progressive politics develop, it could successfully educate those with bizarre conspiratorialist views to adopt ones more in keeping with reality. I have no idea what Nader's positions are on these matters, but it is not obvious to me that his failure to agree with you on any or all of these points is an indication of either naivete or ignorance.
> Which of our allies on the left are we willing to toss overboard to keep the
> leaky lifeboat of populist anti-elitist politics afloat?
>
>
Point taken. But if "anti-elitism, anti-government critiques, anti-repression arguments and anti-globalization arguments" are not at the core of a progressive program, its hard to see what's left, aside from centrist "reformism."
John Halle Assistant Professor of Music Yale University
CSMT: 203-432-4164, 432-2531 Dept of Music: 203-432-2985 Home: 203-785-9258