> The Democrats are pretty fucked up if they reserve their vitriol for
> Ralph Nader instead of Bush and his war. Why aren't the Democrats
> fighting Bush more openly? Because they are essentially Republicans
> who support almost everything that the Republicans support. Ralph
> Nader and the Green are a threat because they are a visible exception
> to the fiction that the Democrats are an alternative to the Democrats.
>
> But everybody on this list knows this stuff.
Not quite everyone.
Are the Democrats essentially Republicans? Well, both are essentially capitalists. But so's Nader. And so are most Greens.
I just cannot for the life of me understand this hats-in-the-air enthusiasm for Ralph among people who consider themselves radicals. He's an ex-consumer activist (did a great job pressuring Detroit to make safer cars) who is a complete flop, as far as I can see, as a leader of the radical left. A better example of the Peter Principle (rising to one's level of incompetence) I can't think of off the top of my head.
If we had a leader today who was inspiring a coalition of the segments of the population who are suffering most from this system, together with radicals who are personally not suffering so much but who strongly yearn to have the damn thing off all of our backs, a leader who could clearly articulate not only what is wrong with the system but what could replace it, and how, by all working together, we could get there, I'd be the first to back her or him, and to hell with Kerry and everyone like him.
But we don't have such a leader, or such a movement. And I don't see how backing Nader would move us a quarter of an inch in that direction. The best he can do is what he did four years ago, and I don't see the advantage in that.
Consequently, on election day of the year 2004 C.E., we have three real choices: vote Kerry, vote Bush, or don't vote. I know what my choice is.
Nathan wrote:
>The equation of immediacy of victory with radicalism in some quarters
>drives me nuts. To demand everything and get nothing is not radical, it's
>a betrayal of those with immediate needs. Radicalism is getting as much as
>you can today, then planning the next battle.
I don't know that I would entirely agree with that definition of "radicalism" (I think it also includes looking and thinking a bit further ahead than today and the next battle), but, in the absence of an actual radical movement, the least we can do is to fight a defensive battle to keep things from getting worse for "those with immediate needs." And at this point, as far as I can see, that means transplanting the Shrub from the Rose Garden, as a first step.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ Music, the greatest good that mortals know,
And all of heaven we have below. -- Joseph Addison, A Song for St. Cecilia's Day