Doug Henwood wrote:
By the way, several people who've studied the matter closely tell me there's no Nader organization anywhere in the U.S. There are some freelancers, and of course there's Counterpunch and the ISO, but there's no real organization. What kind of politics is that?
Doug
Pretty effective lack of organization, if it brings in 1% of the eligible or the intending voters - especially as Nader is being excoriated as the liberal Anti-christ, along with Bush as Hitler. The adequacy of the level of Nader's organization may depend on the perceptions and intentions of his candidacy. Has anyone looked at his website lately?
Something must be registering with that 1% of voters (and think of all the nose-holders he might otherwise, but for this negative blast, garner). I think more and more people have thoroughly had it with the corrupt processes of electoral politics, the illegitimacy of which becomes increasingly manifest, despite powerful media participation in obscuring the issues, and the blackout on and pillorying of Nader, our #1 public interest public figure - an articulate critic of that process, who can spell out in detail the consequences; who bears the bugbear he carries well; and that gradually increasing realization of illegitimacy may - MAY - be the most significant thing about this campaign generally
What has really turned the most active people on this island was participating in the Kucinich campaign (he got the most votes in the Democratic Party caucuses here), who saw what happened at the Dem Convention, with the very evident total takeover by the Democratic Leadership Council and corporate managers, and Kucinich's faction being literally shunted into the corners, after having to cave with no quid pro quo whatsoever. Those with whom I have spoken now feel there's no chance of change within the Democratic Party.
I don't know how representative they are of liberal activists elsewhere, but why not? And they are, as anyone who participated in the Eugene McCarthy and other campaigns (as I did) knows, the shock troops and work horses of any campaign with which that base can identify. Liberals may be wobblers, but they can generate a whole lot of enthusiasm, and with their near-hysteria about Bush and their negative feelings toward Kerry as well, and for what it's worth, something different in their perceptions appears to be happening here.
That may be as we know , with the disaffection of millions of workers and these liberals, despite the scare tactics holding them in tacit support, Kerry's weakest point, the one that up-ends his candidacy. That and of course the erstwhile cave-in of millions who don't see their ox being especially gored or that corrupt political campaigns have much to do with it, sitting fitfully before their electronic mesmerizers.
Can we predict anything from this about the continued relevance of that party? Who has a fix on where the economy is going and the attitudes of those it takes with it? As to the fate of the Democraps, don't we wish. I have just finished reading Harry Shutt's A New Democracy, and before that Robert Biel's The New Imperialism. Both of these perceptive Brits, despite differences in orientation, lay out why they feel that we are in a period of unique transition, and what impels them to conclude that the ruling elements are in a quandary from which they most probably cannot emerge with their interests intact.
Ralph
