On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Michael Dawson wrote:
> 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.
I hesitate to weigh in on this, but when I think of a man (or a woman) of the left, I think of a person who is enthusiastic about socialism. RN is not. He is a self-professed fan of capitalism. Granted, he wants to eliminate corporate corruption, but he's an advocate for capitalism (appropriately regulated). In the political spectrum from far left to far right (crude, I know), Nader positions himself mid-left (maybe 70th or 75th percentile, if far left socialist revolutionary is 100th).
Given how much RN's agendas and economic philosophy differ from those of unabashed leftists who openly advocate socialism (I put myself on that list), I don't see the point of leftists supporting RN. If I want to make a vote consistent with my leftist principles, RN does not support my political perspective, and I shouldn't vote for him. If I want to make a vote for a tactical reason, (say, movement building), then I'm doing exactly what the leftists supporting Kerry are doing: picking someone I don't completely agree with to achieve some important goals.
If we're being tactical, though, we need to analyze all the consequences of the vote, not just those we'd like to emphasize. Imagine RN gets a huge proportion of the vote and swings the election to Bush. Some reasonable predictions:
1. Roe v. Wade is overturned due to new SC appointments 2. War is expanded in Middle East 3. Tax burden is further shifted to the middle class and the poor 4. The fourth amendment is further eroded, in the name of "fighting terrorism" 5. Support for al-Qaeda and related groups will increase in the Arab world, more people killed in terrorist attacks
When I weigh all of that against "we can build a movement" or "creating a third party alternative", I don't see the tactical advantages of voting for Nader this time.
Miles