On Monday, March 15, 2004, at 07:01 PM, Michael Dawson -PSU wrote:
>> Form third parties. Fourth, fifth, and sixth ones too. I'm all for
>> it. But it's a very slow and complicated process, and has absolutely
>> nothing to do with Ralph Nader, who is a party of one.
> As to Ralph having "absolutely nothing to do" with the establishment
> of a
> third party, I think that's simply false.
He's not running as a third-party candidate. What better measure than that?
> Nader's trying to show that
> campaigning to the left of the DP can be meaningful, and might even
> produce
> a big constituency, if it can ever find a way to garner TV time. He's
> also
> trying to break the debate monopoly, which has a great deal to do with
> the
> viability of third parties, does it not?
If the rise of a third party has as essential pre-condidtions TV time and getting into the debates, let's just hang it up now and go home. Those are the fruits of successful party-building---no one gives you those before you have enough power to demand them.
I don't think Nader is showing that campaigning to the left of the DP is meaningful. What useful or practical result is he demonstrating?
All the best,
John A