>Here's the WSJ article. The WSWS analysis seems a bit overdone, no?
I sez:
Well, I obviously made the mistake of lauding the WSWS article before reading the WSJ article the WSWS author was commenting on. Certainly much of the WSWS analysis is wide of the mark, and imputes motives where none are evident. Nonetheless, Nader's editorial typically reeks of nostalgia for the good old days before collaboration between big capital and the bureaucratic state. Sometimes you get the sense that he's not only criticizing government subisidies to big capital, but also the Twentieth Century (and hence the Twenty-First) -- i.e., he'd be opposed to any kind of social-democratic industrial policy, not just the pathetic U.S. "corporate welfare" version of it. (Not that I am an advocate of such -- although Dennis Redmond is, which makes his support of Nader seem to contradict his strategic endorsement of MITI capitalism).
What else can one make out of comments like "OPIC and Ex-Im put the federal government in roles _properly performed_ (emphasis mine) by private insurers and lenders" ? His utopian ideal is petty bourgeois capitalists and the night watchman state, which is why he falls prey to heartland neo-liberals (like John Kasich) who masquerade as Jeffersonian populists. I was aware of this going into Election 2000, but his subsequent behavior almost makes me regret voting for him (not that it matters, since I'm in CA). I might not be very smart, but I'm smart enough to know that the road to eco-socialism does not take a detour through small-town Chambers of Commerce (although that may be a sociologically entertaining place to visit -- or a gastronomically pleasing one, if you like roast beef, mashed potatoes, and dinner rolls).
John Gulick