On Feb 19, 2008, at 4:07 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> On Feb 19, 2008, at 3:58 PM, Shane Mage wrote:
>
>> Doug, you and many others on these lists have pointed out all the
>> "positions," "advisers." and "roused rabble" that are supposed to
>> make
>> Barack Obama as totally unsupportable as Frau Clinton. So, from
>> those
>> believing that, one would expect calls for Ralph Nader (the only non-
>> Dumbocrat capable of mounting a meaningful third-party campaign) to
>> enter the race and pledges of active support. Instead a possible
>> Nader campaign
>> is treated as a "stupid topic" (until someone discovers that Nader is
>> "even more dangerous" than Obama). Interesting.
>
> It's stupid because we've been through it twice before. Ralph and
> what army will change the USA? What "third party"? What party does
> Ralph have, besides his party of one? He had an opportunity to build
> a party in 1996, and he didn't. He mighta coulda even done so in
> 2000, as reviled as he was. Now what is he but an interesting but
> annoying gadfly with an admirable history as a consumer advocate now
> long behind him?
In America, "third party" is a generic term for any candidacy independent of the Dumbocrats and Repugnicons. Parties in America are not built by leaders but by activists who get a ballot line (against antidemocratic efforts to exclude them, much more from Dumbocrats than from Repugnicons) and by voters who make that ballot line enduring through sufficient participation. And if Obama's programmatic deficiencies are relevant (and they are) why isn't Nader's excellent program also relevant? So why is the topic "stupid?" Because it forces people to choose between "lesser evil" support of a Dumbocrat (even a Clinton!) and commitment to independent radical political action?
Shane Mage
"Thunderbolt steers all things...it consents and does not consent to be called Zeus."
Herakleitos of Ephesos