from fwd (Voting for president: beyond the lesser of two evils dilemma, JB Childs):
``On one side is the emphasis on maintaining the status quo by granting some concessions (compromises) to diverse groups in order to include them in society and blunt their opposition. The other side of the fault line emphasizes a repressive response to public pressure, one which involves withdrawals of any previous concessions, and the implementation of increasingly tight top-down controls to `maintain order.'''
-----
Just to restate an old argument with Gordon Fitch and others--and for the last minute thrill of it. I decided to vote for Gore on the assumption that any serious political activity has to take place against Gore, and for reasons something along the lines given above. To fight defensive political battles against a Bush administration will be pointless and force an increase in repressive measures. Left and progressive activities under a Gore administration would continue to grow along the lines they have already developed under Clinton. As for the argument that one vote doesn't count, obviously in a close election, oddly, each vote begins to take on more importance.
I also think Nader has achieved as much as he can in terms of moving the Democrats simply because he has scared them. Their nasty and last minute anti-Nader tactics show they are afraid, and that's good. But it remains good, only if Gore wins by a slim margin and can not claim any mandate from the center. If he gets into office, he will have to remain worried about his left. And this is a distinct change of political context from the Clinton administration.
If Bush wins, whatever gains Nader might have made to pull an administration agenda away from its neoliberal abyss will be lost. And of course Bush will have to pay off his right by appointing all those scary thugs to fill every nook and cranny of the federal government. Get ready for mass agency purges of the kind the repugnants performed on Congress after '94. And needless to say all those rightwing think-tanks will be gearing up for their long awaited federal contracts--so, a lot of folks on Lbo will be looking for new jobs.
It seems to me it was no fluke that the left was completely marginalized under the Reagan-Bush years and only re-surfaced under Clinton. Therefore the best of all possible outcomes for the left is a very thin Gore victory, with Nader at his magic 5%.
But this rises a question about Nader. Does he really want federal money? As hard as this might be to refuse, if I were working in the Nader camp, I would argue against it. That is the money that is used to get the larger matching money and in turn that is how the leverage of compromise works its magic. On the other hand with the 5% and its potential, but not actual federal funding, whatever additional advantage and money that could be had with that funding, is still arguably available for the asking--but without quite the same kind of commitment or compromise.
I really think this is as good as it gets for the left, since the election essentially turns on left and minority group support for Gore in a pinch--but only if Gore wins. If he does, then the left, minority groups, and unions can very righteously demand that the erosion of social and economic policy stop and turn around. And, then tomorrow, we can continue with already established agendas to move a Gore administration.
If we have to face Bush, it will get ugly in a hurry. Bush is a little like Nixon: petty, mean spirited, and probably paranoid. You can bet, the very first thing he and his right will do is pronounce Nader the anti-christ, and proceed to conclude that Amerika has handed them a mandate for a long list of repressions against the devil's minions.
Chuck Grimes