Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: voting for Nader
I agree current and near retirees are not in much danger under the Bush plan. But I think the fate of young workers is completely up in the air. If the long-term projections are right (which I dispute), the private accounts to not avert extreme financial distress around 2050 or so. If they are wrong, the private accounts returns are still eaten up by transaction costs and annuity conversion costs, among other threats. If that Yale guy is right about market overvaluation, there will hardly be any positive returns. mbs I've always been very impressed by the Yale guy (Robert Shiller)... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: voting for Nader
Brad writes: So let's elect George W. Bush rather than Al Gore? That does not follow... In general, I'm saying that both of them are corporate toadies, so there's no reason to vote for either. But that was not what I was saying in this specific thread. This specific thread is saying that Gore and the Goristas have themselves to blame if they lose. This business of scape-goating Nader is dishonest, self-deceit. Gore dug his own grave. Oh, Gore and the Goristas will blame themselves if they lose. There will be more than enough blame to go around. But people who pull the lever for Nader (and who encourage others to do so) should not try to evade their share of the blame... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: voting for Nader
I wonder if people who were organizing big anti-war [in Vietnam] demonstrations... worried _ahead of time_ that their movements would "crash and burn." They should have. Chicago in 1968 elected Richard Nixon president... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: voting for Nader
mbs wrote Really? Can you say how the 'space' provided by Clinton since 1992 has facilitated the growth of progressive movements? I would submit that the space provided by Clinton was greater than Bush elder/Dole would have provided. That answer begs the question of 'how.' mbs Would progressive movements have been better off today if we had just had 8 years of Bush/Dole? Eric
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: voting for Nader
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would submit that the space provided by Clinton was greater than Bush elder/Dole would have provided. Would progressive movements have been better off today if we had just had 8 years of Bush/Dole? You glance at Chuck Grimes's argument (the only respectable argument for voting Dem. I know of) that the Demireps make a better enemy than the the Republicrats. I disagree but it is respectable. Now as to the "better off." We might well have been able to fight off welfare reform with Bush and a Democratic congress having to pretend to match the illusion that they are progressive. And social security would be less at risk with Bush/Dole. The Dems are very apt to sneak through a wrecking program. Monica saved it last time around. Who will save it if Gore is elected? And Republican administrations are far worse on foreign policy. The only major exception to a century of Democratic war making was the Gulf War, and Clinton has kept that up. Carrol
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: voting for Nader
yes indeed On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 11:09:06PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael wrote Eric, Perot was a major factor in making the deficit such an important issue. Possibly true. But the Reform Party itself has crashed and burned (which was my point). Might not the same fate befall the Green Party? Eric -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: voting for Nader
I initially wrote, But the bottom line is who do you want--Bush or Gore--appointing people to, say, the National Labor Relations Board? Some responses have ranged from 1. my question leads directly to fascism (Carrol, Gar), 2. progressive politics might have been better off if Dole had become president (Carrol), 3. my messages imply we should become good little Democrats (jks). My response: I utter some hyperbole _ (fill in the blanks) in response to the above hyperbole. Mbs asked about "how" it makes a difference who is president while Jim D asks about whether it matters who is appointed with moble capital and declining budgets. Response: vetos, who is appointed to various positions within the federal government (including NLRB and Supreme Court), and general ideological discourse uttered by the president. And, yes, even in an era of open economies and declining enforcement budgets, I think it matters who is making the decisions. Eric .
RE: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: voting for Nader
. . . Mbs asked about "how" it makes a difference who is president . . . Eric Now now, Eric. My question was much more focused than that. You said Gore would provide more space for progressive movements. I asked *how* 8 yrs of Clinton has done so. You answered not with *how*, but with the cliche that however it did, there was more under Clinton than there would have been under Dole. mbs
RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: voting for Nader
My Dear Max, RE Now now, Eric. My question was much more focused than that. You said Gore would provide more space for progressive movements. I asked *how* 8 yrs of Clinton has done so. Gore would provide a better atmosphere than Bush. Nader would provide a better atmosphere than Gore. I would provide a better atmosphere than Nader :) I will overreact--sensitive sort that I am--to your chiding me for using cliches, by citing the following recent decision by the NLRB: --- Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. (21-CA-31471, 31592; 332 NLRB No. 56) San Diego, CA Sept. 29, 2000. Chairman Truesdale and Member Fox agreed with the administrative law judge that the decertification petitions relied on by the Respondent in withdrawing recognition from Teamsters Local 481 in two separate bargaining units were tainted by the Respondent's unfair labor practices, rejecting the position of the Respondent and their dissenting colleague that certain of the alleged unfair labor practices found by the judge are time-barred by Section 10(b). Citing Ross Stores, 329 NLRB No. 59, slip op. at 1-3 (1999), they explained: "[A]s all of the conduct alleged in the amended complaint occurred within a period of several months and was essentially alleged to be part of an overall plan for the Respondent to rid itself of the Union, the conduct satisfies the tests of relatedness with respect to legal theory, factual circumstances, and the Respondent's defenses." [HTML] [PDF] The majority, citing Caterair International, 322 NLRB 64 (1996), agreed with the judge that an affirmative bargaining order with its temporary decertification bar is appropriate. It found that a bargaining order vindicates the Section 7 rights of employees who were denied the benefits of collective bargaining by the Employer's withdrawal of recognition without unduly prejudicing the rights of employees who oppose continued representation because the duration of the order is no longer than is reasonably necessary to remedy the ill effects of the election. The majority noted that in addition to withdrawing recognition, the Respondent also failed to furnish information requested by the Union; promised better benefits to employees if they rejected the Union; dealt directly with employees by requiring them to sign forms to release their home addresses to the Union; and solicited employees to initiate and sign decertification petitions. The affirmative bargaining order serves the policies of the Act, the majority said. It noted that a cease-and-desist order, without a temporary decertification bar, would be inadequate. This is the sort of thing that the Reagan NLRB (and an elder Bush and Dole administration NLRB) might not have decided although the activities cited above are clear violations of the NLRA. Eric .
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: voting for Nader
At 11:05 PM 10/30/00 +, you wrote: I would submit that the space provided by Clinton was greater than Bush elder/Dole would have provided. evidence? it seems to me that Bush or Dole would have been much less successful at co-opting (and defanging) of various dissident movements of the left. We would have seen the Democratic Party doing something to oppose the President, for example, if the President weren't (officially) a Democrat. Of course, that's a counter-factual that can't be tested in practice. Would progressive movements have been better off today if we had just had 8 years of Bush/Dole? maybe better, since they might have done more outrageous things than Clinton, stimulating the progressive movements to grow more. But I think you may be right: historically, the GOP has been less pro-war (as seen, for example in Bush's marginally less hawkish stance in the "debates") so there would be less cause for the anti-war movements to grow. Would President Dole have launched cruise missiles against a medicine factory in the Sudan to distract people from a sex scandal? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: voting for Nader
No, really, Eric, I asked a serious question. It is true that for the foreseeable future, any left alternative to the Dems will be margininal, and to the extent that it is successful, it will hurt the Dems more that the Repugs. The more successful it is, the more it will hurt them. For a long time, therefore, left electoral movements will be spoilers for the Dems if they are anything at all. That will lead to more Republican judges and agency heads. Is that a fatal objection to these movements? Because if it is, we really should all become good little Dems. I am not making fun of you. I am wrestling with this question seriously. And if the point is not general but only applies to this election, why this election, and not, say, 96 or 2004? --jks From: "Eric Nilsson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:3782] RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: voting for Nader Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 07:53:41 -0800 I initially wrote, But the bottom line is who do you want--Bush or Gore--appointing people to, say, the National Labor Relations Board? Some responses have ranged from 1. my question leads directly to fascism (Carrol, Gar), 2. progressive politics might have been better off if Dole had become president (Carrol), 3. my messages imply we should become good little Democrats (jks). My response: I utter some hyperbole _ (fill in the blanks) in response to the above hyperbole. Mbs asked about "how" it makes a difference who is president while Jim D asks about whether it matters who is appointed with moble capital and declining budgets. Response: vetos, who is appointed to various positions within the federal government (including NLRB and Supreme Court), and general ideological discourse uttered by the president. And, yes, even in an era of open economies and declining enforcement budgets, I think it matters who is making the decisions. Eric . _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: voting for Nader
Max Sawicky wrote: A Gore administration would provide a much better space for progressive movements to grow in than a Bush administration. Just remember the very sad years we had when Reagan and his folks were in power. Really? Can you say how the 'space' provided by Clinton since 1992 has facilitated the growth of progressive movements? The historical moment is really different now from the 1980s. Then, Reaganism was a new phenomenon on the world stage, and the right was ideologically clear and energized. Now it's as fuzzy as Al Gore's math. I doubt a serious right-wing agenda would be anywhere near as popular as it was during the first Reagan term. Doug
RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: voting for Nader
Jim: Eric wrote: If the hope is that a growing Green Party--and a 5% Nader vote--will help things down the road, just remember what happened to the (at the time) very popular movement started by Ross Perot and the Reform Party. Where does it stand now? it sure influenced Clinton and Gore, who are now born-again balance-the-budget fanatics (along with the misguided orthodoxy in macroeconomics). Not really. The Enslavement...whoops, sorry. Seriously, I don't think Perot was so important here. It was the Reagan deficits that the Dems saw as an opportunity for calling the Repubs fiscally irresponsible. It was a terrible strategy for the Dems. They could have criticized the composition of Repub spending increases/cuts (largest 'peacetime' military build up in history--or has it been surpassed recently?; cuts in social programs, education), they could have criticized supply side emphasis, they could have criticized contradictory fiscal/monetary policy, etc. But to try to permanently position themselves as the 'sound finance' people and turn their backs on even balancing the budget over the cycle or whatever, was a huge mistake and we are paying and will pay for it. Of course, there were some (DLC types) who probably knew exactly what they were doing and wanted it that way. But for others it was a desperate political strategy initially blind to the way it would tie the hands of macro budgetary policy. I know for a fact that Dems in Washington did not like Heilbroner and Bernstein's book _The Debt and the Deficit: False Alarms, Real Possibilities_ when it came out because they felt it could take some of the wind out of the sails of the Dem attack. What Perot did do was to hurt the opposition to Nafta by appearing as such a buffoon in his debate with Gore. mat
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: voting for Nader
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would submit that the space provided by Clinton was greater than Bush elder/Dole would have provided. Would progressive movements have been better off today if we had just had 8 years of Bush/Dole? You may remember that in 1992 the big bourgeoisie seemed seriously worried about a legitimation crisis. The press was full of tales of the angry voter; middle managers were terrified by downsizing, and thinking all sorts of unsound thoughts; and the two-party system, a masterful instrument of elite rule, was flying apart. That's why the b.b. seemed to favor Clinton. Eight years later, the masses are mostly pacified. A fly in the ointment, though, is that Nader's threatening the party duopoly, prompting all kinds of hysterical lectures from Eric Alterman and the New York Times editorial board. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: voting for Nader
I'm going to add one minor refinement to Carrols argument (for which of course he is in no way responsible). The lesser of two evils arguement is one that will be available to the Democratic party as long as we have a two party system. This is because the Republicans are guaranteed to always run someone worse. Yep. That's why you vote for the Democrats, at least if you are interested in something other than self-expression... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: voting for Nader
A Gore administration would provide a much better space for progressive movements to grow in than a Bush administration. Just remember the very sad years we had when Reagan and his folks were in power. Really? Can you say how the 'space' provided by Clinton since 1992 has facilitated the growth of progressive movements? that's not a rhetorical question. My impression is that what movements we have had have grown in spite of Clinton, or in opposition to him and his. For instance, the Clintonoids have had no discernable effect on the Living Wage movement, except to try and preempt it with the EITC So what's wrong with the EITC? Brad DeLong -- J. Bradford DeLong Professor of Economics, U.C. Berkeley 601 Evans Hall, #3880 Berkeley, CA 94720-3880 (510) 643-4027 voice (510) 642-6615 fax http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: voting for Nader
Doug Henwood wrote:
The historical moment is really different now from the 1980s. Then,
Reaganism was a new phenomenon on the world stage, and the right was
ideologically clear and energized. Now it's as fuzzy as Al Gore's
math. I doubt a serious right-wing agenda would be anywhere near as
popular as it was during the first Reagan term.
Moreover, the Reagan Era began when Carter was president. Carter reignited the
Cold War. Carter launched deregulation. Carter ordered a military rescue of the
Iran hostages. Carter started the defense build up. Carter bears major
responsibility for the Reagan Era just as Truman bears major responsibility for
the 'McCarthy Era.' No matter where you look in Democratic history of the last
60+ years the party or some major party politician is allegedly "betraying" is
base. I say allegedly because to call them traitors to their base implies that
they ever intended to honor that base. Humphrey's first act as mayor of
Minneapolis (after winning with union support) was to appoint as Police Chief
the one man in the whole department that theUnions most feared. Korea was
divided and the Korean war waged under Truman. Stevenson lead the bloodhounds at
the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy ("We shall sacrifice everything in
the defense of freedom" yadda yadda yadda) more or less formally declared war on
the Third World and made a national emergency over the success of liberation
struggles in Laos. Etc. Etc. Etc.
The Democratic Party's core excuse for being is to cripple the left.
Carrol
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: voting for Nader
mbs wrote Really? Can you say how the 'space' provided by Clinton since 1992 has facilitated the growth of progressive movements? I would submit that the space provided by Clinton was greater than Bush elder/Dole would have provided. Would progressive movements have been better off today if we had just had 8 years of Bush/Dole? Eric
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: voting for Nader
Michael wrote Eric, Perot was a major factor in making the deficit such an important issue. Possibly true. But the Reform Party itself has crashed and burned (which was my point). Might not the same fate befall the Green Party? Eric
