Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Barry Rene DeCicco wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Historian Robert Dallek, quoted in today's NYT: "What operates is the
> sense that this is a middle-class, middle-ground sort of government
> and society, and the winner-take-all is not so dramatic or extreme,
> because it's not as if you're going from a fascist to a socialist.
> You're really going between shades of centrism."
>
> Doug
But then again the center of gravity is moving rightward, slowly or quickly but determinedly. So to some the substance of the changes represented by those "shades" takes on considerable importance. For some...of us... Reaganism becomes a significant data point for change, the continuation of which is represented by Bush.
But I'm beginning to see the point many on the list are driving home: the spector of Bush is more or less a middle class fear. That is, those most feeling the ground move with a Bush victory are those still firmly planted on that middle-ground. Or should I say those most acceptably vocal about the groundswell? Whatever success Bush may achieve will affect (or provoke?) those fighting over the location of the center. However much Clinton (or Carter)contributed to the rightward movement, they ultimately are given a pass since the initiative and proactive efforts lie squarely with Republicans. But there is another conceit.
Bush or Gore are acceptable insofar as the bulk of the middle-ground is not about politics but about consumption and lifestyle which are continually racialized. None of which was threatend by Reagan nor by Bush jr, despite changes in the income distribution, growth in the prison population, deindustrialization, downsizing, job anxiety, limits on civil liberties, etc. The middle-ground establishes a good chunk of the goals even if it can't be assured of the means. However mild Nader's dissent was, he did strike a chord where his anti-corporate screed raised the spectre of middle-class loss of privilege, giving up the dream. The complicity that lies in complacencey makes for some stalwart defenders of the status quo, including most of which passes for social criticism.
Dennis Breslin