Doug Henwood wrote:
Paul Zarembka wrote:
You and I have stood together in the past, as part of the Citizens Committee for Nader/LaDuke 2000
Alas LaDuke has gone over to the other side, having endorsed Kerry. This time, Ralph has no organization and vanishingly few supporters. He is persistent though.
Doug
Not only persistent, but on the money. Even if he stands alone. I absolutely hold with Debs's line, something generally about "better to stand for what you believe in and not get it than to stand for what you don't believe in and get it'. Or end up in a protracted morass of self-inflicted confusion. I abhor the perennial lesser of evils vote or posture, more especially without at least a word from its advocates about the greater evil of a voting system which precludes the option of declaring in an election for what you believe in. And that's as I have said before here to me one of the most enduring messages that Nader in his campaign is trying to get across. We lurch unsteadily into barbarism.
And Yoshie has it about right: if 1% of the vote is small in terms of a presidential poll estimate, it's not small in terms of a nucleus behind progressive change. It's simply cynical and witless to see his support, as several here did, as probably composed in any significant number of spooks and cranks, who will vote for any dissident, without knowing for what that candidate stands. I would be interested to know the number of hits on his website, for instance.
I most especially appreciate Yoshie's proposition: how many would end up in Nader's support if the three platforms, Democrat, Republican and Nader-Camejo, were set side by side without the candidates' names, and people were then asked which set of principles and practices they supported.
Ralph
