----------
>From: "Nathan Newman" <nathan at newman.org>
>To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>Subject: Re: Nader cost himself federal funds (Re: election demographics
>Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000, 8:47 AM
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Nancy Bauer/Dennis Perrin" <bauerperrin at mindspring.com>
>
Nathan Newman wrote:
> You may take comfort in all the progressive
>attacks on Nader, but taking comfort in alienating existing or potential
>supporters of your candidate shows a complete lack of seriousness in
>political strategy.
I take no comfort in any form of alienation. To be successful -- indeed, to be heard -- the Greens, or any progressive political effort outside the Dem party, must break up some of the existing arrangements. Real political change does not come easily, nor smoothly. I'll even concede that in some ways the Nader campaign was quite reckless, if not simply chaotic. To be expected in an apolitical culture where the information system is decidedly tilted toward the country's owners. They establish the parameters of discussion, and so any party or movement trying to smash through this obstacle is going to make plenty of bad choices, regardless of their strategy.
Look, I'm not a Nader voter who thinks the New Tomorrow shines out of Ralph's ass. But I was for giving Gore hot feet and all that entailed. I make no apologies for my vote, but I do hope the Greens learn to expand their base. There is plenty of discontent at the grassroots level, and thus plenty of people who are looking for something -- anything -- that speaks to their concerns.
All that said, let us not overlook Gore's rather shameful attempts to frighten or otherwise alienate those who questioned his "progressive" legitimacy. Such tactics work both ways, and when it comes from an incumbent corporate candidate, the negative effect reaches much further and goes much deeper than when it comes from a marginalized challenger. The post-election clamor of Nader-bashing is proof of that.
DP