Jeez! I go away for a few days with my wife and son for a vacation and look at all the fun I missed. Greetings from Newport, RI--former playground of the rich--now a tourist trap. Off-season rates!
Sorry to pull something in from off-list, but clarification seems in order (see original off-list post below).
For the record:
I said I voted for Nader in a "safe" state (MA) that was clearly going for Gore, but that I hoped people in swing states would vote for Gore because I thought Bush would be much worse than Gore. This was suggested by others and I thought it made sense.
I have also said I understand why some people voted for Nader outright, and although I disagreed, I understood their position was an appropriate position for a progressive (note to Alex Cockburn, look up what the word "appropriate" means this time, i.e. does not imply approval--[see The Nation exchange May-June 1993]). :-)
And for more of a record, contrary to some published claims, I never said that business nationalist and Birchite Milliken funded Nader, I said that Milliken and Nader were playing political footsie and working closely together. I still think the issue of right-wing attempts to recruit out of anti-globalization movements needs to be addressed. Economic nationalism is always lurking in the wings, with its penchant for devolving into racial nationalism. One is bad, the other is genocidal. There are a number of anti-globalization organizers who are sensitive to this dynamic, even if Nader remains oblivious. See Mark Rupert's new book: "Ideologies of Globalization: Contending Visions of a New World Order." Excellent overview of the different tendencies for and against.
Finally, Bush or Gore may look identical from outside the US, but for a variety of constituencies within the US the difference is about to be felt in a painful manner. Round up the usual suspects--gays, women, union members, immigrants, people of color, environmentalists, the impoverished, etc.
-Chip Berlet
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari [mailto:rakeshb at Stanford.EDU]
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 12:05 PM
> To: Doug Henwood
> Cc: qualiall_2 at yahoo.com; cberlet at igc.org
> Subject: Re: Berlet on Nader
>
>
> >Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote:
> >
> >>the analysis on the left-right anti globalization
coalition is
> >>quite provocative. What I can't understand is why the
same Chip
> >>Berlet seemed to be defending a vote for Nader over Gore
on LBO a
> >>few months ago. Wouldn't this be an instance of
subordinating
> >>internationalism to the reactionary nationalism one
hopes to ride
> >>into power?
> >
> >I can see how it'd be much better to support a born-again
Christian
> >imperialist like Gore!
> >
> >Doug
>
>
> Doug, please don't forget the excluded middle--don't
support anyone.
> At any rate, this does not answer how Chip squares his
apparent
> support for Nader with his important research findngs.
>
> Yours, Rakesh
>
>