> 1. Don't you think its just the least bit hypocritical of
Nader to say he wants to focus on how US labor laws make it
difficult to organize unions when he himself has used those
laws and the system to stifle unions at his own shop (and
not only at Multinational Monitor)?
>
[mbs] Of course. This particularly offends me, since I work for a non-profit. But it might be noted that such hypocrisy is pretty common, on a par w/sexual exploitation. if we wait for higher levels of perfection we might wait a long time.
> 2. Isn't how a man like Nader treats employees relevant
to a movement that is supposedly trying to create an
alternative, more democratic society?
Ditto. And not only to those within it, and for those potentially affected by it, but also for mere appearances sake. It's a political handicap; many among the general public would not have the same tolerance for ambiguity as true believers.
>
> 3. Do you think Nader would agree to the unionization by
card check of Public Citizen and other Nader organizations
if presented with a majority of pro-union cards today? And
if he didn't, would you still vote for the guy?
>
[mbs] I don't think this is the right criterion. To me the right one is, does Nader's candidacy provide a usable tool for enlightening and mobilizing people. If a crop of fair-sized trade unions got behind RN's candidacy, to me that is the sort of evidence that something worthwhile could come out of it.
> 4. Doesn't it concern you that throughout the last 20
years, Nader has never said a word about US foreign policy -
Central America, Asia, or the Middle East? I'm not talking
here about corporate policy, I'm talking about such things
as the US wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua or the bombing
of Iraq.
>
[mbs] No. You can't do everything. What matters is what he says now.
> 5. Given Nader's (and Public Citizen's) dismal history of
coalition-building over the past 3 decades, what makes you
think Nader is the man to unite progressive-left forces in
this country?
>
[mbs] This is the biggest fly in the ointment. there is no such evidence. The reason RN is w/the Greens is that they are not a party. They will let him do any damn thing he wants. Right now the campaign is in the category of constructive media event. I don't see any way right now how any worthwhile organization can come out of it.
> 6. If you disagree with the assumption in Question 5, what
examples can you provide of progressive coalition building
on the part of Nader or PC?
[mbs] none, but that hasn't been his business to date. I don't know who deserves credit or blame for the trade labor-oriented anti-globalization movement (i.e., the one folks here think is "protectionist"), but it has been a reasonably stable operation for a coalition.
> Evidence, please.
> Tim Shorrock
I would say the main issue is the significance of RN does not lie within him. Your animosity is understandable but not a good guide in and of itself. People with awful personal traits or lapses of political integrity can do useful things. The "can" is what is in question here.
An individual of virtue would be preferred as the leader of a movement, assuming she could do as good a job. But we seldom have the luxury of choice in the matter.
mbs