What I am trying to explain is why Nader did NOT take an open position against Bush's and Gore's hands off approach to the Rwandan genocide. I am saying that he may not have done so because it would have alienated him from many of his supporters (say 30 or so percent) who are American first anti globalizers, i.e., right wing populists. Nader would then have been left with only 1.4% of the vote. But you explain to me why Nader did not say a thing.
>
>>And did Hitchens ever say this is why he could not re-elect a
>>Democrat (yes Clinton killed Rector but Bush has been killing people
>>who were mentally arrested long before they committed crimes)? Rwanda
>>was not the reason I remember he gave (or at least he seemed no more
>>concerned about this than Clinton lying about his love of cigars).
>
>To my knowledge, Hitchens never said this. *I* thought it was a point
>against the Democratic Party, or at least another instance where
>the two parties agree.
>
>In a review of Clinton's presidency, Hitchens did say:
>
>"We are supposedly entering "legacy time," and I think history will record
>with some astonishment that this remorseless progress toward a corporate
>state was accompanied by a chorus of support from the politically correct.
>During the impeachment battle, for example, feminists rallied around a man
>who hit on the help and then trashed his conquests if they complained.
>African American leaders described as "our first black president" a
>character who as a candidate had made a point of executing the mentally
>deficient Rickey Ray Rector, who ditched Lani Guinier, humiliated Betty
>Currie, and vetoed a United Nations resolution calling for international
>action to forestall the genocide in Rwanda."
><http://www.motherjones.com/mother_jones/SO00/hitchens.html>
I wouldn't know but overwhelming black support for Gore probably had a thing or two to do with Bush's appearance at Bob Jones University and things like that (that could have rankled a few overly sensitive black people), not the stellar record of Clinton or Gore. It is my impression that Hitchens simply inferred from black voting patterns that blacks must be in love with Clinton or think he can't do no wrong. Maybe blacks just can't stand the site of Bush, Cheney, Gingrich or Rumsfeld. Maybe you're right; they should just be neutral. Everybody is a racist, and there's no difference. Al Gore or Charles Murray/Myron Magnet/Manhattan Institute fellow--who cares? Not tough white guy revolutionaries. By the way, at least Clinton expressed some remorse over his inaction in 1994; can't imagine Bush doing the same. And as far as I can tell Nader said *nothing* about US inaction. So how Hitchens turns this all around as a reason to vote for Nader remains beyond me or Jan.
>What's funny is that I believe Hitchens agrees with you and John Gulick
>concerning the "anti-globalization simpletons," as you call them. [Feel free
>to defend editor Peter Bienart of the New Republic from the swarming
>simpletons over at Plastic.com
I don't look at things the way someone like he does. Moreover, I think elite support for a free trade is largely a sham--look at the free trade act with Africa. Did the US open up its markets?
Rakesh