Summary of Nader analysis

Justin Schwartz jkschw at hotmail.com
Thu Nov 9 19:16:58 PST 2000


This is a strangea ppeal for peace and understanding from a critic who has generally been responsible. Nathan, since when is running as a candidate in an election tantamount to breaking windows with bricks? For God's sake, for years the soc dems yelled at the far left to get involved in elections, run our own candidates. So we do, and not even a far left one, and then we are shat upon because he made a difference, not so much because of his own rather considerable virtues as because of the gross defects of the Democratic candidate. I don't get it. I suppose that nothing but lining up behind the Dems will do. You understand that this means squelching progressive nonelectoral movements if they risk throwing elections too. Thus we are lead to classic AFL-CIO politics, something that, as a some UAW bureaucrat, I have not noticed to have had such great success for its advertised constituencies. --jks


>From: "Nathan Newman" <nathan at newman.org>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>Subject: Re: Summary of Nader analysis
>Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 18:42:00 -0500
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com>
>To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>
> >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
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list