Me:
> Well, this is putting the Nader 'Tweedledum and
> Tweedledee' to a test, certainly.
> Over the next year, the credibility of the Green
> Paty will be subject to that test. If the Bush
> administration turns out to be bad, then the
> Greens will suffer accordingly.
From: "Lisa & Ian Murray" <seamus at accessone.com>
> I don't see the connection. The events of the last 5 days make it highly
> unlikely that the potential policy divergences between the Republicrats will
> have the opportunity to manifest themselves due to gridlock. Also, I've
> never heard the Greens say that a Bush administration would be good. If the
> Bush administration sucks, then the Republicans will suffer. Why should the
> Greens be held accountable for fiscal and monetary policy over the next four
> years? There's simply been too many monocausal proclivities when discussing
> what was, after all, only 3% of the electorate. Green policies may likely
> never be tested via the current institutional arrangements in the US and it
> is impossible to predict their outcomes even if Nader and his followers got
> all of them passed tomorrow; the dynamics are simply tooooooo complex,
> economists predicting 16 of the last 7 recessions and all that.
Nader's policy of 'no difference' will indeed be put to the test, as much it can be. Actually, somewhat less than that, since Bush will face a major gridlock.
However, the idea that Bush will be constrained by gridlock is not the original Nader/Green party proposition, that there is no significant difference between Bush and Gore.
Barry