Come to grips with the argument. If the Democrats are either (a) not reformable or (b) reformable only through an outside constituency that can force the Dems to the left then you have to have some political formation independent of the Dems and capable of hurting them. You can spend all of your time responding to the weakest arguments of the left and attributing those arguments to "all" of your interlocutors, but it won't advance your case.
Working with the Dems is not the fundamental problem here, even though I think it's long past time to give that up. The problem is working with the Dems and not having a Plan B or a bottom line. I don't think the Dems will ever change, but I can easily think of changes in the Dems that would cause me to re-evaluate my position and endorse either a New Party-style conditional alliance or a DSA-style boring-from-within strategy. But every time I've posed the question - "what would cause you to break with the Dems?" - you've dodged. That makes you a captive and an apologist.
MM
>>> nathan at newman.org 05/29/02 08:38AM >>>
Oh come on-- one of the most popular pro-Naderite arguments circulated on
this list and others was Michael Moore's arguments that GOP appointments
don't matter on the Supreme Court. We had lots of debate on that column
and Katta Pollitt's response. Don't rewrite history.
Folks can defend Nader, but when they retroactively run away from the arguments made during the election, I'm not the one playing with the straw men. Folks promoting Nader made all sorts of arguments for Nader (it will shift politics to the left, it will shift the Dems to the left, it won't effect the Supreme Court, etc, etc.). Every single argument has not been borne out by events, so Nader-defenders just pretend they never made those arguments in the first place. When I defend the Dems, I make arguments for the gains we get from voting for them, and have no problem when others rub my nose in their betrayals of those predictions, but I'll hold out for the ones I make that are fulfilled (blocking many rightwing judges, blocking Bush's second round of tax cuts, voting en masse against fast track, etc.)
Name one prediction made by Nader-defenders that has come true?
Nathan Newman nathan at newman.org http://www.nathannewman.org
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael McIntyre" <mmcintyr at depaul.edu> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 9:16 AM Subject: Re: Te Big One- Supremes decimate federal regulation
Not to mention hyper-bizarro realo-land, where "All the Naderites said the Supreme Court doesn't matter, so vote Nader." Since I was a louche McReynoldite, I must have missed that one. Maybe one of the Naderites has a spare bumper sticker I can have. It can go on the wall next to my: "They won't count this vote anyway - Vote McReynolds" decal.
Is that straw I smell burning?
MM
>>> nathan at newman.org 05/29/02 07:06AM >>>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shane Mage" <shmage at pipeline.com>
>...And yep, Nader has set up Bush to add to this nightmare majority...
>
>Nathan Newman
-There he goes again! Still unwilling to admit that his candidate -won the election and then did all in his power to help Bush steal it...
Ahh- now we are in leftwing hyper-bizarro land, where Gore actually conspired to lose the election. All the Naderites said the Supreme Court doesn't matter, so vote Nader. Well, it sure as f--- does matter as federal legislation is being gutted by the Court.
-- Nathan Newman