----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com> To: "lbo-talk" <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
Nathan wrote:
>The point is that the Naderite groups have almost no real grassroots and a
>complete homogeneity of purpose due to complete top-down fundraising
>control.
-Unlike, say, the Democratic Party. (Doug)
-not to mention that the appropriation of the "working class" voice in order -to legitimate a political-theoretical position by both jim and nathan is -deeply problematic. substitute some other group in place of working class -and see how you feel about your statements then.(Kelley)
What "working class voice"? Surely not mine? I'm not even sure of the application here since I was making as much an argument about racial and gender issues as class differences. But the question is not the "voice" of the criticism, but the analysis of the lack of democratic accountability of Nader in his organizations and how that relates to ideas of political representation in society.
As for comparing Nader to the Democrats, Nader is very unlike the Democratic party, and not always in his favor in democratic terms. Each elected official in the Dems has their own fundraising base with quite dramatically different makeups, with some being overwhelmingly labor and grassroots funds with others being totally corporate. There is little top-down control of fundraising, which allows anyone with their own fundraising base to run for office. And on top of the funding issue, they can all be voted out of their position in primaries.
It's all well and good to condemn the limitations and grave weaknesses of the democratic process in the US due to corporate influence, but when unelected and non-accountable non-profit media and fundraising leaders are seen as the ideal over elected mass organizational leaders, I really think the Left has jumped the rails politically. Language in Kelley's worries seems to trump any substantive criticism of structural failings of democracy
in Nader's organizational style.
-- Nathan Newman