I had indeed written such on Feb. 22, but unfortunately it remained in my Drafts folder unsent. At that time no one had gone quite so far as John Lacny in making views of the election a matter of personal integrity, but I think what I wrote then was an answer in advance to his silliness.
And I would still like Doug to explain why "traitor" is a perfectly decorous charge against fellow leftists while calling the one who used that language a "piece of shit" is appalling. We forbid posters to call each other cops on this list. I presume "traitors" is at least as undesirable as a comradely epithet.
I copy the unfinished post below.
Carrol
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Ralph Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:56:11 -0600 From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org References: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0402221630300.5062-100000 at gere.odin.pdx.edu>
Miles Jackson wrote:
>
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> > Michael Dawson wrote:
> >
> > >All lefties of good conscience will now support Ralph, and insist that he be
> > >allowed into the debates. Whether or not we change to the Kerry-bot at the
> > >last minute is up to the Kerry-bot. There is no other principled position.
> >
> > Guess that makes me an unprincipled opportunist. Hope the checks and
> > other perks are imminently forthcoming.
>
> --And moreover: can you really be a leftie and in good "conscience"
> support Nader? He thinks capitalism should be well regulated, but
> not overturned; he's ambivalent about unions, rather than working to
> increase union membership; he does grandstanding presidental runs,
> rather than helping to build a grassroots socialist political
> movement. --I guess my question is: how can a principled
> leftist in good conscience vote for Nader?
>
First of all, I think charges of opportunism are sort of silly at the present time; almost as silly as boasting about being opportunist. And I think, moreover, that we ought to try do remove this whole discussion from the realm of personal blame. What is involved is a difference of judgment, not differences in moral character. (And in fact, we should probably get away from moral judgmenst of Bush, Kerry, & Nader as well. It doesn't really get us anywhere.)
Now, the "we" here has to be confined to those whose self-conscious leftist politics lead them to see refusing to support the DP as a real alternative. That is, all concerned see voting for Nader as a possible choice a rational leftist could make. [COMMENT, March 2: I found the prose here lumpy, and at the time knew not how to improve it.]
> Miles
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk