Summary of Nader analysis

[Justin Schwartz]

I agree with Max that the explnatioon for liberal Nader-blaming is not fear 
of material loss in the most part, but I disagree that it is a sort of shame 
at being shown up as somehow "ordinary" by extremists to one's left. That 
might bother leftists, but not liberals--not much. I thinkit is rather a 
more common phenonemon: blaming the safe target. Ofa ll the counterfactual 
factors to pick out of the campaign that might have gone differently, it is 
easierst to imagine victoty had Nader not won, particularly because that way 
it doesn't have to be faced that the Dems screwed up. It makesjust as much 
sense--maybe more--to blame the Florida Dems fora pproving the Palm Beach 
Ballot that cost Gore 20,000 votes, and the legality of which the campaign 
is now challenging, but why blame yourself and your friends when you can 
blame your (weak) antagonists? --jks
>
>. . . The attack is from liberal belt way professionals who, I suspect, 
>fear
>the loss
> > of government grant funds should W. get in.
> >
> > The attack began before it was even clear that Bush had won!
> > Marta
>
>
>Grant funds are not the biggest factor in this, IMO.  The Gov is not
>a great source of grant funds to liberal groups.  EPI had some
>expectations of better treatment in this dimension and was totally
>disappointed after 1992.  We were told that giving us grant money
>would reflect badly on the Administration, since we had helped in
>the election campaign.
>
>More important is the prospect of Administration positions and
>the consummation of pragmatic deals between constituency
>groups and the new Administration.  An Administration position
>is not all that well-paid, except compared to normal people, but it
>leads to very big bucks (i.e., $150K plus) later on with a consulting
>firm or trade association.
>
>Most important, I would say, is the political implications of someone
>less liberal being outflanked by someone more liberal, especially
>when 'more liberal' is well short of socialist or something easily
>marginalized.  Nader's unradicalism enrages people.  You think
>your politics makes you special, and someone else shows you
>up as ordinary.  For someone leading a constituency organization,
>Nader of course calls one's political strategy and competence
>into question.  There is competition for leadership in many of
>these organizations.
>
>For intellectuals, one's vision is brought into question.  Maybe this
>is the unkindest cut of all.  Take my committed, dedicated
>friend Nathan.  For all his Herculean activist labors, when it comes
>to policy, he just isn't all that radical.  And I say this in light of the
>fact
>that I don't think I'm all that radical myself (and w/much less activist
>background than NN).  I think radical is properly defined not as what
>you think would be ideal, but what you are unwilling to surrender as a
>matter of practice.  To what are you willing to say 'no'?
>I say no to Al Gore.  I don't think that's so radical.
>
>mbs
>
>

_________________________________________________________________________
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.