I wrote:
>-The fault lies with the lack of political militancy on the left. A vote for
>-Nader (or maybe McReynolds) is a vote for raising the level of militancy,
>-which would pressure _either_ Gush _or_ Bore. A vote for Gore would not be
>-a vote for increased militancy.
Nathan writes:
>Voting is militant?!!
Of course not. Note that I used the word "for" after the word "vote."
Voting is pretty much an explicit statement of impotence (and it probably
wouldn't be worth the effort if California didn't have propositions on the
ballot). But a vote for a leftist third-party alternative at least has the
potential to _promote_ militancy. Voting for Bush or Gore simply is saying
"why vote at all?"
Nathan also writes: >If Nader supporters could really sketch an argument
for why voting for him will improve peoples lives or build a real movement
over the long-term ... <
It can only improve lives _if_ it helps build a real movement over the long
term. Voting for Bush or Gore have no potential in that direction. It's
what the Brits call a "mug's game," one that can't be won.
>But this militanter-than-thou defense [which is not mine, as seen above
-- JD] of helping to elect Bush to the Presidency is tired and just
insulting to other folks who sacrifice a lot every day to build militant
organizations and, in order to defend the survival of those organizations,
have made the pragmatic decision to support Gore.<
Go vote for whomever your conscience tell you to vote for, Nathan. But
don't get so huffy. You always seem to take political discussion so
personally! Someone puts forth a position that disagrees with you and
suddenly it's an insult to the entire labor movement and all of those
"other folks who sacrifice a lot every day..." (as if they care what _I_ say).
Unholier than thou,
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http:/bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
"It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
