Re: An editorial worth repeating
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/07/04 2:44 PM Monthly Review, Feb. 2001 The Nader Campaign and the Future of U.S. Left Electoral Politics by The Editors In our view, the Nader campaign was the electoral side of the mass organizing that produced the extraordinary demonstrations in Seattle in 1999 and in Washington, DC, and at the two national political conventions in 2000. More than electoral, I'd say. Nader maintained the largest resource center in Seattle during the WTO protests, including computer stations for press and organizers, the largest array of pamphlets, brochures, buttons, stickers, posters, books, etc. He conducted dailing press briefings and end-of-day recaps for the press. His organizations were evident everywhere -- in the Fair Trade office, which had a direct link to Nader's headquarters, and in the Independent Media Center. His organizations were the major resource providers for the activists. No doubt about it. The easy thing to forget about Nader is that electoral politics and the Green Party are just two of the many prongs of his civic thrust. Dan Scanlan
Re: An editorial worth repeating
The easy thing to forget about Nader is that electoral politics and the Green Party are just two of the many prongs of his civic thrust. Dan Scanlan But don't forget that he is working with nefarious forces to get on the ballot in Michigan. Maybe he should have proposed John McCain as his running-mate instead of Peter Camejo. I'm sure that would have gotten him a clean bill of health from the Nation Magazine, Salon.com, commondreams.org and alternet.org just as it got John Kerry. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: An editorial worth repeating
Louis wrote... Maybe he should have proposed John McCain as his running-mate instead of Peter Camejo. I'm sure that would have gotten him a clean bill of health from the Nation Magazine, Salon.com, commondreams.org and alternet.org just as it got John Kerry. Nader has not sought the endorsement of any media that I know of. He wrote a scathing attack on The Nation a while back recalling for it its long history of fairness toward progressive causes and accusing it of abandoning that history. That's no way to get a clean bill of health. A few weeks back he openly chastised Michael Moore not for the content of his movie but for Moore's catering to Democrat big-wigs instead of progressives when he premiered it. I suspect Nader chose Camejo because he's true and such a clear expositor of a long view that is congruent with his own. And because the choice honors the many Latinos who live in and help keep this country running. Not unlike his choice of Winona LaDuke four years ago. When the bruhaha over Moore's movie has come and gone, I reckon Nader still will be plugging along pestering the Democrats to decorporatize, willing to once again take the blame for causing the corporate bench team (the Democrats) to lose their part of the game to the first stringers (the Republicans). Bush will lose the election because he's done his job. Now it takes a Democrat to clean up and implement. Kerry will be to W. as Clinton was the H.W. I don't think Nader's insight will be fully appreciated until after a few more cycles of this crap, if we survive that long. Dan
Re: An editorial worth repeating
Dan Scanlan wrote: Bush will lose the election because he's done his job. Now it takes a Democrat to clean up and implement. Kerry will be to W. as Clinton was the H.W. I don't think Nader's insight will be fully appreciated until after a few more cycles of this crap, if we survive that long. That reminds me. I've been meaning to research how Hitler came to power. You have to remember that the German SP was the ABB of its day, except that it was ABH instead. They kept backing lesser evils until they got the most evil lesser evil in Hindenberg who virtually turned over the power to Hitler once in power. With Hitler's rise, you got WWII and the extermination of the Jews. Today, it won't be anything that dramatic unless some crazed terrorist gets a hold of a nuclear device and sets it off in Soho. Goodbye, Starbucks. But the more likely alternative is steady degradation of the natural world and increased misery in places like Haiti and Zambia. That's the way the world will end, with a whimper rather than a bang. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: An editorial worth repeating
Today, it won't be anything that dramatic unless some crazed terrorist gets a hold of a nuclear device and sets it off in Soho. Goodbye, Starbucks. actually, these days, the nut could set it off _anywhere_ and destroy a Starf*cks. jd (I buy mine at an independent drive-in coffee place on PCH that's surrounded by Starf*cks.)
Re: An editorial worth repeating
In a message dated 7/9/2004 1:53:58 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That reminds me. I've been meaning to research how Hitler came to power.You have to remember that the German SP was the ABB of its day, exceptthat it was ABH instead. They kept backing lesser evils until they gotthe most evil lesser evil in Hindenberg who virtually turned over thepower to Hitler once in power. With Hitler's rise, you got WWII and the extermination of the Jews.Today, it won't be anything that dramatic unless some crazed terroristgets a hold of a nuclear device and sets it off in Soho. Goodbye, Starbucks. COmment What a bizarre revision of world history. With German fascism and its aftermathyou first and foremost had 22 million Soviets dead and 40 million wounded. Billions in property destroyed and Europa in ruins. This does not mean six million Jews were not killed but reveals ones point of view. Is 20 million plus 40 million . . . plus Europe in ruinsmore than six million? How bizarre. Melvin P.
Re: An editorial worth repeating
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/07/04 2:44 PM Monthly Review, Feb. 2001 The Nader Campaign and the Future of U.S. Left Electoral Politics by The Editors In our view, the Nader campaign was the electoral side of the mass organizing that produced the extraordinary demonstrations in Seattle in 1999 and in Washington, DC, and at the two national political conventions in 2000. similar view was also held by jello biafra whose candidacy for green party nomination in 2000 i personally favored, ex-dker focused, however, on green party rather than nader... michael hoover -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
An editorial worth repeating
Monthly Review, Feb. 2001 The Nader Campaign and the Future of U.S. Left Electoral Politics by The Editors The unlikely postelection contest between Al Gore and George W. Bush, which ultimately led to the anointing of Bush as president by the Republican majority on the US Supreme Court (despite the fact that Bush received fewer popular votes than Gore both in the United States as a whole and most likely in Florida as wellthe state that gave Bush his electoral college win), has tended to erase all other developments associated with the election. But all of this should not cause us to forget that the Ralph Nader Green Party campaign for the presidency was arguably the most extraordinary phenomenon in US left politics in many years. On election day he drew nearly three million votes, representing about 3 percent of the vote. Even former Vice-President Henry Wallace did not fare so well in his third-party run for the presidency in 1948, the last progressive third-party presidential campaign of this nature and magnitude. Although exit polls show that Nader received few racial minority votes (a major weakness of his campaign), he nonetheless drew his strongest support from those without a college education, those with incomes less than thirty thousand dollars a year, and those without full-time employment. Until the intense scare campaign instigated by the Democrats in the final two weeks before the election, Nader was getting as much as 7 percent in some tracking polls. Nader ran quite far to the left on issue after issue; this was no warmed-over version of mainstream liberal Democratic politics. The Green platform was an antineoliberal progressive platform that any socialist could support openly. At the same time, Nader enjoyed tremendous and enthusiastic crowds on the campaign trail, often appearing before paying crowds that ranged from ten to fifteen thousand with hardly any advance work. Were there no public opinion polls, one who merely watched the size and nature of crowd responses to the candidates on the campaign trail might have thought Nader the likely winner or at least a strong contender for victory. Moreover, these crowds were dominated by young people. Such a response would have been unthinkable one or two decades ago. Nader was the best-suited and arguably the only feasible candidate to make a progressive third-party run in 2000. He came of age in the 1960s when progressive political figures had some opportunity to gain exposure in the media culture; he has long been a household name. (As Nader notes, with the rightward shift of our political landscape and the hypercommercialism of our media culture, serious progressive critics of the status quo have had far less opportunity to gain national exposure in the past two decades, unless they are political humorists like Michael Moore or people who become celebrities for other reasons and then discuss politics, like Susan Sarandon.) He is also highly regarded for a list of accomplishments in the public interest that is nothing short of stunning. Nader turned to electoral politics only when it became clear that the degree of corporate domination over both parties made the sort of public interest work he did nearly impossible to pursue with any hope of success. Nader is not a socialist, but he is a principled democrat who has the courage to call for sweeping reforms in the political economy when it is apparent that corporate domination and class inequality are undermining democracy. Nader spoke brilliantly in plain language to everyday Americans from a range of backgrounds about the need for sweeping structural reform, a lost art among many on the left. The issue that was the foundation of the Nader campaign was his opposition to the World Trade Organization (WTO), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the entirety of the global procapitalist trade, investment, and regulatory system. Unlike nationalist opponents of the WTO like Pat Buchanan, Naders opposition was on democratic grounds: these agencies were not subject to popular control in the United States or elsewhere and were therefore illegitimate. Moreover, Nader was and is arguably the worlds foremost expert on exactly how these institutions of global capitalism are generating disastrous results across the planet for workers, consumers, and the environment. Nader and the Greens also favored deep cuts in the US military budget and apparatus and opposed US material support for reactionary regimes and policies around the world. Nader, who drew 19 percent of the total Muslim vote (72 percent of which went to Bush), declared that there will be no peace in the Middle East without justice for the Palestinians. In sum, Nader and the Greens offered a progressive and nonimperialist foreign policy that was decidedly outside the bipartisan consensus that is almost never debated in the US electoral arena. This is a point that merits
