If the aim is to replace the two great evils, how can voting for the lesser
be regarded as positive even if in some ways it does make things better?
Voting for one of the two great evils is what gives them power and
credibility.The lesser evil is to forego minimal reforms to build up a third
party or forces that reject the two party
system. There is no shame in being responsible for this. To do this will
often mean electing the greater ot the two great evils.
How could it be otherwise if you reject the two-party farce that many
leftist US intellectuals support in the name of pragmatism realism?
Cheers, Ken Hanly
P.S. Of course getting beyond the two parties is just a necessary not a
sufficient condition of progress. In Canada we have several parties with
little significant differences now, including the NDP (social democrats).
----- Original Message -----
From: Nathan Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 7:55 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:4150] Re: Nader 3? Blaming who?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Devine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >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]
>
> The idea that "we have no power" and thus no responsibility is what is
wrong
> with much of the rhetoric around the whole third party movement. Of
course
> we have power, even if we are divided and often fail to use the power we
> have effectively. "We" are potentially the vast majority of the
population
> who would benefit from a more just and equal society and that gives us all
> the potential power we need.
>
> But the failure to wield the power the existing left has effectively does
> nothing to encourage the much greater majority we seek to see that left as
> effective leadership for uniting for that social change. Part of assuming
> leadership is assuming responsibility, for people will only follow
> leadership over the long term when they believe that power entrusted will
be
> used responsibly.
>
> The continual evasion by Nader and other Green supporters for the results
of
> their leadership and actions is incredibly distressing on that point. I
far
> prefer Carroll forthright joy in undercutting Gore-- at least that is
taking
> responsibility that others can evaluate and decide is either worthwhile or
> worth rejecting.
>
> The idea that a result, throwing the election to Bush, which was
continually
> predicted by Nader opponents, is some kind of random event for which
> Naderites have no responsibility is ridiculous. Similarly, when Dem
> supporters promote Gore, they have to take responsibility for the
sell-outs
> and betrayals that inevitably flow from that strategy.
>
> But we have power collectively and to argue otherwise is to argue that
there
> is no hope of defeating capital's power. So why bother arguing about
> strategy at all?
>
> Nader and his supporters had the power to throw the election to Bush.
That
> is very real power. I have frankly urged that since the Greens have
> exercised that power, they should now take advantage of it to promote a
> radical change in the electoral college in favor of ranked voting or
instant
> runoffs. Failure to followup on that exercise of power is completely
> irresponsible and will show the bankruptcy of Green and Nader leadership.
> And protestations of lack of power is hardly an attractive rallying cry
for
> attracting more support.
>
> -- Nathan Newman
>
