Response to Wilentz et al.

[Kevin Quinn]

At 12:25 PM 11/3/00 -0500, Max Sawicky wrote:
>
>Third on the positive function of environmental reactionaries.  Here again
>the problem is not quotation but interpretation.  To see the political
>opportunities created by overt reactionaries is not to welcome their ascent
>to power.  Nader’s point is the lack of difference between the
>“reactionaries” and the sort of policies we have gotten from Clinton and
>Gore.  Now you could disagree about the extent of difference  -- I for one
>think there are differences in this area – but if, like Nader, one sees no
>meaningful difference, then one is not wishing for the less-preferred
>outcome.  The point is the outcome is the same in either case – Bush or Gore
>as president.
>
Max: you're papering over a very big crack! 
Nader is like the guy who borrows your bowl brings it back cracked and
then, when confronted with it, says, first, I never borrowed it, and
second, it was cracked when I got it.
Just so, Nader says one day that there is no difference Bore and
Gush--whoops, Gore and Bush--and the very next, that Bush (not Gore) would
be so bad for the environment that environmentalists would mobilize.

Kevin Quinn