> I think it vital that the present administration be turned out this
> fall,
> but I think Chuck0 may well be correct here. --CGE
Arguing, as Chuck0 did, that "Nader's presence in the race will shift the election discourse to economics and corporate power" assumes (1) that the democratic candidates aren't already talking about that subject, (2) people will pay attention to Nader, and (3) people will be persuaded by Nader's arguments (after all, it doesn't do any good to "shift the discourse" to a topic if, once it is shifted, the majority of people don't come to the right conclusion about it.)
But (1) both Kerry and Edwards are already talking about economics and corporate power. Yes, if one of them is nominated and then goes on to win the general election, they will do nothing significant to oppose this power. But suppose Nader runs an unexpectedly strong campaign and gets, as Chuck0 predicts, even more votes than in 2000. Then the chances are good (if the Bush-Democratic candidate race is close) that Bush will be re-elected. Then where will the brave fight against corporate power be? This comes close to the notorious "the worse the better" argument.
(2) We can't tell yet, of course, but I rather doubt that Ralph will get much attention this year, with everyone focusing on finding the best possible Democratic candidate to retire Bush.
(3) Does any Nader supporter think that he will actually persuade any Americans who were not anti-corporation before they heard him to become so? After all, his rep was built as a consumer advocate, pointing out the shoddy products a lot of corporations build. Certainly a lot of American consumers agreed with him about that -- even a lot of corporations began to realize that quality is a good selling point (especially in the auto business, after Japanese and other foreign makers put the U.S. ones to shame). Presumably, however, radical leftists, whether Marxists, non-Marxist socialists, anarchists, or whatever other varieties there are, are interested in "shifting the discourse" to "economics and corporate power" not because we want better products, but because we want to change the whole capitalist system, and Ralph's discourse is of precisely zero value in building support for that view, even if he manages to make any converts to his position.
Chuck0 also wrote:
>> Nader's campaign lends more gravitas to the issues of jobs,
>> outsouring, corporate power, and the overall economy. This will help
>> the Dems hammer the Bush regime on the fact that they haven't done
>> anything on the job front.
He will lend gravitas if people think he *has* any gravitas to lend. But he seems to be becoming more a figure of fun and derision, if not contempt, among everyone but his core fans. He claims that he will be able to attract a lot of disgruntled Republicans, etc. Well, we shall see about that.
As for "helping the Dems hammer the Bush regime," I doubt that they need any help in that department. After all, the slow drop in the unemployment rate, the Bush guy's statement that outsourcing is a good thing, etc., are already big themes in both Kerry's and Edwards' speeches. They're already hammering W as hard as they can. As I said, I don't expect either one of them, if he became President, would do anything significant to help the working class. The best we can hope is that they would be somewhat less disastrous for workers than Bush has been. But I don't see what Nader could contribute to the campaign, given that he is neither a principled anti-capitalist nor a very effective campaigner, IMHO. And this time, he's on his own, without even a third party to support him.
The bottom line is: how many votes will he get in November? I think he will be down to his core fan base, which is probably a lot smaller than the support he had in 2000. Everyone else will want to be sure than 2000 won't be repeated, so, like it or not, they'll vote Democratic. That may be an overly simplistic view of the situation, but some times politics gets real simple.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ After the Buddha died, people still kept pointing to his shadow in a cave for centuries—an enormous, dreadful shadow. God is dead: but the way people are, there may be, for millennia, caves in which his shadow is still pointed to. — And we — we must still overcome his shadow! —Friedrich Nietzsche