-----Original Message----- From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of John Halle Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 4:27 PM To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Subject: re: Pollitt on Nader
Maximum two vollies on this one Nathan, OK.
I got too much to do. Of course, "volunteers" for Gore got time on their hands, as they demonstrated in challenging every Nader signature for ballot access in Illinois.
>
>
> >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.
>
The idea that "respect" for some more or less self-appointed leadership of some consituency-notice, incidentally that not even you say Pat Ireland speaks for women below, rather you say she speaks for feminists- translates into respect for the constituency is, in fact, precisely the issue. I don't believe that it does. I don't, nor do most people, identify themselves with the leadership of any number of organizations we belong to. Nor do I feel that many women identify themselves with the leadership of any feminist organization, regardless of what the organization calls itself.
In any case, it seems that you are agreeing with my point that Pollitt's reconsideration of her formerly harsh stand on Nader is entirely due to a few strokes Nader gave her on the phone. These are the standards of National Enquirer journalism, and its not clear to me why we should take it seriously when it comes from the Nation.
> 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.
Precisely. The leadership has consistently sold the interests of the rank and file down the river of any number of these organizations. You know the specifics as well as I do. Want to start with Lane Kirkland?
>
> 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.
>
Manning Marable, Cornell West and Randall Robinson seem not to "take umbrage" at Nader "telling folks how stupid and craven their chosen leaders are." Possibly because there is a large element of truth to even your distortion of Nader's position. In any case, I'll listen to them before I'll listen to you or Pollitt on this point.
> 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.
>
And she's just now discovering that a major benefit of Nader's candidacy, like any number of insurgent candidacies has been to force concessions from the majors? Hard to believe she could be so clueless.
>
> "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.
>
Right. I believe that personal advancement, inside the beltway wheeling and dealing for "crumbs" offered up by Democratic administrations, "access" of the leadership to circles of power play a big role in the decisions made by the leadership of marginally liberal organizations. Want specifics? You know them as well as I do. And no, I don't believe the leadership of many of these organizations is worthy of respect. In any case, your "respect" for leadership is naive, in my opinion.
> 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.
>
If this is in fact the case, I agree it would not be a particularly attractive strategy. I, obviously, don't believe it is the case, for reasons which we could go into, however this ground has been gone over many times before. See Cockburn and St. Clair for any number of reactionary tendencies of Gore which have been systematically ignored.
The real questions I would have for you are 1) How, with a DLC candidate in office, will the endless series of compromises which the Democrats have made with corporate America at the expense of everyone else will be reversed? 2) Do you in fact endorse a vote for Nader in the non-battleground states as a means for pressuring the Democratic establishment. Haven't read your opinions on either of these here.
Best,
John