In my experience, no one says, sure my boss is shitty to me and my kids don't eat right, but I won't support a union for the good of the global economy. The main reasons people vote against unions is fear of getting their ass fired or seeing their office shutdown in a plant closure. After that, propaganda about mobsters in unions and high dues are the runner-up antiunion arguments.
Such policy viewpoints may effect more general public support for such union fights, which does matter, but there is nothing incompatible between the moderate fiscal neoliberalism of Gore and strong unionization. In a sense, unionization becomes the high-wage Keynesian substitute for government-based spending.
But about strategic voting by me:
>I've always conceded there is a difference. I can't control
>what Nader does. But failing to take note of the issues I've
>raised, rather than suggesting that people vote for Nader, at
>minimum in 'safe' states, is too high a price for me to pay.
and Doug asked "I thought it was McReynolds for you. Have you gone Gore?"
I've always been clear that voting is a minor part of electoral politics. THe more important issue is who you publicly support and promote others to support by your vocal advice. On that basis, I am a thorough Gore supporter.
As for decisions when you are in a non-swing state like Connecticut, that is a last-minute decision with little public matter. Since I support Gore for the pure outcome of his winning the election, adding more votes to a victory total in Connecticut is useless. I would be engaging in "vote trading" with Nader supporters on this list if Nader had not started campaigning for Bush's election. On that basis, I strategically don't want Nader and the Greens to get the 5%. So that leaves me with no strategic uses of my vote, so I can be purely self-indulgent and vote for McReynolds.
-- Nathan Newman