>So here you have it. The more it seems that dissidence matters, the more
>savagely it is attacked. This is the moral equivalent of the way the cops
>are letting loose on the demonstrators at recent WTO meetings. Shuddup and
>gedbackinline, or its rubber bullets and all night in jail for you, Ralph!
No, the better analogy was the debate over peacekeeping and preventing other protesters from breaking windows. It's a strategic debate over effective activism.
As I've said, I wish both sides could do it with a bit less personal rancor, but I still observe an amazing double standard by those who regularly frag other progressive activists now acting all upset that Nader is getting criticized.
Nader committed an amazingly consequential act, probably throwing an election from one party to another. Celebrate it or condemn it, there are obvious reaons to have strong passions on the matter. Folks on this list have declared Gloria Steinem persona non grata for alleged loose ties with the CIA decades ago, a much less consequential act.
I made my arguments against supporting Nader before the election. As far as I'm concerned, what's done is done and we need to make the best of what happened, together.
But if anyone among the Nader supporters actually cares about building a Green Party, rather than just using it as a platform for fragging other progressives, it is frankly just stupid to keep ignoring the anger and hurt of good activists who feel betrayed by Nader. I would say the same to those activists about the Nader voters, but that's not largely who is on this list, so frigging move on.
Nader by many measures accomplished one possible goal, namely showing the Dems they can lose elections by pissing on the base. Now, it can be a one time message with the Greens dissappearing in an internal progressive fight where mutual pissing matches weaken everyone, or Nader and the Greens can rebuild relations with other progressives and hope to grow in the future.
-- Nathan Newman