[lbo-talk] Bush expected to announce candidacy any day now

[John Halle]

A striking characteristic of the anti-Nader forces, typified by the 
subject line here, is the belief that insult is likely to be more 
effective than argument.  One component of this strategy is to 
attribute all sorts of bizarre, reactionary positions to Nader- a 
recent post accusing him of opposing gay marriage is one instance. 
The chapter on globalization in Doug's book also contains similar 
exaggerations.

Another component is to buy into the mythology that an establishment 
Democrat's foreign policy is likely to be any less interventionist 
than that being undertaken by the Bush neo-cons, for reasons I noted 
in a previous posting.  A Kerry administration will be different, 
but, as Doug pointed out, there is no basis for believing that its 
foreign policy will be any less aggressive and warmongering.

Having said that, there are reasonable arguments to be made against 
Nader's candidacy, and I have made some of them myself, to Nader's 
face no less.  (I will share these with the list, if anyone's 
interested.)

In short, any serious argument against a Nader candidacy has to 
precede on the assumption that Nader is not an idiot, nor are those 
considering supporting his candidacy who you would most want to 
convince.

As an intellectual exercise, the anti-Nader forces might want to 
attempt to formulate some of these arguments yourself.  Your ability 
to succeed in doing so will determine whether those of us considering 
supporting Nader write you off as just another Democratic Party 
hack-which many of you are, of course.

Best,

John

--