I wrote:
>>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).
Brad writes:
>Take responsibility for the actions of your faction. It's the grownup
>thing to do. To say "I'm not responsible for anything because all causal
>webs are complicated" is the road to total impotence...
You misunderstand: I'm saying that _Gore and his faction_ should take
responsibility for its actions, rather than blaming their ills on Nader.
After all, they are much more powerful than I am or Nader is. In fact, they
told me in economics (at Berkeley, no less) that voting was totally
useless, since the benefit is so small compared to the cost. Given the
choice between the Fool and the Knave, maybe those profs were right.
On the other hand, the Big Boys, with their millions and millions in their
campaign bucks, can wield their power to achieve all sorts of stuff. Gore
tried being a populist intermittently during the campaign and saw his polls
rise. But he didn't want to go too far, for that would offend his backers.
Labor, the African-American movement, feminists, peaceniks,
environmentalists, those opposed to corporate-style globalization -- all of
them can be offended, since they're perceived as having no choice (in the
"land of the free"!) But the big money folks can't be offended. They
diversify their political portfolios, backing both of the duopoly parties,
so that they can punish either one by pulling the money out.
I'm glad Brad is still reading my stuff.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
