Chuck0 writes:
> Nader's campaign is an example of "politics as theater."
But isn't "politics as theater" one of those hip, postmodern, ironic concepts that plays better as the name of an academic seminar and less well as the way people see politics.
> It is getting radcial and progressive ideas into circulation,
albeit not as effectively since the corporate-controlled Democrats
have been fighting Nader tooth-and-nail (which shows in Kerry's
falling poll numbers).
How about: not effectively at all. The difference here is between a small East Village Off-Off-Off Broadway show your friends (and not even all of them) attend and a Broadway show. The message is not getting out since it comes across as too esoteric. It is an in-crowd message for the initiated few.
Also, if Nader's campaign is designed not for electoral success, but for "getting radcial and progressive ideas into circulation," what possible reason is there to vote for him? (leaving aside the wisdom of voting. LOL.) If his only purpose to disseminate new ideas, why vote for him? To be hip and prove that you get it? Again, if you want to send a message, call Western Union.
I admire the effort in Colorado to change the awarding of presidential electors from winner-take-all to a percentage based on popular vote garnered. To me it would have been more effective had Nader spent four years advocating for that change, laying the groundwork for votes for him (or any third party candidate) to be turned into real electors, than just running again with no hope of winning even one elector.
Seeing Nader's campaign as "politics as theater" seems a fall back position: "He cannot win, he cannot even garner one elector, so lets call it theater and then at least we can write articles/papers about it."
> His campaign then was just as much about injecting ideas and issues
into the political theater as it is now.
Well, it wasn't much of a success then. Why revive it? Like Carrie, The Musical the Nader farce should have remained shuttered.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister