I am almost totally indifferent to a Nader run, as it will mean nothing in November. However, it is always disheartening to see someone who has shown real greatness over a long career come to an embarrassing end, so my indifference is not total.
There is only one rational reason for a person to go through the time-sucking, expensive, and nasty process of running for public office in this country: To gain power by working through that system. This does not necessarily mean winning during that go-round (although only a fool runs an electoral campaign without working for a win), but it certainly means at least positioning oneself or one’s organization to win eventually.
Nader and the Greens made a credible argument along these lines in 2000. But the results are in. Nader had a poor showing in 2000, but what was more important, he totally failed to build on those results in the ensuing time. The organizational forces deployed around the (poor) Nader 2000 run are substantially weaker today, while both the Republicans and Democrats have their bases mobilized to a degree not seen in my lifetime.
I admit that Nader may not be as embarrassing as some whining Democrats who seem more worried about a Nader “threat” than the real power vested in their Republican opponent, a rich and disciplined outfit that, by the way, has political control of the world’s most powerful nation-state. But a Nader 2004 campaign is still embarrassing—-for Nader, and for the segment of the Left that will follow him to nowhere.
---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: John Halle <john.halle at yale.edu> Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:27:51 -0500
>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- ...