Doug Henwood wrote:
>[clip]
> >It is easy to dismiss these conservative sentiments. After all,
> >Nader's campaign consists mainly of attacks on big corporations and
> >he has long advocated expanded government power to protect
> >consumers. Nevertheless, there is a conservative strain in Nader's
> >thinking that survives to the present day.
I believe that someone has already pointed out that what matters is one's judgment of the DP, and that the fact that the Greens are hopeless and Nader really quite reactionary is irrelevant to that topic. There are political activities (they vary from area area) that are potentially of use, but between sitting on the sidelines with one's hands folded and sitting on the sidelines longing for the DP to do something nice rather than harmful, the former choice is more rational, more hopeful even.
One difference between Greens & DP. If one lives in a district in which a progressive Green is running, it is worthwhile actively supporting him/her. On the other hand, voting for a really or allegedly progressive DP candidate (a) achieves nothing positive and (b) contributes to the continuing success of the DP in suppressing political activity. Granted there are always a few exceptions. I would except any DP member who actively opposed (both vocally and by vote) the Patriot Act. That narrows DP progressives down to one: Barbara Lee. I don't think a vote for her would substantively aid the DP in its reactionary policies -- as would a vote for that heir of Humphrey in Minnesota. Humphrey's two great achievements:
a) He became Mayor of Minneapolis by promising to consult labor on the appointment of a Chief of Police. Then without consultation he immediately appointed the one man that Labor most feared.
b) He gutted the DP alliance with the Farmer-Labor Party.
Carrol