> 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.
No. This concept has been around long before postmodernism was ever invented.
> 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.
You just aren't getting it. You run as a candidate to get your ideas onto the national stage. Nader is taken seriously as a candidate. He gets media attention. He's getting progressive ideas out there, albeit in a limited manner. Nader is in a unique situation as a public figure that he can take advantage of the election to run as a candidate.
Nader has articulated why he is running. Look at the effect Perot had in recent elections. He lost badly, but he got the media and the other candidates to give his ideas some airtime.
> 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.
If you take electoral politics seriously, perhaps this is a strategy. Given that the American system is corrupt and broken, with identical candidates being offered up by the corporate parties, Nader's campaign makes alot of sense.
I don't support particpation in elections, but this is my take on the situation.
Chuck