>>[lbo-talk] Re: naderphobia (psychopathology of?)
>>Doug Henwood dhenwood at panix.com, Fri Jul 2 06:13:52 PDT 2004
>>
>>Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>>
>>>Don't believe every farfetched thing that US leftists who are
>>>stricken with Naderphobia have to say about Nader. I have heard
>>>Nader complain of "corporate pornography and violence beamed to
>>>children at a very impressionable age" (e.g.,
>>><http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/23/elec04.prez.nader/>),
>>>but I haven't heard him say anything about preferring domestic
>>>porn to foreign porn (!), and Christian can't produce any evidence
>>>for this libel of Nader.
>>
>>I heard him endorse the restriction of porn imports at the Town
>>Hall debate in Seattle during WTO week. And it weirdly came out of
>>nowhere, in response to a good question by David Aaron,
>>then-Undersec of Commerce
>
>Out of nowhere?
Yes, out of nowhere. He was rambling on in his answer to Aaron, and out flew the porn remark. It was weird and striking. Maybe you had to be there.
> Pornography, prostitution, drugs, slavery, child labor, babies,
>corpses, body parts, weapons, explosives, live animals, plants, etc.
>are relatively common examples used in arguments (pros or cons or
>anything in-between) about regulation and deregulation of
>commodities in intrastate and interstate trades. Cf. Michael
>Perelman, "more posner fun," December 2, 1999,
><http://squawk.ca/lbo-talk/9912/0087.html>.
Porn certainly doesn't belong on a list with corpses and weapons.
>Isn't production and distribution of porn already restricted in
>various respects? For instance, it is illegal to produce,
>distribute, and consume child pornography almost anywhere in the
>world (with one possible exception of occupied Iraq).
The reason to prohibit child porn is if children are used in producing it. Under the Decency Act, however, even Photoshopped immages are illegal, which I think is none of the state's business. And I bet you would, too, if Nader weren't in the picture.
> If you have evidence that Kerry is softer on "corporate
>pornography and violence beamed to children at a very impressionable
>age" than Nader and that Kerry is campaigning on a promise to
>liberalize the existing laws that regulate pornography, however, I'm
>all ears. :-)
I'm assuming he'd be more likely to pay it little mind than a Republican, as would the judges he'd appoint.
>> - how could a consumer advocate endorse import restrictions, since
>>they'd reduce choice and raise prices? Nader's answer was
>>uncharacteristically rambling, and then out burst the porn remark.
>
>Consumer advocates are not necessarily ideological champions of the
>idea that free trade in the global free market, working through its
>laws of demand and supply, alone should determine what we produce,
>distribute, and consume, nor do they necessarily advocate the idea
>that the cheaper is always the better.
Nader didn't give that answer - the answer he gave made no sense. He also blurted out something - again, in a unprepared and incoherent way - about restricting oil imports, in the interests of 'self-sufficiency.' His paranoia, hostility to sensuality and fun, and passion for self-sufficiency seem to me all of a psychopathological piece.
>>PS: This "Naderphobia" thing is kind of weird. I'm not afraid of
>>him, or afflicted with a psychopathological hatred; I just want him
>>to stop running for president and do something constructive
>>instead. That's a rational, hateless position.
>
>You *fear* that some Americans, who either have not paid much
>attention to the Anybody But Bush ravings or do not give a damn
>about them, will vote for Nader, therefore you support the efforts
>of Democrats to keep Nader off the ballots, for you *fear* that
>American voters *cannot be trusted to vote for Kerry* if they are
>given the choice to Nader or not to Nader, even though Nader's
>defeat in ballot access will have undemocratic legal ramifications
>*beyond* the Nader campaign. That's phobia -- a *fear of demos*
>beyond the bounds of democratic reason.
It's not fear at all. I oppose his candidacy. I wish he wouldn't run, but if he does, I wish people wouldn't vote for him. Fear has nothing to do with it.
Nader and a lot of his supporters refuse to admit that they'd drain votes from Kerry. What are they afraid of? Presumably candidates run to win, which means taking votes from other people. Do they fear admitting this?
Doug