Conyers has a letter in the current Nation supporting Nader.
No, I don't mind criticism. We might be wrong: that's axiomatic. What I don't like is this language of betrayal and the threats that the left will be even more savagely sidelined than it has in the past. Nader didn't lose the election for Gore, if Gore loses. Gore lost it. He lost it for all the reasons that make people like me--former Democratic party activists, hardworking precinct door-knockers and caucaus-goers--support Nader and third party politics. Quite apart from all his lack of skill or attractiveness as a candidate, Gore followed the main line of DP for the last period, the DLC shift to the right. He alienated his base and tried--unsuccessfully--to appeal to the GOP base. I'd like to see some acknowledgement of that, rather than the supposition that all people of good will are supposed to close ranks behind a lesser evil tha is incresaingly evil.
In any case, I would like recriminations to cease. We do have a common program, those of us who have had it with the Dems and those of you who stick with them. You sketched that program quite effectively. Rather than your blaming us for a possible loss which is your own lesser evil's damn fault, and indeed rather than us pretending that the evil isn't lesser for all that, why don't we unite on the considerable cnmmon ground that we have until the next election?
As for the cop analogy, I was noting the comparison to the closedown of freec assembly and speech rights when protest matters. In one case it's carried out by cops. In another case, the present one, by less reprehensible but still ugly and nasty means. The latter is worse for us because we can do something about it directly: we need each other, liberals and radicals, and we had better recognize and act upon that. Mostly you recognize this, which is why you are normally a constructive critic.
--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 22:42:04 -0500
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com>
>
> >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.
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________________ 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.