>CD>>Why are Nader backers so
>unwilling to take *any* responsibility for this?
Ian wrote:
>Of what does taking responsibility consist? Should Bush apologize for
>defeating Gore or vice versa? Should whoever is the winner apologize to the
>other two losers for defeating them?
The Gore supporters want Nader supporters to pledge allegiance to the
two-party system flag -- or at least to abandon all hope and to learn to
love Big Brother. No more third-party efforts, period. The wheel may be
crooked, but it's the only game in town. [This last sentence is actually a
paraphrase -- or even a direct quote -- of what Robert Solow said about
neoclassical economics! At least he admitted the crookedness.]
Further, the way that many many of the leftist or liberal advocates of Gore
argue, it seems that want us Nader voters to feel _guilty_ about their
man's (possible) defeat in the election, shifting the blame from their
campaign or from Bush. If we end up having a marginally more dovish foreign
policy than the one Gore advocates (see the current issue of the
PROGRESSIVE) because Bush gets elected, it's Nader's fault and we should
feel guilty.
Assume that Nader was to blame. Should his supporters feel guilty?
Obviously guilt is an important human emotion (though strangely I've never
been able to find it in any economics book, despite their claims to
describe human psychology and behavior with all that business about
preferences and utility).
This reminds me of the late 1970s, when there was a big brouhaha in the San
Francisco Bay Area over the "Peoples' Temple," after their leader Jim Jones
led them to exile in Guyana and then into mass suicide at Jonestown. There
was an article in SOCIALIST REVIEW that argued that "we on the left" should
feel partly responsible -- and guilty -- for the debacle because the PT
people had shown up at left-wing demonstrations a lot (and used a lot
left-wing rhetoric, bizarrely in a kind of "liberation theology" mode) and
some of the left-wing had reciprocated by supporting the PT in some ways.
This turns out to have been a useless exercise in guilt-mongering, since
the right-wingers and the centrists had also been fooled by Jim Jones at
different points, since that crazy con-man was a serial deceiver, starting
and ending with his own congregation. Except for the last mentioned group,
most people figured him out after awhile, which is why Jones led his flock
to the jungle. The leftists just happened to be close to the end of the
long line of those who were fooled. But again let's assume that there were
reasons to feel guilty.
I don't think it's very productive for anyone, since guilt involves a large
dollop of self-hatred, which is quite self-destructive. It's also a very
self-centered attitude. Instead of feeling guilty about irreversible events
of the past, we should look forwards and ask: are there lessons to learn
for political practice in the future?
Basically, for the example of the PT, it's _caveat emptor_. You should know
ahead of time the nature of the person or movement you're backing. People
should be _very_ careful with charismatic preachers (and those with
charisma in general). Similarly, people should have known that voting for
LBJ in 1964 was voting for a wider war against Vietnam. We should realize
that voting for Gore was voting for a man who pushed to abolish welfare and
who supports bloody wars and sanctions against other countries. We should
know that deep down inside Nader's favorite activity is suing corporations
in court.
As I've said before, the most valid component of the pro-Gore message seems
to be "third parties can't change the system, so you should give up on that
front, except perhaps on the local level." In fact, the logical implication
of their message is "voting can't change the system (except perhaps at the
local level), so you might as well vote for the guy who has the best line
and can mobilize the most fear." This says we should emphasize
extra-electoral & grass-roots organizing. However, what can we tell people
to _do_ (short of revolution)?
Having a candidate to vote for does give something to do with some national
significance, something that has the potential of actually changing things
a smidgen. Given the fact that the two main parties triangulate, trying to
be as similar to each other as possible (like the proverbial competing
lemonade stands on the proverbial beach), while following the lure of
campaign-contribution dollars more than the interests of the electorate, I
don't think it's a mistake to vote or work for third-party efforts instead
of wasting one's vote on a mainstream candidate. It has the potential of
feeding the grass-roots (unlike the campaigns of the major candidates, who
are struggling to promote their careers) and of pressuring the main parties
to shift to the left, as long as we don't get utopian expectations about
winning immediately. (As Michael Perelman notes, it's important to have a
long-term perspective.) It's not something to feel guilty about.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
