Michael Perelman wrote:
> I think that the attack on Ralph Nader is ill-founded. Nader has worked
> on an incredible array of issues, ranging from automobile safety,
> medical and pharmaceutical malpractice, trade issues, etc.
>
> I meet all sorts of people on these lists. I can't think of single
> person with whom I agree all the time. On the other hand, I would not
> elevate my individual disagreements into a wholesale dispersion of a
> person.
>
> I think that the challenge to Nader would be healthy for the Green
> Party, but I would not think that a vote for Nader would constitute a
> lesser of two evils approach. A vote for Nader or any of the other
> leftish candidates would be taken as a protest against the status quo.
> When the protest becomes significant enough that it affects the outcome
> elections, as in New Mexico, it might have some effect.
>
> What Nader can do very well is to articulate many of the defects of the
> current political system in a way that people can understand. If, by
> some miracle, he ever made the presidential debates, I suspect that he
> would have considerable effect -- just as the early Jesse Jackson was
> able to do.
>
> Nader, no more than Jackson, with the likely to follow up this initial
> splash with long-term political organization. That would be left for
> others to do.
>
> Again, Nader has accomplished quite a lot in preventing some stupid
> things from happening. The lawsuits that he advocates are all this left
> in a world of deregulation. He has no real political program. He makes
> mistakes, but that's no reason for a wholesale attack. To Instead, I
> would prefer to attack him on specifics.
>
> --
I would like to respond to this in terms offered by Jim Devine in a recent post. He was speaking of establishment candidates, but I think his argument applies to a large category of "protest candidates.
In a post of Wed, 19 Jan 2000 14:47:50 -0800 Jim wrote:
Instead of voting for these eminently establishmentarian candidates, what's needed is pressure from _outside_ the dominant political game. The capitalists do it well: after all, they've convinced "us" that a fall in the bond market is a _bad thing_, so that the Federal Reserve and the federal government should be concerned. The Clinton administration, as Brad should know, changed its policies to avoid offending the bond market (though of course the influence of other powerful forces was taken into account).
Capital can also go on strike, like they did against France when Mitterand took office. They also ally with the military and the intelligence creeps, as when Allende took office in Chile. And in "normal" times, they vote for both major candidates in an election -- with campaign contributions -- diversifying their political portfolios.
Capitalists reject the "lesser of two evils" philosophy, instead pursuing a maximalist strategy: so, you've made concessions, we want more! (This also summarizes US diplomats' attitudes toward the Nicaraguan Sandinistas.) True left-of-center governments -- like the current one in France -- thus always have to _prove_ that they're pro-business.
The only way to deal with this is to build up the _real_ left's political forces _outside_ of the electoral realm. US politics swerved to the left when people were marching and protesting the Great Depression. The growth of the power of the CIO and similar mass movements was the force behind the leftish tilt of the later New Deal (until "Dr. Win-the-War" took over). As the power of the CIO and other mass movements faded -- partly due to the blows of the Truman-McCarthy era, which was largely supported by business -- the "center" of the US political spectrum shifted right. The shifted to the left again only when the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement, and the like mobilized people and created new forces that counteracted the power of money and reaction. The only way that the "center" will shift to the left again is to have similar movements, as with the Battle in Seattle.
As far a electoral politics is concerned, I follow what might be called (in this hyper-capitalist era) the political equivalent of the "buy and hold" strategy of Warren Buffett. I support the building of "third" parties such as Peace & Freedom and the Greens in California. Instead of speculating on the momentary ups and downs of the political market-place, I believe that building such parties and making them a solid and principled presence on the political scene will induce the Republicans and Democrats to shift to the left to try to capture their votes. (What about Jesse Jackson? at least he had a base outside the moneyed power centers.)
Simply backing the "left of center" Democrat _du jour_ encourages the politicians to have nothing but contempt for us. "Hey look at that: those folks will vote for us come hell or high water! So we don't have to change our actions to cater to them. Maybe we can change their rhetoric a little..."
Of course, here in California, the Republicans and Democrats (especially the latter) have tried to exclude the Greens and P&F from the ballot. I guess they don't really believe in democracy.
--------
"The only way to deal with this is to build up the _real_ left's political forces _outside_ of the electoral realm." This I believe is fundamental. A candidate who forwards (actively forwards) this goal (which necessitates, among other things, giving priority to the struggle against gender and race oppression) is left. A candidate who draws on a left constituency but fails to forward this goal is anti-left. From what I know of Nader over the years, he does indeed fail to forward such a goal, and therefore falls at best under the category of "lesser evil." I am open to arguments otherwise, but I will not accept as relevant lists of the good things Nader has done. What is he doing for blacks and women *now*?
Carrol