[lbo-talk] Tariq Ali endorses Kerry, denounces Nader

[Michael Dawson]

There's a huge difference.  Saying that RN opposes the DP because it stands
for "corporate socialism" in the way Raimondo puts it, makes RN sound like
he's against the DP because of the second word, not the first.  RN clearly
is way closer to a socialist than anything close to getting steady NYT
coverage right now, and calling him an Old Rightist is just an atrocity
against the facts.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  RN is a man of the left.
Anybody who says otherwise is an obfuscator.

-----Original Message-----
From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
On Behalf Of snit snat
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2004 4:45 PM
To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org; lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
Subject: RE: [lbo-talk] Tariq Ali endorses Kerry, denounces Nader

At 06:43 PM 10/30/2004, Michael Dawson wrote:
>No, sir.  This is bad faith stuff.
>
>Nader doesn't rebel against "the corporate socialism of the Democratic
>Party."  He rebels against the corporate captivity of the Democratic Party.
>Raimondo misreports this one, and it's pretty scurrilous of you, Doug, to
>amplify it.  This take by Raimondo is just a willful mis-hearing of what
>Nader says.

I don't get why this is a meaningful complaint. Nader rails against 
corporate socialism and he accuses the DP (and RP) of enabling corporate 
socialism.

IT's not as if Raimondo isn't a 'pox on both your houses" kinda guy, 
either, so he was obviously stressing Nader's critique of the DP in order 
to make an argument about how similar Nader's rhetoric is to that of 
midwest progressives.

I was potentially considering voting Nader, even here in limpdick. But 
then, he called a member of the CBC racist for calling Nader a "white man." 
I stay out of the whole thing most of the time b/c, the best he'll get from 
me is <flush>.

If I vote third party (and I have most of my life), it's because the 
candidate claims to stand on a lefty platform. Understanding the structural 
operations of racism (and oppression in general) is one of those 
fundamental issues--for me.

If I vote for a democrat, it's because s/he claims to represent one wing of 
capitalist party I prefer to live under, one I believe creates an 
environment slightly more advantageous to the left than under the other 
wing, and because they often give real, immediate relief to people like me.

I have been wantin' to blow democrats for the last week b/c of that 
freakin' earned income tax credit I've been eligible for while being single 
head of household. I'd also blow a democrat for the HUD subsidized housing 
i lived in until I became ineligible. I socked what I could away and could 
come up with the first/last/deposit.

Had to put up with the state visiting every year to look in my closet for a 
toolbox, in my bath for men's cologne, or in my closet for a flannel shirt 
(and they're weren't looking for my butch girlfriend, either!) Had to watch 
while the HUD subsidy fattened the wallet of the corporation that ran the 
place. Thought it was pathetic that kids had to work off a shoplifting 
charging by cleaning the complex grounds (instead of working a soup 
kitchen) as if the corporation that ran the joint was in need of free 
labor. But hey, you put up with the Sizzlean busting into your home every 
few months and ya also get free before and after school program for the 
kiddles. (I'm nodding at feminist critiques of the welfare state--how 
marriage to men is replaced with marriage to the state)

Finally, insanity/evil are irrelevant in my book.  But, whatever Doug 
claims about Nader, it doesn't stand or fall because he fails to make the 
same observation about Treeface.


>The reason to vote against Nader is not political-theoretical.  It's 100
>percent tactical.
>
>Nader is not a man of the Old Right, whatever elements of its talk he may
>echo.  The cornerstone of Old Conservatism was anti-democracy.  Nader is a
>staunch democrat, and always has been.  And, isn't it worth saying that
>conservatism is a healthy aspiration?  Aren't we all struggling for a world
>in which we can read the papers and look out the windows and honestly
>conclude that all big things are best?  All good radicalism should contains
>the seeds of future conservatism, although not too many.
>
>And, BTW, how is this kind of Nader bashing any better than what Nader is
>doing?  Shouldn't we LBO types be very careful not to give aid and comfort
>to the DP's internal Nader-bashing shills, who want us all, ala N. Newman,
>to stop all complaints about the past, present, and future nature of the
DP?
>
>Nader is not insane or evil, and if you insist he is, then be consistent
and
>observe the same about Horseface, who is 10 times the slut and idiot RN
ever
>was.  RN's simply making a bad tactical decision to keep going, probably
out
>of personal desperation, and with lots of decent reasons.

"We live under the Confederacy.
We're a podunk bunch of swaggering
pious hicks."

                --Bruce Sterling 

___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk