----- Original Message ----- From: Max Sawicky <sawicky at epinet.org> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2000 11:50 PM Subject: Re: Alterman: Left in Shambles
> CK:
> Question: Is Eric Alterman the most reprehensible human ever?
>
> No, since he acquits himself half-decently with the
> bit near the end, not the easiest thing to say for a
> NY writer.
>
> Regarding Nader, however . . .
>
> EA sez:
> "Perhaps a serious Feingold or Wellstone run at the nomination with a
> stronger platform on globalization issues will convince those die-hard
> Naderites to join in the difficult business of building a more rational,
> Christian Coalition-like bloc to counter corporate power within the party.
> For now, we can expect an ugly period of payback in Washington in which
> Nader's valuable network of organizations will likely be the first to pay.
> Democrats will no longer return his calls. Funders will tell him to take a
> hike. Sadly, his life's work will be a victim of the infantile left-wing
> disorder Nader developed in his quixotic quest to elect a reactionary
> Republican to the American presidency.
>
> [mbs] This is an interesting paragraph. First he notes the
> lack of initiative on the part of the left Democratics, big D,
> for which they have only themselves to blame. Tho
> Feingold is not too left, IMO. Wellstone is the one who
> really fell down. If he couldn't bear sitting in a plane he
> should have bought a damn bus, or gone to Rent-a-Wreck.
>
> Regarding Washington 'payback,' I have a bit of interest
> in this. The idea of Congress not paying heed to Nader
> groups is stupid. Shows EA is clueless about Washington.
> These groups *service* Members of Congress. They
> provide them with material to pursue their constituents'
> interests. Whoever is not in majority has a serious staff
> disadvantage that the advocates fill. With funding it
> could be a different story, though the function those
> groups fill remains essential to the Dems. Members
> understand that without the advocates, instead of having
> research upon which to base their remarks, they'll just
> be standing there wacking off. You can't get this stuff
> out of an encyclopedia. It has to be properly masticated
> for political use.
>
> Labor may be among the most pissed-off, but on labor's
> favorite issue -- trade -- the Nader groups were more
> important than almost any (ahem). One can't imagine
> the anti-NAFTA/WTO agitation in Washington (as
> opposed to the grass roots) without Lori Wallach,
> for instance.
>
> Another point: the Washington "Nader groups" are
> not identified with the Nader campaign. To the best of
> my knowledge, they didn't play much of a part in it. I
> didn't hear from any of them re: the campaign. So the
> revenge factor is attenuated in that sense as well.
>
> There is a real problem, but it's the left Democrats and
> labor's, not Nader's. It is that Gore & the corporate DNC
> espouse none of what the left Dems believe, and Nader
> espouses all of it. It's the Dems that are on the fence, and
> that hurts your crotch after too long. They have a pragmatic
> interest in staying w/Gore et al., to cut deals, but w/o
> the message developed by the left, they have no
> case to make their deals. What's in store for them
> is pain. Sort of like giving birth (I would imagine).
>
> mbs
>
>