>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?
Wait a second, you compare liberal Dems to cops, universally scorned on this list, and then object to me comparing Nader voters to Seattle window breakers, generally sympathetic characters on this list? Come on. The comparison was specifically to the real existing strategic debates that occurred on this list over the role of those window breakers and over Nader running, where many of the same people took comparable positions on the usefulness strategically of both the window breakers and Nader.
>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
First, as I continually scream on this list, WHY CAN'T THE LEFT RUN IN PRIMARIES?!!!!!
Knock out DLC-type incumbents directly, then run head-to-head against the GOP. Avoid the division of a general election three-way race.
As for being "shat upon", it's called politics. You run against other peoples' candidates, you get attacked. Stop complaining so much. Nader declared war on Gore by running in the swing states, so those supporting Gore attack Nader. Shocking. People are mean to opposing candidates in elections. Gambling is happening in Casablanca.
As for the success of the UAW electorally, I'm not sure that you could argue that prime UAW folks like Conyers are in any way less admirable politically than Nader. The difference is that the UAW's candidates often get 50% of the vote, not just 3%.
I know a noble loss is more poetic, but winning and delivering something for one's union members, even if not everything you want, is worth something.
-- Nathan Newman
>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.