A friend forwarded a message to me that argued that "a vote for Nader is a
vote for Bush, so that if Bush wins, it will be Nader's fault." Here's my
reply, amplified a bit:
>If Gore loses, it's his own fault (or his campaign's). He's really
nothing but Michael Dukakis plus focus groups that help him avoid
Dukakis-type campaign mistakes (so he can make his own, like dressing
himself up to look like Ronald Reagan in the first "debate"). When W.
presents his "vision thing" (one which doesn't make any sense to me
either), the best that Gore can do is to tell us that he's really smart and
that if we vote for him, he'll fight for us (like one of those lawyers who
advertises on cable TV). He doesn't have a "vision thing." Except for fear:
everything is going to go bad -- grass will be growing in the streets! --
if W. wins, even though the identity of the President isn't that important
in changing the political balance of power. (Of course, Gore and Clinton
have both worked to shift the balance of power to the right.) This business
of fear (W. will appoint a new Scalia! even though Gore voted for that
fellow's rise to the Supes) puts voters into the "fight or flight"
position. But who's going to _fight_ for Gore? The "blame Nader" game is
part of the politics of fear. <
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
