----- Original Message ----- From: "John Halle" <john.halle at yale.edu> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>Basically the argument seems to be
>that Ralph is now OK because he takes Pollitt's phone calls, as does Pat
>Ireland. Well all us losers without access to unlisted phone numbers are
>really impressed, let me tell you. Also the string of near-libelous
>charges Pollitt has been making from the beginning, and have been
>constantly recycled by faux-progressives everywhere are now to be
>forgotten because Ralph was charming on the phone.
The issue is, as Aretha once said RESPECT, especially by white males wanting to court a progressive coalition that is increasingly made up up non-white, non-male constituencies. And showing respect for acknowledged leaders of those constituencies - whether Patricia Ireland or Politt as a journalist voice - is seen as a signal of that respect, even if that acknowledgment is matched with criticism.
A lot of folks want to say, hey Ralph is better than the union leaders for union members, better than the NAACP for blacks, better than MALDEF for latinos, better than NOW for feminists, and so on. And that comes off not just as criticism of those leaders but as basically saying that the members of those groups have been retarded for voting for those leaders and sending them checks.
Maybe Nader is better and smarter than all those other folks, but there is a cluelessness of the "what did I say?" variety where folks are surprised that a lot of folks take umbrage at a bunch of mostly white male leftists telling other folks how stupid and craven their chosen leaders are.
Pollitt's point was actually to argue that Nader really does not take that approach, except in cranky moments caught by trouble-making journalists, but has a more nuanced strategic vision of his role, which can accomodate both the pragmatic strategies of NOW et al and an outsider role for Nader and the Greens.
Which is different from many Nader supporters like John who engage in exactly what Pollitt deplores:
>And there are still plenty of us out there who buy Ehrenreich's argmument
>that a victory for Gore will be worse, in many respects, for progressive
>politics because of its "almost certainly debilitating effect on
>progressives and their organizations." Pollitt never bothers to touch that
>argument because it's her accomodationist feminist pals (among others) who
>are "charmed by the crumbs of "access" thrown their way and the occasional
>low-level progressive appointment that they bit(e) their tongues whenever
>Clinton (or Gore) show(s) his true DLC colors."
"accommodationist feminist pals" -- let's see, "accomodationist" is completely unnuanced and generally falls in the accusing their supporters of being idiots, but the really offensive part of the phrase is "pals", a nicely condescending way to diminish the authority of feminist leaders supported by hundreds of thousands of paid members and supported politically by millions more. You make them sound like a gossip circle of friends, rather than a political leadership worth of respect, even where you may disagree with them.
Ehrenreich could be right that Gore would be worse than Bush for progressive organizations, but just because progressive organizations may thrive under reactionary conditions does not mean that the people we are supposed to help will thrive. It is actually easier for progressive organizations to do fundraising when they are losing big-time than when they are making marginal gains. I remember that in the height of the Reagan recession, all the progressive door-to-door canvasses did very well, because they could hire so many cheap progressive students because the job market was so bad.
But inducing reactionary politics and suffering for average folks just to strengthen the progressive opposition organizations is not a particularly attractive strategy.
-- Nathan Newman