In his series of pro-Gore flames [*], Brad wrote:
>If you think there's no difference between a Clinton-Gore EPA and a
>Bush-Cheny EPA you need to have your brain overhauled.
One nice thing about the US election being over (and I really, really wish
it were) is that we won't have to read or hear snide and insulting comments
from the "liberal" Democratic Party faithful. I usually don't quote
Christopher Hitchens, a definitely weird person, but I think the following
is apt. Looking at it from the point of view of those of us who don't toe
the two-party line, "You can't do anything about the powers that be, the
Gores and Bushes who are insulated from democracy in a 'lockbox.' But you
can take a high and righteous tone with those who might spoil everything by
voting for Nader. It's not enough that the two-party machine has all the
money at its disposal and all the press and media, too. It still needs
courageous volunteers to ram its message home. These unctuous surrogates
seek to persuade us that, though we have no power, we can and should be
held responsible." [the NATION, November 6, 2000, p. 9] I wouldn't use the
word "unctuous," though. I think "smug" is better.
BTW, in some ways it's good that Nader didn't get 5%. I can't think of a
better way to convert the Greens (a very grass-roots movement) into an
organization with nothing but an office and a mailing list (and run in a
dictatorial way by the Big Name leaders and the national office staff) than
to co-opt them into the Federal Electoral system. Also, the kind of
conflict that destroyed the Reform Party is encouraged. Every mushroom
cloud has a silver lining...
[*] I know they were flames, because this version of Eudora flags such
messages.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine "Segui il
tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.)
-- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
