> Yes, I have -- for Greens and a "Democrat"
> (a friend of mine) who is politically an
> independent but did run in the Democratic
> Party primary and beat the DP-backed
> candidate
There's no basis to put the word "Democrat" in scare-quotes in this context. Yoshie's position as stated right here is pretty sane, by the way, but we'll note that it took my pointed question about her practical experience to get her to say it. (So much for the idea that I was an asshole for asking it in the first place.) In any case, what she says here is actually in contradiction to just about everything else she has said about "the Democratic Party." What I have been saying all along is that "the Democratic Party" is not much of a party at all, really just a ballot line, and that left electoral tactics should be flexible enough to accomodate people running as Democrats, independents of various sorts, and even Republicans, depending on the concrete circumstances, in the manner of the Non-Partisan League. Yoshie's friend was as much a Democrat as the chair of the local ward committee; there was nothing holding him back from running in the primary.
Now to the stuff about how the party regulars (the local party committee, I assume) often don't give support in the general election to progressives who win in the primary. This is not universally true, but who ever suggested that this wasn't a problem? Of COURSE the party regulars don't engage in systematic voter registration, mobilization of a base of the working-class and oppressed, etc. The point is that you do it anyway, in spite of them. There are all sorts of progressive mass organizations right now that are doing just that in preparation for the shodown with the Dark Side in the fall, the 527s for example. What irritates the ultraleft, I suppose, is that the mass organizations intend to actually defeat reaction, even if (inevitably) the people who replace Bush are not entirely to our liking.
I'm not sure why Yoshie decided to make reference to my own position on the elections of 2000. It was basically the same as Adolph Reed's, a shrug of the shoulders at its importance and a magnanimous view of all left positions on it. In the end I voted for Nader myself, though only because it was clear that Gore was going to win Pennsylvania. Needless to say -- I hope -- that was then and this is now. My position on the elections of 2000 is about as relevant now as my position on the Brazilian president of that day. It's rather as if Yoshie had dug up some Internet writing from 2000 wherein I said, "The president of Brazil is an asshole and deserves to be removed from office," and asked why I didn't support the removal of the Brazilian president now. Obviously, there have been some intervening events. (Though I will note that many Trots hate Lula as well and probably want to see him removed, even though he has a good deal more revolutionary determination in his right pinkie fingernail than most of them have in their entire bodies.)
Since Bush's theft of the election in 2000, there have been intervening events. Chief among these has been September 11, before which the regime was on the run, and after which the regime cranked into high gear for a reactionary assault on the people of new and dangerous proportions. To sit out the struggle against this -- which has so many implications both for this country AND THE WORLD, REGARDLESS of the unexciting character of his tepidly liberal potential replacement -- is criminal.
Today an article from Ralph Nader appeared as the lead on the website of CounterPunch. Since this article was not about how he is not going to run this year -- almost the opposite, in fact -- I called up CounterPunch and let them know that I was cancelling my subscription effective immediately, since I wasn't interested in supporting a so-called "left" publication that campaigned for George Bush. (I have been a subscriber since the newsletter's first year.) I encourage those who still have subs to do the same.
Further, a vote for Nader -- assuming he runs -- is not permissible this year even in "safe" states, because (1) it is important that Bush lose the popular vote once again, to help deligitimize him as much as possible in the event that he secures the Electoral College and (2) a vote for Nader would encourage both him and his granola-chomping camp-followers to continue with their idiotic behavior. As for Nader in the debates, it would be wise on his part if he would not make that his primary demand this year, as he did last time, and instead he should prioritize getting himself some hefty Secret Service protection.
- - - - - John Lacny
People of the US, unite and defeat the Bush regime and all its running dogs!