more from Katha

Wojtek Sokolowski sokol at jhu.edu
Wed Nov 8 06:13:05 PST 2000


At 01:17 AM 11/8/00 +0000, Justin wrote:
>Nonetheless I have already cast my vote for Nader--I confess I was wavering
>up until the last moment. What decided me is an argument I have deployed
>many times over the dozen years since I broke with the Dems myself: if we
>are serious about progressive politics, we have to be willing to hurt the
>Dems, because a growing progressive force cust into their support; and for a
>long time, that will mean spoiling things, especially as our movement grow
>stronger--as we hope they will. If we are not willing to do this, we should
>call it a day and just be good good little Democrats. If we are, we have to
>be willing to take our lumps. I am not being flip. It will hurt. But if we
>are not willing to do that, we should be honest about giving up.

I did the exact same thing, but now I am having second thoughts. My only consolation is that I traded my vote with someone in Wisconsin, thus contributing for Gore's victory there.

Nader campaign failed to win the 5% of th evote (did not come even close!) and it's only accomplishment seems to "spoil" Gore taking over Florida (althought that conclusion would be unwarranted if Florida had a higher than usual voter turnout). So the end result is that we have two of the worst possible worlds:

1. The repugs controlling the white house, the congress and the senate, and soon the supreme court - with the likely effect all kinds of lowlife crawling up from their hiding to make the Reagan presidency look like the golden era of progressivism;

2. showing how weak the progressive movement really is - not even a match to the 8% which that goof ross perot was able to pull.

Nader acted as a Rorschach blot on which the discontented progresssives projected their fears and desires. But when I listened to his "concession" speach yesterday on C-Span I realized how flat his message really was - basically a rant that big corporations are spoiling the golden era of democracy that "our founding fathers" created for this country. What a tripe!

I also thought how easily Gore could defuse that rant if only his spin doctors read John Kenneth Galbraith's _The Affluent Society_ and reiterate its main message that corporations can be a progressive force (Brad deLong, where have you been?). That would create a positive message with broader popular appeal without alienating the business community, and at the same time it would addresss much of the concerns that now find its only outlet in the goofy idea that "small is beautiful".

Galbraith's message that civic-minded corporations can be a progressive force against the tyranny of the market and the tyranny of the government would create a vision for the future - much more powerful than looking back and bitching and moaning that the "new economy left someone behind." But I guess that political consultants nowadays are a rather myopic and unimaginative crowd - they prefer to do things by the book and spin focus groups instead of taking on a difficult task of creating a new vision. But, hey, one cannot expect pigs to fly like eagles....

Another humiliating aspect of yesterday's election is the trailer-trashy south and midwest imposing its political will on the urbane north-east and west. What a bummer!

So the bottom line is that while Nader failed to achieve its objective, it will be blamed (rightly or wrongly) for "spoiling" the election. The imminent backlash will drive a wedge between "green" and unionists / NAACP crowd and bury the idea of ajn alternative to the dem/repug monopoly for a long time to come.

wojtek



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list