[lbo-talk] Moore/Clark: The Bigger ?

[Michael Dawson]

My main concern is making the choice that maximizes what little can be done
to carve out a basis for forcing some of our issues onto the agenda as soon
as possible.  Of course, nobody sane really believes there is literally no
difference between the two business parties.  The question for me is how do
I turn my back on something like the Greens or the Labor Party?  f I always
vore for Dems when Reps hold office, doesn't that just bolster the Dems'
bogus argument that I must always vote for them?  Isn't it also important to
boost the Green vote under all circumstances?  If they used to get 2 perecnt
when Reps held office, isn't it progress if they get 4 percent this time?

Also, I have serious doubts that any Dem will beat Bush, even with Green
votes.  I think Dean will fall apart under pressure -- witness the strained,
cardboard nature of his "anti-war" pronouncements.  All the others are
obvious cadavers.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <nathanne at nathannewman.org>
To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Moore/Clark: The Bigger ?


>
> > Doug Henwood wrote:
> >> Not in the same way. When a Dem is in power, radicals of all stripes
> >> are more susceptible to the argument that things are structurally
> >> fucked up.
> >
> > This is, I think, true. What its implications are for the practice of
> > left activists and orgaizers is, however, a separate question. (One can,
> > passively, hope for a DP victory just as one hopes for good weather when
> > planning a picnic -- but that is all that is obvious.)
>
> If by all the potential picnickers could do something to improve the
> chances of good weather -- say pull a particular lever every two years--
> one would expect those who enjoy picnics to strongly urge everyone to pull
> that lever.
>
> It's this passivity on electoral politics that has always seemed so odd on
> these debates.  I understand the "worse the better" third party advocates
> and I understand the "don't vote, it just encourages them" anarchists like
> Chuck, but this larger swath of anti-Democratic advocates who actually
> want the Democrats to win has always been bizarre to me.
>
> I kind of understand the theory-- they think the masses will be confused
> by "critical support" statements that identify leftists with "capitalist
> parties", so they want a strong rhetorical position even as they hope the
> masses ignore them on election day.  The cynicism is large but I just
> think it tactically sells most people short.
>
> Most voters can understand that voting is about limited choices, so
> advocating the best of results is not a fatal ideological compromise--
> it's just a pragmatic issue.  Like suggesting people bring an umbrella.
> Umbrellas don't mean you are against sunshine-- it just means that you
> need to make pragmatic choices sometimes.
>
> -- Nathan Newman
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk