Is there a such thing as an election-herring or election-baiting, which would be similar in linguistic form and function to red-herring and red-baiting, 'cause I think it applies here.
It's amazing how a so-called progressive uses a corporate consumer frame to denote "choice," outside the context of what the value or utility of those choices are. More important, he then uses typical Capitalist/Fascist tactics, by equating political analysis and recommendation with a revocation of freedom, in the best McCarthyite tradition.
Neither I, nor Manning Marable is about to stand at any door, as your ancestors might have, and try to block anyone's right to run in any election or vote. To state such things is to be incredibly duplicitous and ahistorical. Nader can obviously do anything he wants. The point is that Manning, like me, is trying to present a case for why he shouldn't run, and why progressives shouldn't support him. I see nothing wrong or oppressive about that.
> >(2) in order to make voting for
> >third parties something more than a form of masturbation
> >you have to get off your tired, fat asses and FIGHT for the
> >adoption of some form of PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION in our
> >Federal Elections system.
>
> Well, at least MY ass is not tired or fat. I've been
> fighting for proportional rep and IRV, and the best way to
> fight for it is to make the Democratic Party pay for not
> implementing it.
Once again, such decisions do not exist in a vacuum and will most likely occur through organizing and agitation outside the context of the major parties.
My vision is some form of alliance of ALL the third-parties in the U.S., including maybe the right-wing ones, along with some old fashioned international agitation. We need to elevate this to a human rights level.
> The truth is, with proportional rep or the Condorcet model
> of IRV, Ralph Nader would have WON THE ELECTION FOR
> PRESIDENT by several percentage points against Bush or
> Gore.
Yes, I agree. IF we had PR, then people could make choices without fear of fascism. We don't have PR, so that point is irrelevant to the discussion. My point is that you need to focus on the fight for PR. With all the work that Ralph has done over the many years to help consumers, he should turn his attention to some sort of human rights frame around voting and the need for PR, and do that all year 'round, and stop wasting time with the Presidential election. Maybe even combine it with the human rights violation that is Washington, DC, and work together with other voting and human rights groups around this issue. Now THAT type of campaign would help to build the Green Party and maybe open up our elections system.
> For that matter, had the Democrats stood up for the
> disenfranchised Black voters in Florida, instead of
> selling them down the river, Gore would have carried that
> state as well by a hefty margin.
That's pretty much irrelevant to this discussion. You, in your paternalistic and racist way, assume to tell me and other Black people something we know about better than you. We are the teachers and you are the student. We know all too well the duplicity and disingenuousness of "white" folks and the Capitalist machine, present company fully included.
> Hey, I'm not the one who is whining. The Greens are going
> to -- whether you like it or not -- provide the voters of
> this country with an anti-corporate, anti-war, anti-death
> penalty, anti-drug wars CHOICE.
Once again, a corporate, consumer frame.
> Nader got a higher percentage of the Black vote nationwide
> than he did of any other demographic except American-Arab
> people.
This has already been discredited. Next.
> If the BRC wants to take credit for the higher levels of
> sanity in the Black electorate, so be it...
I didn't say the BRC was taking credit for anything. I said that many members of the BRC were engaged in agitation on Nader's behalf. The BRC didn't officially endorse anyone, and many BRC members were staunchly in support of Gore, but the only place you could find any significant Black support on the Left was in the BRC.
> >While many, many, many people on the Left were
> >saying TINA, especially progressive Blacks, many Black
> >radicals were supporting Nader as a way to send a message to
> >the Capitalists and White Supremacists in the Democratic
> >Party.
>
> Partly. But I also think that most people are beyond
> trying to "send a message to the Master". The Greens are
> clearly NOT about trying to send a message to the Dem or
> Rep leadership. We're trying to build the capacity we'll
> need to "overgrow the government", so to speak.
Once again, I don't see how Nader's running this time, at the last minute, contributes to that, especially in the eyes of people of color. This is the same problem I have with people like Jesse Jackson and Al Shaprton. The Greens want to be the new Head Negroes in Charge, but have failed to pay attention to the real needs of movement building.
> >Now Manning has made the strategic decision to support the
> >DP candidate, because the reign of racist terror that has
> >come down on both domestic people of color and immigrants
> >has gotten too far fucking out of control. Fuck you if you
> >don't like that.
>
> Oh, please. You really can't be saying that you supported
> Nader instead of Gore last time because you really didn't
> realize how despicable Bush and his gang would be. Is that
> what you are arguing?
OK, now watch this boys and girls, 'cause it's going to be instructive:
Bush = Bush
Bush - September 11th = Bush
Bush + September 11th + Weak Democrats = Fascism
Goerge Bush, leading all the way up to the World Conference Against Racism, Xenophobia, and other forms of Discrimination (something you should familiarize yourself with) was on the run and about to take one for the team. After the shit jumped off, what happened is that Bush didn't change, but all opposition to him collapsed.
We were quite clear about who Bush was, but it turned out that the Democrats were even worse. Of course, you'll say "See! I told you so! The Democrats are evil!", but we already know that. That's not the point. The point is, the only way you can open up some space to allow Democrats to behave half-way decently is to move Republicans out of office. It ain't pretty, it's simply about survival.
> If Manning thinks that the way to build an alternative
> apparatus to the interests of the ruling class (which
> continue to impose themselves upon us regardless of WHO is
> elected) is to support the evil of two lessers, he's
> entitled to state that viewpoint, although I disagree with
> it.
Once again, Manning is focusing on something other than his own narrow self-interest, unlike yourself and the Greens. Your ahistoricism in regards to the different ways that these issues play out amongst the specially-oppressed is instructive. You might not care whether Bull Connor or Bernard Parks is sheriff, but WE do.
> But the Greens' strategy is EXACTLY to build the kind of
> organization that will be able to contest power which we
> will need regardless of who wins the presidency.
I don't see any evidence of that. A lot of talk and very little action or concrete outreach. Blah, blah, blah.
> You don't do that by falling into the extremely idealistic
> position (in the worst sense of that word) of proposing
> that the underlying contradictions and interests of the
> ruling class will be suppressed or regulated better by one
> bourgeois candidate over another. First, it's incorrect;
> and second, that's no way to build a fighting
> organization.
There's nothing idealistic about it. History already proves it. As for building a fighting organization, as I said before, this isn't about you or the Greens. There are other concerns more important than your narrow self-interest.
> >5. After the election, I will continue my activities to
> >organize and build movements towards a classless society,
> >which is how change will truly come about.
>
> Yea, and what about BEFORE the election?
Dumbass. Do you even understand English?
Art