LeoCasey at aol.com wrote:
> I have always believed that a Gore victory was an essential
> precondition for
> the forward progress of the mass movements of the left in this nation,
> from
> labor to feminism, from civil rights and anti-racism to gay and
> lesbian
> rights, from environmentalism to the poor.
<snort><pht><dribble>
Sorry, that was the beer coming out of my nose after I read that sentence. If you think that Gore is some kind of essential precondition for the "forward progress of the mass movements, blah, blah," I have to ask you which rock you've been hiding under.
Hey, Leo, buddy, did your hear about Seattle last year? Or Washington, DC and Prague this year? We've been kicking butt and we've been doing it by working outside of the system. That forward progress train that you cry about was left at the station.
Before you crap out another piece of your wonderful apologia for liberalism--and force poor Doug to figure out which mime type you are phoning from--try examining Clinton's record on labor, feminism, civil rights,, anti-racism, *queer* issues, environmentalism, and the poor. Does NAFTA ring a bell? WTO? How about 2 million people in jail? Welfare reform act ring any bells? How about the 1996 Telecommunications Act? Clear-cutting? U'wa?
Leo, you aint' no Leftist, you are a LIBERAL!
But while the major thrust
> of my
> political work was designed to accomplish that end, I was also
> prepared to
> cast my individual ballot for Ralph Nader, since I live in a state
> which is
> safe for Gore, and since -- much earlier in this campaign -- it was
> conceivable that such a vote could have the positive effect of
> building a
> non-sectarian, anti-corporate force on the left.
Whatever you do in the voting booth (masturbation is my suggestion), it ain't going to mean a hill of beans when it comes to building a non-sectarian, anti-capitalist, *anti-statist* force on the Left.
In other words, you can vote for the Wizard of Oz, but not for the man behind the curtain.
> It was the clarity with which the Nader supporters on LBO spoke of the
> defeat
> of Gore and the destruction of the Democratic Party as strategic goals
> to be
> sought, as the way forward for the left, that made it clear to me that
> this
> was the rebirth of an old sectarian strategy, one which placed the
> highest
> premium on the defeat of those "vacillating" forces of liberalism and
> social
> democracy on the near left, as opposed to the defeat of the forces of
> conservatism and reaction on the far right. This is a politics in the
> grand
> tradition of the 'third period' of the Comintern, when social
> democrats were
> decried as 'social fascists.' It is a politics which, in our own
> lifetime,
> brought the New Left to a self-destructive crash, and ushered in a
> period of
> conservative backlash.
Whatever. I may disagree with the Nader supporters politically, but I have to hand it to them, they've done a kick ass job with what limited resources they have to draw on. It's a tribute to the power of our ideas that the Gore morons are using dirty tricks to tar and feather the Nader campaign.
> The sole "justification" for this ultra-left sectarianism is the
> notion that
> there is no difference between the policies advocated by a Gore and a
> Bush.
There is no difference. Clinton/Gore have been one of the best things that ever happened to multinational capitalism. They have been unsurpassed when it came to building up a repressive police state. They allowed the right wing to chip away at abortion rights.
They've killed thousands around the world, either indirectly through sanctions or via a few top notch cruise missiles.
And the list goes on.
For
> while
> they are undoubtedly discrete issues on which the differences between
> the two
> are not all that great, much less what they should be (Gore would use
> capital
> punishment less frequently, and would spend a great deal more time
> than the
> 15 minutes Bush takes to decide whether or not to put a convicted
> person to
> death, but that is not exactly the type of clear moral line a
> progressive
> would want to see on such an issue), the wider panorama shows
> substantial
> differences on the overwhelming majority of issues.
Clinton and Gore both support the death penalty. Enuf said.
>That is why
> virtually
> every organization of the mass left -- from trade unions to feminists
> to
> civil rights to environmentali! ! sts -- has endorsed Gore: they see
> the
> differences all too clearly. The insistence by Nader and his
> supporters that
> there are no differences, or that the differences are insignificant,
> betrays
> either a willingness to engage in great intellectual dishonesty, or a
> most
> incredible political naivete; in both cases, it is induced by a
> virtually
> Nietzschian 'will' to ideological purity.
Correction; Every INEFFECTIVE, pro-capitalist organization on the Left have endorsed Gore. This includes so-called "feminists" at NOW to the right-hand of the ruling class: the AFL-CIO.
Leo, you are the one suffering from intellectual dishonesty. Please explain how the Clinton administration was any different from the Reagan/Bush administrations?
>As
> they fought for their political lives, and against a resurgent right
> which
> could very well control every branch of the national government, the
> very
> last group they would reach out to would be the one that had made it
> all that
> defeat possible. The success of the Nader/Green strategy to defeat
> Gore in
> this election would be their ultimate undoing -- but they would do
> great
> damage to progressive movements in the process. And that is why I will
> not
> vote for Nader in a 'safe' state.
I got more news for you, Leo. The resurgent right is dying. A Bush victory is not going to revive them. They can't overcome the forces of liberalization in American society. The right wind bugaboo is dead. Just go do your research and you'll find out for yourself.
Chuck0