By agreement, the Labor Party is not running anyone for a while. The Socialist Party
is running David McReynolds, and if you dig around (perhaps someone else on pen-l
knows this) I'm sure there is a web site where 10 or so others are listed. Among the
minor parties, however, besides Buchanan (Reform) and Nader (Green), I doubt that
anyone will get more than a couple of hundred thousand votes.
Joel Blau
Rod Hay wrote:
> Do the other minority parties like the Labor Party, etc., have presidential
> candidates? And who are they?
>
> Rod
>
> Joel Blau wrote:
>
> > Two points:
> >
> > 1) I agree--I don't think it would be wise to channel all political activity
> > through one candidate. On the other hand, given the attenuated conception of
> > politics that most Americans hold, electoral activity assumes an excessive
> > prominence. From this persective, it is significant that in this
> > election--unlike every other back to 1980 (Barry Commoner), someone who is
> > anti-corporate is getting some media attention. In this setting, the American
> > electoral system is both a barrier and facilitator. In a state where the vote
> > is tight, a Nader
> > vote would prompt much more hand-wringing. I live in New York, however, and if
> > Gore doesn't win New York, Bush is a shoo-in any way. So for me, and for others
> > in states with large Gore leads in the polls, it is a comparatively easy
> > decision.
> >
> > 2) And yes, campaign reform is a much more profound structural issue than the
> > Nader candidacy. The Nader candidacy will evaporate in four months, helping the
> > Green party and maybe fostering some coalition building on the local level. But
> > real campaign reform would have powerful long-term implications. I'd choose the
> > second over the first in an instant.
> >
> > Joel Blau
> >
> > Chris Burford wrote:
> >
> > > At 23:49 02/07/00 -0400, you wrote:
> > > >Mark:
> > > >
> > > >Your argument is seriously marred by the notion of Nader as a political
> > > >detour. The implication is that in his absence, the mass anger would
> > > >assume a more acceptable form. I believe in critical support of Nader, but
> > > >I reject both of your premises. At this time, at least in electoral
> > > >politics, Nader is the most successful anti-corporate messenger we
> > > >got--frightening enough to warrant a full denuciatory editorial in the New
> > > >York Times. This may not speak well for the American left, but given its
> > > >desultory state, what would you expect? For a reasonably large,
> > > >nonsectarian movement, he is basically what there is to work with. And the
> > > >notion that without him, workers would move left is as much a fantasy as
> > > >the notion that trade unionists would act more militantly if they weren't
> > > >held back by all those union bosses. The Nader campaign may be full of its
> > > >own ambiguities, but one thing is certain: most people who vote for him do
> > > >not have another more radical consciousness that they hold in secret and
> > > >upon which they would act if he were not around.
> > > >
> > > >Joel Blau
> > >
> > > It is good that the internet provides opportunities to compare experience
> > > in many countries. From east of the Atlantic it seems obvious that good
> > > people would want to support Nader and others would want to support Gore,
> > > (all with many qualifications). Rather than striving to discredit one or
> > > other position, perhaps the important thing is to debate *how* different
> > > candidates may be supported.
> > >
> > > Basically I suggest the position taken by different candidates should be
> > > seen as the result of the balance of forces, rather than the cause of
> > > future change. It is dogmatic to rule out any interest in an electoral
> > > result, but it is reformist to focus the main thrust of political activity
> > > around one candidate.
> > >
> > > A lot depends on the bourgeois electoral system. Livingstone was running
> > > for election in a PR political system that meant a protest vote for him,
> > > did not hand the London Assembly over to the Conservative Party.
> > >
> > > Third Party politics in the USA can punish the second most popular
> > > candidate, but whether it can really shift the balance of the debate over
> > > the next decade is more questionable.
> > >
> > > The funding of the system of electoral politics has been increasingly
> > > prominent in the USA and in other countries. Would not a campaign for
> > > reform of this be more fundamentally revolutionary in weakening the hold of
> > > capital over public debate?
> > >
> > > Chris Burford
> > >
> > > London
>
> --
> Rod Hay
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The History of Economic Thought Archive
> http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html
> Batoche Books
> http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/
> 52 Eby Street South
> Kitchener, Ontario
> N2G 3L1
> Canada
