I never said liberal is left and conservative is right in the neat, schematic
way you attribute to me. You're quite correct that the discourse of
conservatism has a "liberal" flavor to it on cultural/reproductive issues,
just as "liberals" have adopted a "conservative" conception of the marketplace
as the touchstone of public policy. On the other hand, there are differences,
but whether each of these individual differences has sufficiently important
policy implications to dictate a change in strategy is something that must be
carefully assessed.
I don't know what Nader's position is on genetic engineering. It might not be
something I'd like. Indeed, I'm sure with very little effort, I could come up
with a whole shopping list of policy issues on which I'm to his left. It
would be easy--I'm a socialist, and he is not. But I am also acutely aware of
the constraints on social reform--much less revolution--in the United
States--the stuff that usually comes packaged under the label "American
exceptionalism." So in the absence of a magic wand that permits me to invoke
the existence a militant American working class and a formidable tribune of
the people, I'll support Nader, because he is giving expression to a politics
that the major media would otherwise ignore.
Joel Blau
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ohhhh! come on..
>
> You folks still continue to see the political spectrum divided between
> "liberals" and "conservatives" in the US. Liberal is left; conservative
> is right. This distinction is FALSE, FALSE, FALSE! Even the political
> discourse of conservatism has a liberal flavour to it, especially if one
> thinks about the rise of _New Right_ after the 1980s. Somebody has
> mentioned that Nader supports reproductive freedoms thus he is
> progressive. What a big diffence? so does George Bush, so do
> neo-conservatives, so do libertarians...it has long been on _the_ agende
> of _new right_ that couples can choose the gender of their children freely
> before they are born. Initial stages of fetus formation (sex) can be
> modified through genetic engineering. The logical consequence of this
> engineering automatically matches with the religious idea that "produce
> more males and have less female babies". Does Nader have any problem with
> this sexist project of choosing your child's gender freely when he
> seemingly supports reproductive freedoms-- the same freedoms that are
> being strategically used by corporate powers in the US that design fascist
> genetic programs and export those programs to third world? I don't think
> so. They are all capitalist male pigs! they all want to control women's
> bodies. We should send all of them to the trash box! As a marxist feminist
> I am not giving any support to Nader obscurantist! (i can not vote anway
> so very good)
>
> Mine
>
>
> >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
>
> >Joel Blau
