Re: nader goes southwest

[Michael Hoover]

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/10/04 10:01 PM >>>
Nader Presidential Campaign Announces Southwest Airlines as its
Unofficial Campaign Airline
Nader had a good word for Southwest Airlines founder, Herb Kelleher.
<>

wonder what nader thinks of kelleher's $47,500 to rep national committee
this year and $2000 to bush campaign...

wonder what nader thinks of southwest helping ins detain 'illegal'
immigrants at various airports...

wonder why nader didn't mention that about 90% of southwest employees
are unionized (seems that would be good reason for selection), of
course, company began with no unions and implemented 'cooperative
culture' environment (via esop) and 'cross-utilization' (allowing
management to take workers from one area and use them temporarily
elsewhere) of employees prior to collective bargaining, these features
have remained prominent parts of southwest's management-labor relations,
both of which serve to increase labor productivity and hold down labor
costs...   michael hoover




--
Please Note:
Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from 
College employees
regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon 
request.
Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.

Re: Nader/Camejo

[Dan Scanlan]

the radio news says that Ralph Nader has chosen Peter Camejo as his
vice-presidential running mate. Camejo is good, but I don't think they
should start measuring the White House for new carpets yet...
They couldn't afford it anyway --there's so much crap swept under the
current rug it will take a revolutionary device to pull it up.
Dan Scanlan

Re: Nader the Condorcet Winner in 2000

[Michael Hoover]

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/27/2004 2:17:18 PM >>>
That Ralph Nader turned out to be the Condorcet Winner in 2000 shows
how unusual the 2000 election was, according to Bruce C. Burden:

One of the most stringent methods of selecting a candidate was
proposed by the Marquis de Condorcet more than 200 years ago.  The
Condorcet criterion is a desirable method of choosing among multiple
candidates because it sets the threshold of victory high.  Condorcet
argued that a winning alternative ought to be capable of defeating
all other alternative in head-to-head comparisons.  That is, A should
be the victor only if she beats both B and C in paired situations. .
. .
National Election Study data from 2000 make it possible to conduct a
crude analysis of strategic voting.  I follow a long line of research
that uses rankings of the candidates on the traditional "feeling
thermometers" as estimates of the relative ordinal utilities each
person has for each candidate.  Thermometers are reasonable proxies
for respondents' utilities for the candidates and predict the vote
well (Abramson et al. 1992, 1995, 2000; Brams and Fishburn 1983;
Brams and Merrill 1994; Kiewiet 1979; Ordeshook and Zeng 1997;
Palfrey and Poole 1987; Weisberg and Grofman 1981).  Abramson and
colleagues (1995) show that the winners of the popular and electoral
vote in three notable third party elections -- 1968, 1980, and 1992
-- were all Condorcet winners.

("Minor Parties in the 2000 Presidential Election," 2-3,
)
Yoshie
<>

first half of condorcet's 1785 essay discusses what today is called
'arrow's paradox', second half discusses paired election idea...

condorcet's idea was all but unknown prior to duncan black's work at
mid-20th century (coincident to that of kenneth arrow), see his  book
_theory of committees and elections_..., black suggested that he was
doing 'pure theorizing about politics'...

interesting that both arrow & black go against generally negative grain
of most public/rational/social choice thinking about
democracy/majoritarianism...

arrow wished that his conclusion would have  been that majority voting
could have been shown to produce set of wholly consistent choices, black
held that majority principle should be adopted if one exists/can be
found...

black/condorect offers some social/rational/public choice theorists
(bernard grofman, scot feld, h. p. young, among others) a sense of
optimism re. collective judgments, they can argue that forming sound
collective judgment depends upon individual voter competence & voting
rules architecture (of course, reliance upon impersonal vote-counting
mechanisms departs greatly from people interacting & discussing with one
another)...

studies such as burden's stem from william riker's postulation that
teddy roosevelt would have been condorcet winner in 1912 prez election
(woodrow wilson was plurality winner, incumbent william howard taft was
third candidate)...

use of 'feeling thermometers' - do you feel hot or cold about candidate
A, 100 = hottest, 0 = coldest - problematic as almost all responses glob
around 25, 50, 75...

abramson (paul) and colleagues (who must be john aldrich & david rohde
as three have been doing election studies entitled _change and
continuity_ for some time) concluded that gore would have been 2000
condorect winner, i've seen a couple of other studies concluding same...
  michael hoover

Re: Nader the Condorcet Winner in 2000

[Devine, James]

of course, the main parties won't change the current electoral system as long as they 
both think they gain from it (and there's no serious pressure on them to change). So 
don't expect Condorcet's criterion to apply in practice. 
Jim D. 

-Original Message- 
From: Yoshie Furuhashi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Sat 3/27/2004 11:17 AM 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Cc: 
Subject: [PEN-L] Nader the Condorcet Winner in 2000



The virtue of the Condorcet method is its ability to eliminate the
pressure on voters to vote to defeat the least desirable candidate
rather than reveal their true preferences, by allowing voters to rank
the candidates (like Instant Runoff Voting) and by refusing to
eliminate the candidate with the least first choices (unlike Instant
Runoff Voting).

That Ralph Nader turned out to be the Condorcet Winner in 2000 shows
how unusual the 2000 election was, according to Bruce C. Burden:

*   Two common methods are majority and plurality rule.  Majority
rule would have failed in 2000 because no candidate won 50% of the
popular vote.  And plurality rule would have elected Gore as he
clearly won the popular vote.  And neither majority nor plurality
rule is more natural than or superior to more complicated methods. .
. . [T]he Founders chose to create the Electoral College to choose
presidents. Bush won the 2000 election because he won a majority of
electoral votes, after a serious of legal battles in Florida held him
over the 270 required for victory.  One might wonder whether this
rather unique method of election selected the same winner that other
aggregation schemes might or whether Bush's victory was idiosyncratic
to the particular set of institutions and events that put him into
office.

One of the most stringent methods of selecting a candidate was
proposed by the Marquis de Condorcet more than 200 years ago.  The
Condorcet criterion is a desirable method of choosing among multiple
candidates because it sets the threshold of victory high.  Condorcet
argued that a winning alternative ought to be capable of defeating
all other alternative in head-to-head comparisons.  That is, A should
be the victor only if she beats both B and C in paired situations. .
. .

National Election Study data from 2000 make it possible to conduct a
crude analysis of strategic voting.  I follow a long line of research
that uses rankings of the candidates on the traditional "feeling
thermometers" as estimates of the relative ordinal utilities each
person has for each candidate.  Thermometers are reasonable proxies
for respondents' utilities for the candidates and predict the vote
well (Abramson et al. 1992, 1995, 2000; Brams and Fishburn 1983;
Brams and Merrill 1994; Kiewiet 1979; Ordeshook and Zeng 1997;
Palfrey and Poole 1987; Weisberg and Grofman 1981).  Abramson and
colleagues (1995) show that the winners of the popular and electoral
vote in three notable third party elections -- 1968, 1980, and 1992
-- were all Condorcet winners.  That is, the Electoral College victor
also would have won using Condorcet's standard of beating each of the
other candidates in head-to-head comparisons.  Using their approach,
I have verified that Clinton was easily the Condorcet winner in 1996
as well.

It is reassuring that different voting schemes -- simple plurality
rule, the Electoral College, the Condorcet criterion, and perhaps
even approval voting -- all select the same candidate in each of the
last four elections with significant minor parties (Brams and
Fishburn 1983; Brams and Merrill 1994; Kiewiet 1979).  Indeed, it is
remarkable that every presidential election for which adequate survey
data exist seems to have chosen the Condorcet winner, regardless of
minor party showings.  This is satisfying in part because no voting
method is ideal and the Condorcet method appears to be one of the
most stringent as a Condorcet winner does not even exist in many
settings.

The 2000 election is not so tidy.  Not only did George W. Bush not
take the popular vote, but the data clearly show that he was not the
Condorcet winner either.  This is apparently the first time in the
survey era that this has happened.  Moreover, it is quite possible
that the winner of the popular vote -- Al Gore -- was also not the
Condorcet winner.  Examining the pre-election rankings, Nader beats
Buchanan (659-240), Gore (527-500), and Bush (562-491

Re: Nader at 12% says Oz

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

What is this guy's programme?

--
Yoshie
* Bring Them Home Now! 
* Calendars of Events in Columbus:
,
, & 
* Student International Forum: 
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: 
* Al-Awda-Ohio: 
* Solidarity: 

Re: Nader Drawing 7% (Camejo Takes the Lead/Green Party Likes Nader)

[Michael Hoover]

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/17/04 7:51 AM >>>
Nader is now "drawing 7 percent of the votes" in a "nationwide
telephone poll of 1,206 adults, including 984 registered voters . . .
taken from last Wednesday through Sunday" (Adam Nagourney and Janet
Elder, "Nation's Direction Prompts Voters' Concern, Poll Finds,"
March 16, 2004,
).
Cf. .
And that despite the relentless attacks of the Anybody But Bush
pundits on Nader and Greens.  I detect a major disconnect between the
ABB pundits and ordinary American voters.
Yoshie
<>

one interpretation of above would be that he's already maxed out,
tracking
poll numbers tend to fall sharply for minor candidates during course of
campaign...

nader topped out at 7% in 2000 and that was prior to announcing
candidacy
when there was 'run ralph run' stuff going on, that circumstance is not
unusual, potential candidates often look more promising as, well,
potential candidates (will s/he, won't s/he)...

nader was actually at 5% in some national polls within days of 2000
election,
however, majority of people supporting him said that their vote was not
definite...   michael hoover

Re: Nader

[Dan Scanlan]

Louis wrote

I was no Dean supporter, but at least
with Dean you would have had a fight. Kerry is just too much of a centrist
and a patrician to really mix it up.
It seems to me that Kerry's anti-war activities in the early 70's was
a safe "deviation into sense", to steal from Alexander Pope.
Dan Scanlan

Re: Nader

[Louis Proyect]

I was able to catch him in Middleburg VA at the founding of the
Associated State Green Parties in 1996, and in Sacramento and Chico
CA in 2000. He's very compelling, funny and scholarly, in my opinion.
When he's finished, you get the sense it is only because time ran
out, not because he ran out of things to say.
Dan Scanlan
Speaking of oratory and style, I am getting the strong sense that the Bush
machine will gather momentum over the next few months. They seem to be
honing in on Kerry's waffling, which there is no defense against since
Kerry *does* waffle. When you get tens of millions of dollars of ads and
the hard-core support of the Republican Party base deployed against a
centrist candidate whom big business sees no compelling reason to support
and whose appeal to working people is that he is "not as bad" as Bush, it
is a formula for another 4 years of Bush. It will be a rerun of the
Mondale, Dukakis and Gore campaigns. I was no Dean supporter, but at least
with Dean you would have had a fight. Kerry is just too much of a centrist
and a patrician to really mix it up.




Louis Proyect
Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

Re: Nader & the Green Party (Maybe they should start calling him "angry")

[Jurriaan Bendien]

I think the problem with Nader's stance is that he's "against the
corporations" but that conceptualisation or theme is unlikely to be
successful, it's essentially no different than being "against the public
service".

J.

Re: Nader & the Green Party (Maybe they should start calling him "angry")

[jlwae3]

Fyi-  Why Ralph is running  
 Statement will be released at 10:00 a.m. EST on February 23, 2004
Live at Press Conference; Watch CSPAN-2  .
Check back here at that time for copy of the text.

http://www.votenader.org/
 
-jon



From: PEN-L list on behalf of Yoshie Furuhashi
Sent: Sun 2/22/2004 1:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L] Nader & the Green Party (Maybe they should start calling him "angry")



>Michael Hoover wrote:
>
>>'best' reason why nader shouldn't run is that he is stone cold bore...
>
>But at least he has the nerve to stand up to Communist Chinese
>tyranny and those corporate purveyors of porn to children!
>
>>perhaps he should go back to doing what he does best, what
>>mainstream (specifically, 'rational choice') poli sci people call
>>'political entrepreneur', takes lead in setting up and operating
>>groups, lets others 'free ride' to give appearance of broad-based
>>support, political activity akin to 'business decision', nader as
>>'founder' of interest group lobbies/'astroturf' political orgs is
>>'good investment', nader as candidate is 'bad investment'...
>
>He lost a lot of trial lawyer funding, according to Thomas Burke
>(check out my interview with him at
>; scroll down to the
>Dec 19 2002 show). They're steamed that he cost Gore the election
>(their perception, not mine).
>
>Doug

The 2000 Nader/Green Party presidential campaign was, financially, a
minus for Ralph Nader as an individual political entrepreneur but, in
terms of gains in votes, offices, etc., a plus for the Green Party as
a mass political party in the making.

The impact of the 2000 presidential campaign on Nader: "Public
Citizen, the biggest group Nader founded, lost 20 percent of its
membership and $1 million in donations after 2000" (Dick Meyer, "Run,
Ralph, Run,"
.

The impact of the 2000 presidential campaign on the Green Party:

The Green Party in 2000 didn't do as well as many Green voters hoped,
but it did receive nearly 3 million votes for its presidential ticket
-- quadrupling the Green votes between 1996 and 2000:

*   Green Party
Year  Pres. Candidate  VP CandidateTotal Votes
1996   Ralph Nader  Winona LaDuke 684,872
2000   Ralph Nader  Winona LaDuke   2,882,955


*

According to former New Haven Green Alderman John Halle, "The 2000
Nader presidential run significantly enhanced the profile of the
Green Party.  The number of registered Greens since then has gone up
by a factor of four, I  believe, if not more.  There are also now
over 200 local officeholders, one of whom, the second highest elected
official in San Francisco nearly became mayor" (at
).

If the Howie Hawkins wing of the Green Party get their way, the Green
Party will nominate Nader as its presidential candidate again in
2004.  According to Hawkins, "Ralph would like the Green Party
nomination, but is running independent as 'insurance' because the
Greens aren't clear if and how they want to run a presidential
campaign and won't be until their June convention, too late for
ballot access reasons in many states" ("Nader Wants Green
Nomination," Sat, 21 Feb 2004 16:51:41 -0500).  I recommend to John
Halle (to whom I am cc'ing this message) that the Green Party should
nominate Nader, unless Peter Camejo wants to run himself, which he
doesn't (and I have it on good authority that he doesn't).
--
Yoshie

* Bring Them Home Now! 
* Calendars of Events in Columbus:
,
, & 
* Student International Forum: 
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: 
* Al-Awda-Ohio: 
* Solidarity: 

Re: US tax dollars NOT at work (was re: Nader)

[Charles Jannuzi]

You might ask, if IT Group has so much trouble filling the work it's been
contracted for, how in the freak does it get so many contracts. I wish I had
no idea, though knowing what I know about Carlyle Group holdings, it seems
pretty obvious: insider connections, perhaps even phone calls from former
government officials to current government officials. The revolving doors
prefected Carlyle style. This company smells of Enron, too.

http://www.prnewswire.com/gh/cnoc/comp/141700.html



The IT Group Jul-31-2001 NEW STORY  The IT Group Announces World's First
Commercial Capstone Microturbine Landfill Gas System for Burbank, California
Jul-17-2001  The IT Group Awarded $31 Million Everglades Watershed
Restoration Project Jul-16-2001  The IT Group Announces Second Quarter
Financial Results Conference Call And Webcast Jul-9-2001  The IT Group
Announces an Agreement to Form a Joint Company With Hydro Quebec To Serve
the Hydroelectric Power Industry in the U.S. Jun-1-2001  The IT Group, Inc.
Declares Quarterly Dividend on Cumulative Convertible Exchangeable Preferred
Stock May-3-2001  The IT Group Announces the Award of an Air Force Contract
Valued At $100 Million Apr-18-2001  The IT Group Announces First Quarter
Financial Results Conference Call And Webcast Apr-4-2001  The IT Group
Announces Award of $14 Million Design/Build Contract for The National Park
Service Mar-12-2001  The IT Group Provides Additional Information About $3
Billion, 50-Year Military Family Housing Privatization Project at Fort
Meade, Maryland Mar-7-2001  The IT Group Announces Award of First Phase of
50-Year Military Family Housing Privatization Project at Fort Meade,
Maryland Valued at Approximately $3 Billion Mar-1-2001  The IT Group, Inc.
Declares Quarterly Dividend on Cumulative Convertible Exchangeable Preferred
Stock Feb-14-2001  The IT Group Announces Fourth Quarter and Year-End
Financial Results Conference Call and Webcast Jan-18-2001  The IT Group
Enters Agreement for Sale of Excess Northern California Land For $12 Million
Jan-16-2001  Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator of EPA, to Join The
IT Group As Vice President, Consulting and Technology Jan-16-2001  The IT
Group Announces $42 Million in Commercial Project Awards Including
Strategically Important Watershed Restoration Projects Jan-10-2001  The IT
Group Implements Strategy to Accelerate the Resolution of Project Claims and
Monetize Non-Core Assets with Expectations of Generating $30 to $35 Million
for Debt Paydown Jan-3-2001  The IT Group Announces Selection for Air Force
Environmental Engineering Contract of Up to $25 Million Dec-13-2000  The IT
Group Announces Court Approval of $200 Million Water Treatment Operations
and Maintenance Agreement at Iron Mountain Mines Superfund Site In
California Dec-12-2000  The IT Group Announces Alliance with Environmental
Network International to Develop Customized Web-Based Procurement System
Dec-1-2000  The IT Group, Inc. Declares Quarterly Dividend on Cumulative
Convertible Exchangeable Preferred Stock Nov-30-2000  The IT Group and WETCO
Agree to Provide New Environmental Remediation Technologies and Services to
Agribusiness Nov-28-2000  The IT Group Announces Award of Up to $26 Million
EPA Technical Support Contract Oct-23-2000  The IT Group Announces Award of
Up to $145 Million Army Facility Management Contract Oct-19-2000  The IT
Group Announces $200 Million Water Treatment Operations and Maintenance
Agreement at Iron Mountain Mines Superfund Site in California Oct-19-2000
The IT Group to Release Third Quarter Financial Results and Broadcast
Investor Call Live Over the Internet Oct-6-2000  The IT Group Revises
Earnings Outlook Sep-28-2000  The IT Group Announces the Award of $65
Million EPA Contract Sep-25-2000  The IT Group Announces Award of Four
Outsourcing Contracts Totaling $36.6 Million From the Department of Defense
Sep-22-2000  The IT Group Awarded $5.9 Million Watershed Restoration
Contract For The Everglades Program Sep-13-2000  The IT Group Awarded $11
Million Contract at Oak Ridge Department of Energy Facility Sep-1-2000  The
IT Group, Inc. Declares Quarterly Dividend on Cumulative Convertible
Exchangeable Preferred Stock Jun-13-2000  The IT Group and the Carlyle Group
Announce Two Million Share Stock Purchase Program Jun-7-2000  The IT Group
Announces the Award of a $200 Million Air Force Center For Environmental
Excellence A&E Contract Jun-1-2000  The IT Group, Inc. Declares Quarterly
Dividend on Cumulative Convertible Exchangeable Preferred Stock May-9-2000
The IT Group Announces $29 Million Contract Award for Stapleton Airport
Remediation May-1-2000  The IT Group Announces Award of $24 Million Contract
for City of Fresno Apr-27-2000  The IT Group, Inc. Reports On-Target First
Quarter 2000 Results Apr-11-2000  The IT Group Announces Awards of Up to
$110 Million in Army and Navy Outsourcing and Design/Build Contracts
Apr-5-2000  The IT Group Signs E-Business Agreement With Pratt & Whitney
Apr-4-2000  The IT Group A

US tax dollars NOT at work (was re: Nader)

[Charles Jannuzi]

I'm sure Sawicky will want to discuss the House of Harkonnen or the BEIC or
something, but just to back up my point about the overall inefficiencies of
letting companies fill government services, at least the American way, let's
just start with Carlyle Group's IT Group (recently sold to Shaw Group, who
apparently wants IT Group to clean up oil and chemical messes for companies
that buy from Shaw Group).
Anyway, how many other companies have such huge backlogs on their government
contracts? Well, let me find out. I'll keep looking and posting. You know
for sure there must be problems with all the gov't contracts Enron and
Global Crossing got. Here is IT Group (interesting for a number of reasons
including that it specializes in parasitizing tax dollars, as many CG
holdings do):


http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=105&STORY=/www/story/10-06
-2000/0001332023

  The IT Group Revises Earnings Outlook

Year-End Debt Level of $625 Million Expected to be Achieved

Backlog Projected to Grow to Record $5 Billion Range

PITTSBURGH, Oct. 6 /PRNewswire/ -- The IT Group, Inc. (the "Company") (NYSE:
ITX) announced today that it expects earnings per share in the third quarter
of 2000 to be between $0.17 and $0.20.  The Company also said that it now
anticipates that fourth quarter earnings per share will be in the $0.25 to
$0.30 range.  The revised 2000 outlook now anticipates ranges for revenues
of $1.42 to $1.45 billion, operating cash flow of $148 to $152 million and
earnings per share of $0.75 to $0.83.  Cash earnings per share for the year
are anticipated to be in the range of $1.15 to $1.23. Anthony J. DeLuca,
chief executive officer and president of The IT Group, said, "Our revised
outlook is due primarily to a revenue shortfall resulting from what the
Company believes are short-term project start-up delays caused by various
client and regulatory issues, technical personnel shortages and unexpected
federal government funding delays in our Outsourced Services business.  In
addition, earnings in the third quarter have been negatively impacted by
poor performance on two projects which are now complete and the delay in the
completion of certain real estate restoration transactions, most of which
are expected to close in the fourth quarter."

Backlog Growth "Recently the Company has successfully bid a diverse range of
major and strategically important new programs.  The Company is nearing the
completion of negotiations for a $200 million, 30-year operations and
maintenance program at a major Superfund site, which provides for advance
funding of approximately $38 million.  We believe negotiations for this
program can be concluded in the next week and will be the subject of a
separate announcement," Mr. DeLuca continued.  "We are also currently in the
negotiation phase of several federal facility management contracts, the
awards of which are expected to be announced in the fourth quarter.  With
these and other wins, the Company expects to report a record level of
backlog approaching $5 billion by the end of the year.  The backlog
strength, combined with anticipated federal government appropriation
increases in 2001, we believe positions the Company well for the future."

Deleveraging Plan "Although operating cash flow will be short of earlier
projections, we remain confident a debt level of approximately $625 million
at year end can be achieved.  Our confidence is supported by continued
progress in working capital management, including the Superfund site program
advance funding mentioned above, which is expected to be received in
December, as well as the proposed sale of certain non-core assets.  With an
increase in third quarter revenue over second quarter revenue, the Company's
focus on working capital management is expected to result in a debt level at
the end of the third quarter consistent with the debt level at the June
quarter end," Mr. DeLuca concluded. The IT Group, Inc. is a leading provider
of a comprehensive range of outsourced services addressing the
infrastructure, consulting, engineering and construction, water, civil works
and facilities management needs of a broad variety of public and private
sector clients.  Additional information about The IT Group can be found on
their new web site at http://www.theitgroup.com .  The IT Group's common
stock and depositary shares are traded on the New York Stock Exchange under
the symbol ITX and ITXpr, respectively. Statements regarding the intentions,
beliefs, expectations or predictions of The IT Group, Inc. and its
management, including, but not limited to, those statements denoted by the
words "anticipate," "believe," "expect," "should," "confidence" and similar
expressions are forward-looking statements that reflect the current views of
The IT Group and its management about future events and are subject to
certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Actual results could differ
materially from those projected in such forward-looking statements as 

Re: Nader

[Charles Jannuzi]

"Max Sawicky"
>
> The object of Nader's critique is spending programs that
> provide public subsidies to
> corporations.  I don't necessarily buy his position, but
> it's a perfectly respectable left statement.  This stuff,
> incidentally, is a very small part of the budget. The
> tax breaks are much more important.

I thought a tax break was a form of public subsidy.

To move the topic onto something that might be related, depending on your
state of mind:

When you look at the enormous size of the federal budget and realize just
how little it actually does for most of the American people, you have to
ask,  Why? If you ask why, you see part of the reason is the wastefulness in
government contracting. Huge contracts to companies specializing in
government 'services', and this goes way beyond defense contracts (though
people wrongly think 'defense' contracts are limited to hardware
fulfillment). Some of the companies owned by Carlyle Group are standouts in
overpriced contracts poorly fulfilled. For example, IT Group. It has a long
list of government contracts in an array of services, but, as far as I can
tell, the reason it went bankrupt was that it long ago stopped completing
the services it was contracted for.

Charles Jannuzi

RE: Nader

[Max Sawicky]

> http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/mar2001/nad-m30.shtml
> What is your assessment of this article from the Fourth
> International?


The object of Nader's critique is spending programs that
provide public subsidies to
corporations.  I don't necessarily buy his position, but
it's a perfectly respectable left statement.  This stuff,
incidentally, is a very small part of the budget. The
tax breaks are much more important.

The author reveals his/her stupidity with:

"In assessing this altogether remarkable article, one is obliged to assume
that Nader's professed hope in Bush's ability to oppose the influence of
“corporate fat cats” is merely a journalistic device aimed at currying favor
with the new administration."

Otherwise the piece has multiple inaccuracies.  I'm not going to unpack them
all.  I would advise any interested party to try and verify any assertion
before taking it at face value.

mbs

Re: Nader, a FellowTraveler

[Sabri Oncu]

> Yes, Sabri,
>
> You make a good point to relate Nader to today's
> anarchists.

It was not my intention at all. Moreover, if the left anarchists
hear what you said and think that I did that, they would view
this socialist friend of theirs a traitor, something I am not.
They have resisted the Nader and Public Citizen-Mike Dolan entry
into , and their attempt to take ownership of, the movement
during the Battle of Seattle from day one and there after.
Apparently, you don't like the anarchists, at least, not as much
as I do. I guess I gave away my feelings toward Nader here but
hey!


> I would classify anarchists similarly to liberals.
> They are left to the extent that they are for socialism
> as an ultimate target.  There is rightwing anarchism
> in the form of libertarianism. However, as you say in
> the here and now, left anarchists are resisting globalized
> imperialism through protests in the imperial center.

I don't think this classification, that is, classifying them
similarly to liberals, is fair. Apparently, you don't know who
Ilan Shalif is because if you did, you wouldn't dare to make such
a classification. If he heard what you said, he would have killed
you here in the cyberspace : ) It is like classifying Louis
similarly to liberals. I cannot believe this.

When I was in Turkey, I visited some friends one day. One of them
is the son of a Marxist-Leninist shoemaker, who himself used to
be a member of a "Stalinist" party. He also played a major role
in the organization of this so-called N30 march in Turkey. His
father, the Marxist-Leninist shoemaker, who is in his seventies,
lives with my friend. That day, we were praising our anarchists
friends for their contributions to the movement and a few minutes
after we started our praising, the father couldn't resist saying
this:

"They are serving the capitalists."

I guess this is an instict of some socialists. Luckily, his
formerly "Stalinist" son thinks differently.

Sabri

RE: Re: Nader

[Devine, James]

Sabri writes:> I don't think even on this list we can come 
up with a definition of the Left on which we all agree.< 

also, what's the point of coming up with a definition that even a majority
agrees with? the meaning of words depends on the context. It's not like
there's a Platonic Form out there called "the Leftist" which phenomena
leftists are imperfect reflections of.

JD

-Original Message-
From: Sabri Oncu
To: PEN-L
Sent: 4/1/02 5:06 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:24554] Re: Nader

> Charles: Howabout the Left includes Communists,
> Socialists and Left Liberals.

Charles,

Why are you excluding the anarchists? They are an important part
of the Left in my view. Apart from that, as Jim said and I agree,
"political definitions are not only hard to make but are
political footballs." I don't think even on this list we can come
up with a definition of the Left on which we all agree. Just
think about the rest of the world's population.

Anyway, my point is, let us not forget the anarchists, especially
within the context of the "anti-globalization" movement. Without
their heroic efforts, the so-called "anti-globalization" movement
wouldn't have been where it is now, although it still has a long
way to go and it is possible that it may fail.

I guess I have spent too much time among them and, believe me,
liked it a lot.

Sabri

Re: Nader

[Sabri Oncu]

> Charles: Howabout the Left includes Communists,
> Socialists and Left Liberals.

Charles,

Why are you excluding the anarchists? They are an important part
of the Left in my view. Apart from that, as Jim said and I agree,
"political definitions are not only hard to make but are
political footballs." I don't think even on this list we can come
up with a definition of the Left on which we all agree. Just
think about the rest of the world's population.

Anyway, my point is, let us not forget the anarchists, especially
within the context of the "anti-globalization" movement. Without
their heroic efforts, the so-called "anti-globalization" movement
wouldn't have been where it is now, although it still has a long
way to go and it is possible that it may fail.

I guess I have spent too much time among them and, believe me,
liked it a lot.

Sabri

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Nader

[Justin Schwartz]

>
> >"[Nader] would not advocate public ownership of
> >productive assets. . . .
>
>Well, some, maybe, but virtually all? >
>
>Not nearly all.  Nader is no socialist.
>I presume perhaps wrongly that 'left' is a broader
>category than 'socialist.'
>

Of course. I was talking about what his views were. not whether they are 
"left." They're left enough for me! jks

_
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Nader

[Max B. Sawicky]

>"[Nader] would not advocate public ownership of
>productive assets. . . .

Well, some, maybe, but virtually all? I mean Do you think he'd support
nationalizing all corporations above a certain low level, treating the mines
and the factories and fields and offices as belonging to the government and
to be controlled by the workers and farmers? Which in some sense is what
most of us here, including me, would advocate.   jks


Not nearly all.  Nader is no socialist.
I presume perhaps wrongly that 'left' is a broader
category than 'socialist.'

mbs

Re: Nader

[Michael Perelman]

I know about Arnold.  My point was merely that the trustbusters had a very
different analysis of the cause of the Depression than the corporatists.  They
believed that the large corporations cut production and kept prices high causing
the Depression to be as destructive as it was.  Who brought up Bork?  His views
were very different.

Justin Schwartz wrote:

> >
> >There were two lines in the New Deal.  The corporatists were not dominant
> >at first -- the Thurman Arnold, trust-busting line, was.  The idea was
> >that corporate power caused the Depression by keeping prices high and
> >curtailing output.
> >
>
> But Judge Arnold was no fan of unmbridged free markets. Have you head his
> The Folklore of Capitalism? A wonderful book. As I said, trust-busting isn't
> the same idea as the current Stevens-Bork-Posner line that antitrsutis just
> about efficiency.
>
> jks
>
> _
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Nader 31 March 2002 19:37 UTC

[Doyle Saylor]

Greetings Economists,

Ellen F writes,
Really?  Is that what "leftist"means?  I'm not sure I would
support such a platform, not given the realities of
political corruption in the US and the experience of large-scale state
ownership in Russia.   How exactly
would you sell this vision to the American public?

addressed to JKS remarks,
Well, some, maybe, but virtually all? I mean Do you think he'd support
nationalizing all corporations above a certain low level, treating the
mines 
and the factories and fields and offices as belonging to the government
and 
to be controlled by the workers and farmers? Which in some sense is what
most of us here, including me, would advocate.

jks

Doyle
Nationalization of health care would be cheaper than what we have.  That is
supportable by most people if we had sufficient access to the media.
Selling the idea of nationalization more broadly is more than going on
television to sell concepts.

In my view a key area to nationalize would be the software and pc industries
in such a way that a utility regulated by law would provide stable tools for
people who use computers in their daily lives.  Most software is not driven
for example by incorporation of disabled peoples needs.  If that were met,
then the 70% unemployment rate amongst disabled people would be greatly
reduced.  Most disabled people understand that and would support their
getting such accommodation because to some degree most disabled people
already depend upon such government support through rehab, workers comp, and
social security.  Approximately 15 to 17% of the population is disabled, and
a workers movement around full employment and decent wages would have to
incorporate disabled people as a matter of course.

Computational control of social structures would follow from meeting the
marginalized needs of disabled people through nationalization of computed
communications.  Work regulated by computational communications structures
require globalized standards and best practices (see the W3C for the
business standards efforts).  The costs advantages of implementing such a
global system flows out of economies of scale.  In particular social
organization of people irrespective of distance advances the needs of
homosexuals like myself as the well documented global gay rights movement
shows.  Where our marginalization reflected in low numbers of visible
homosexuals make it hard for us to develop a social character outside of the
capitalist mode of social structure, nationalization of communications
structures would immediately create a renaissance of social formation in the
marginalized peoples of the world.  Many gays and disabled people would
willingly fight for this vision.
thanks,
Doyle Saylor

Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Nader

[Ellen Frank]

Really?  Is that what "leftist"means?  I'm not sure I would
support such a platform, not given the realities of 
political corruption in the US and the experience of large-scale state
ownership in Russia.   How exactly
would you sell this vision to the American public?  

Ellen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Well, some, maybe, but virtually all? I mean Do you think he'd support 
>nationalizing all corporations above a certain low level, treating the
>mines 
>and the factories and fields and offices as belonging to the government
>and 
>to be controlled by the workers and farmers? Which in some sense is what 
>most of us here, including me, would advocate.
>
>jks
>
>
>
>_
>Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
>http://www.hotmail.com
>

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nader

[Carrol Cox]

Justin Schwartz wrote:
> 
> But Judge Arnold was no fan of unmbridged free markets. Have you head his
> The Folklore of Capitalism? A wonderful book. As I said, trust-busting isn't
> the same idea as the current Stevens-Bork-Posner line that antitrsutis just
> about efficiency.
> 

I stumbled across that book when I was a college freshman 55 years ago
-- and it was the first book I had encountered that gave me the
experience of not quite mastering what I was reading. I found it
wonderful but couldn't quite make it cohere at the time.

Carrol

Re: RE: Re: Re: Nader

[Justin Schwartz]

>
>untrue.
>
>http://www.tap.org/
>
>mbs
>
>
>
>"[Nader] would not advocate public ownership of
>productive assets. . . .
>


Well, some, maybe, but virtually all? I mean Do you think he'd support 
nationalizing all corporations above a certain low level, treating the mines 
and the factories and fields and offices as belonging to the government and 
to be controlled by the workers and farmers? Which in some sense is what 
most of us here, including me, would advocate.

jks



_
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

Re: Re: Re: Re: Nader

[Justin Schwartz]

>
>There were two lines in the New Deal.  The corporatists were not dominant
>at first -- the Thurman Arnold, trust-busting line, was.  The idea was
>that corporate power caused the Depression by keeping prices high and
>curtailing output.
>

But Judge Arnold was no fan of unmbridged free markets. Have you head his 
The Folklore of Capitalism? A wonderful book. As I said, trust-busting isn't 
the same idea as the current Stevens-Bork-Posner line that antitrsutis just 
about efficiency.

jks

_
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

RE: Re:: Nader

[michael pugliese]

hese search terms have been highlighted: 
alan 
brinkley 
new 
deal 
fdr 

Copyright © 1995 The Johns Hopkins University Press. All rights
reserved. This  work may be used, with this header included,
for noncommercial purposes within a  subscribed institution.
No copies of this work may be distributed electronically outside
of the subscribed institution, in whole or in part, without express
written permission from the JHU Press. Reviews in American History
23.4 (1995) 710-715 

FROM NEW DEAL TO NEW LIBERALISM

William R. Brock

Alan Brinkley. The End of Reform: New Deal Liberalism in Recession
and War. New York:
Knopf, 1995. x 271 pp. Archival sources, notes, and index. $27.50.


This is an important addition to New Deal historiography, but,
as with many other academic monographs, the subtitle tells more
than the title. The book's primary purpose is not to examine
the end of reform but to explain how and why American liberalism
was transformed. In that it brings together much that is already
known and advances no startling new interpretations, it can be
described as a synthesis; but it is synthesis of a high order.
No other book covers the ground with such mastery and at numerous
points a new insight or citation illuminates what has hitherto
been obscure. Seventy-two archival sources and eighty-one pages
of notes (several of them condensed historiographical essays)
demonstrate the width and depth of his learning. Even more telling
is the good judgment with which the material is handled. 

The New Deal gave birth to a new species of liberalism. In Roosevelt's
words, quoted by Brinkley, its leading characteristic was "a
changed concept of the duty and responsibility of government
toward economic life." Progressive moralism slipped into the
background, city bosses were flattered rather than challenged,
all forms of populism were distrusted as antiintellectual and
irrational, racial questions were avoided, gender was not yet
an issue, and so far as the New Dealers were concerned anyone
could imbibe as much alcohol as they wished. What the New Deal
liberals did have in overflowing measure was intellectual energy
harnessed to the conviction that society could be reconstructed
on just, rational, and efficient lines, and that the intelligent
use of political power would make general welfare more than an
empty phrase. To these liberals of the New Deal everything seemed
possible after the election of 1936; then came recession to show
that it was not. Worse followed with the ill- fated attempt to
reform the Supreme Court, the loss of the Executive Reorganization
Bill, and the resurgence of conservative and frequently virulent
opposition. In the next five years appropriations for the Works
Progress Administration were cut and cut again until it expired,
other New Deal innovations were dropped or rendered ineffective,
and the National Resources Planning Board -- repository for so
many liberal hopes -- was [End Page 710] killed. During the war
industrialists won praise but mismanagement in the wartime agencies
discredited government direction of the economy. Faced by these
setbacks and operating in a cold climate liberals so modified
their own attitudes and aims that Brinkley can write with authority
of a "new liberalism" emerging during the years of disillusion
and war, and maintain that it rather than the New Deal was the
parent of liberalism as it is known today. 

The new liberalism was less adventurous than the old and not
merely because intellects grew weary. In the heady days of the
early New Deal, liberals had assumed that capitalism would remain
but could be transformed; new liberals recognized that in all
essentials it would remain the same. Despite a few attempts at
resuscitation the ideas that had inspired the NRA were dead.
Big business might still be unpopular, but political antimonopoly
faded away. Facing a future in which corporate power would survive
and probably grow stronger, liberals shifted their emphasis from
regulation to fiscal management, from disciplining producers
to protecting consumers, from emergency measures of relief to
a permanent and expanding welfare system. They dropped the idea
that the economy was mature and looked for growth, putting profits
into private pockets with the proviso that it must also provide
full employment. Victory of a sort came with Truman's triumph
in 1948 but the Fair Deal was separated by an intellectual gulf
from the New Deal. 

Brinkley's introduction and epilogue provide a stimulating overview
of this decisive stage in the history of American liberalism.
The ten chapters that make up the body of the book provide massive
substance to support his generalizations, but close argument
and much detail should not deter readers. His style is fluent,
lucid, readable, and devoid of pretentious jargon. Also the text
is enlivened by perceptive pen portraits of leading personalties.


It is for the most part an insiders' story. The greatest insider,
FDR himself, is a tow

RE: Re: Re: Re: Nader

[michael pugliese]

   fROM A WEBPG. ON aLAN bRINKLEY
Michael Pugliese

>...The End of Reform discusses the erosion of the New Deal after
the 1937 recession and the experience of World War II. Brinkley
notes how FDR, a consummate pragmatist, had held no design for
recovery but rather relied on "bold experimentalism" to carry
the day. Under this rubric of experimentalism, many different
ideologies got their time in the sun, including budget-balancers,
"New Freedom" decentralization, "New Nationalist" federalism,
and Hoover-style associationalism. When the 1937 recession hit,
destroying what little recovery had occurred since the Great
Slump, FDR finally began to rely on what we now consider the
New Deal's prime legacy - Keynesian fiscal spending. This emphasis
on pump-priming [a.k.a. throwing money at problems, with no underlying
civic mission] was set in stone by the financial necessities
of the war effort.

By the time the dust had settled in 1945, all other strands of
progressivism had been discarded and forgotten, leaving only
the convenient yet strangely disempowering monolith of "postwar
liberalism" on the political landscape. Step by unfolding step,
Brinkley relates the men of various philosophies who crafted
the New Deal, and how they all ultimately came to embrace the
tenets of the liberalism now floundering in our nation's capital.
>--- Original Message ---
>From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: 3/31/02 9:07:49 AM
>

>There were two lines in the New Deal.  The corporatists were
not dominant
>at first -- the Thurman Arnold, trust-busting line, was.  The
idea was
>that corporate power caused the Depression by keeping prices
high and
>curtailing output.
>
>On Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 02:29:55PM +, Justin Schwartz wrote:
>> 
>> Actually the old New Deal (pre 1937) was opposed to competition
and very 
>> much in favor of corporativist planning. The New Dealers were
very impressed 
>> by the successes of the WWI War economy and the apparant successes
of the 
>> USSR in those days in avoiding the ravages of the Great Depression,
and if 
>> you read the histories of the period, they utterly rejected
the invisible 
>
>-- 
>Michael Perelman
>Economics Department
>California State University
>Chico, CA 95929
>
>Tel. 530-898-5321
>E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>

Re: Re: Re: Nader

[Michael Perelman]

There were two lines in the New Deal.  The corporatists were not dominant
at first -- the Thurman Arnold, trust-busting line, was.  The idea was
that corporate power caused the Depression by keeping prices high and
curtailing output.

On Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 02:29:55PM +, Justin Schwartz wrote:
> 
> Actually the old New Deal (pre 1937) was opposed to competition and very 
> much in favor of corporativist planning. The New Dealers were very impressed 
> by the successes of the WWI War economy and the apparant successes of the 
> USSR in those days in avoiding the ravages of the Great Depression, and if 
> you read the histories of the period, they utterly rejected the invisible 

-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Re: Re: Nader

[Max B. Sawicky]

untrue.

http://www.tap.org/

mbs



"[Nader] would not advocate public ownership of 
productive assets. . . .

Re: Re: Nader

[Justin Schwartz]

.
> >
> > Nader is sort of a New Deal (FDR) liberal who used to believe in 
>competitive
> > markets, anti-trust, and some kinds of deregulation (e.g., breaking up 
>the
> > Civil Aeronautics Administration and the Interstate Commerce Commission, 
>the
> > old government cartels in airlines and ground transport). He's been 
>moving
> > away from this for awhile, seemingly in the direction of those on this 
>list.
> > I'll have to read his book to find out more. JD
> >


Actually the old New Deal (pre 1937) was opposed to competition and very 
much in favor of corporativist planning. The New Dealers were very impressed 
by the successes of the WWI War economy and the apparant successes of the 
USSR in those days in avoiding the ravages of the Great Depression, and if 
you read the histories of the period, they utterly rejected the invisible 
hand ideology that is dominant today. This is reflected, e.g., in the 
National Recovery Administration, struck down by the SCt in the last 
Lochner-era decision, the early interpretation of the SEC Acts, the 
expressly pro-labor (pre-Taft-Hartly) NLRA, which made unionization a 
prefered option, and in the earlier interpretations of antitrust law by both 
the FTC and the New Deal SCt--antitrust law didn't go aggressively 
pro-competitive as opposed to anti-trust until the 1970s. It's a legacy of 
the early (pre-liberal) Justice Stevens.

Nader may be a New Deal liberal when it comes to social programs. But he's a 
believer in free markets and competition. That's not a criticism from me--I 
am too. Nader is not a leftist in the sense of being anticapitalist--as I 
am, btw, anticapitalist, that is. He's anticorporate and proregulation, but 
unlike me and most of us, here would not advocate public ownership of 
productive assets. He's about as far left, however, as anyone could be and 
not be considered utterly insane in terms of normal American political 
discourse.

Insanely yours

jks

_
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Re: Re: Nader

[Mohammad Maljoo]

In his _Exit, Voice, and Loyalty_, Hirschman places  Nader's campaigns  in 
the EVL approach.
Mohammad Maljoo

>From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [PEN-L:24485] Re: Nader
>Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 19:59:44 -0800
>
>Jim's Thurmon Arnold comparison is very apt.
>
>On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 07:51:50PM -0800, Devine, James wrote:
> > [was: RE: [PEN-L:24482] Re: FW: Krugman]
> >
> > Sabri asks: >Here is a question to our American friends: Is Ralph Nader 
>is a
> > leftist?<
> >
> > it's a matter of definition and political definitions are not only hard 
>to
> > make but are political footballs.
> >
> > Nader is sort of a New Deal (FDR) liberal who used to believe in 
>competitive
> > markets, anti-trust, and some kinds of deregulation (e.g., breaking up 
>the
> > Civil Aeronautics Administration and the Interstate Commerce Commission, 
>the
> > old government cartels in airlines and ground transport). He's been 
>moving
> > away from this for awhile, seemingly in the direction of those on this 
>list.
> > I'll have to read his book to find out more. JD
> >
>
>--
>Michael Perelman
>Economics Department
>California State University
>Chico, CA 95929
>
>Tel. 530-898-5321
>E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>




_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

Re: Nader

[Michael Perelman]

Jim's Thurmon Arnold comparison is very apt.

On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 07:51:50PM -0800, Devine, James wrote:
> [was: RE: [PEN-L:24482] Re: FW: Krugman]
> 
> Sabri asks: >Here is a question to our American friends: Is Ralph Nader is a
> leftist?<
> 
> it's a matter of definition and political definitions are not only hard to
> make but are political footballs. 
> 
> Nader is sort of a New Deal (FDR) liberal who used to believe in competitive
> markets, anti-trust, and some kinds of deregulation (e.g., breaking up the
> Civil Aeronautics Administration and the Interstate Commerce Commission, the
> old government cartels in airlines and ground transport). He's been moving
> away from this for awhile, seemingly in the direction of those on this list.
> I'll have to read his book to find out more. JD
> 

-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Nader/Gore

[Timework Web]

Who is to say the IF Nader had not run, Gore wouldn't have performed even
worse in the campaign? There was no major third party candidate in the
1988 election and Dukakis lost all by himself. There is every bit as much
reason to believe that Nader was a burr in Gore's saddle that made him
run harder as there is to believe that Nader took away the EXTRA margin of
victory that Gore needed to insure against massive vote irregularities and
the Supreme Court.

Tom Walker
(604) 947-2213

Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: nader 3?

[Justin Schwartz]

No. William F. Buckley offered it to her, but she said she has had enough 
embarassment with the Royal Family in the tabloids lately. she doesn't need 
any more. Thenk yew veddy much. --jks

>
>Speaking of which, is there any truth to the rumor that because the US
>can't govern itself, the Queen of England wants it back?
>
>Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
>

_
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.

Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: nader 3?

[Jim Devine]

Brad wrote: > I've never understood the whole "things are bad, so let's 
make them worse!" meme...<

isn't that the slogan of the IMF? or is it "things are so bad for the 
wealthy, let's make them worse for the working people"?

Speaking of which, is there any truth to the rumor that because the US 
can't govern itself, the Queen of England wants it back?

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: nader 3?

[Lisa & Ian Murray]

>
> I've never understood the whole "things are bad, so let's make them
> worse!" meme...
>
>
> Brad DeLong
***

I've never understood the unsurpassable predictive prowess of economists in
all socio-politico-economic matters that exhibit greater complexity than
atmospheric chemistry.

Ian

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: nader 3?

[Brad DeLong]

>  Like you
>I worked in DC. I watched the rewrite of the Clean Air Act become a tragedy
>foisted on the US citizenry by lawyers on K Street doin' the revolving door
>thang on Capitol Hill, arguably the real cause [along with the arrogance of
>the Big 3 "catering" to the consumer choice of a public in deep denial of
>our ultimately organic being and the causal webwork we're embedded in]of the
>problem.
>
>Dictatorial? No. Arrogantly Authoritarian; yes, along with the rest of the
>institutions "controlled" by the Repugs.
>
>Ian

I've never understood the whole "things are bad, so let's make them 
worse!" meme...


Brad DeLong

Re: Re: Nader 3? Blaming who?

[Jim Devine]

I quoted Hitchens:
> >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]

Nathan says:
>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.

The quote from Hitchens is not saying that the "we" (which refers 
specifically to the Nader voters, not to any potentially vast majority, in 
his column -- as should have been obvious from the preface I added to the 
quote) have no power and therefore have no responsibility. (BTW, I believe 
that much antagonism and some flame wars can be avoided via careful 
reading. I have several times written replies to e-messages, but when I 
went back and read what the person wrote, found that I had misinterpreted 
what he or she said, so I had to start from scratch or simply throw the 
damn thing out.)

Instead, it's referring to the fact that those of us who are disgusted with 
the two-party line (and would typically not vote at all rather than voting 
for Gore) get trashed for something that the "unctuous surrogates" should 
take responsibility for. By following the lesser-of-two-evil position in 
every election since godnosewhen, they reward the Democratic Leadership 
Committee and their ilk for their efforts to turn the Democratic Party from 
a "New Deal" alliance into an electoral machine that caters to white 
suburbanites (the "soccer moms"). As any behaviorist psychologist knows, if 
you reward a rat with cheese for doing something, it will reinforce the 
behavior, so the behavior will be repeated. The DLC seems to do absolutely 
everything in its substantial powers to undermine the traditional New Deal 
base, including incarcerating large numbers of minority folks under the 
misbegotten "war on drugs," who won't be able to vote because they were 
convicted of felonies. (Of course, DLC worthies like Clinton weren't even 
prosecuted for stunts like bombing the Sudan in order to distract people 
from Monica.) The DLC drives people to vote for Bush, Buchanan, Nader, 
etc., or not to vote at all, and then blame them for doing so. The vast 
majority of people who were disgusted with the Democrats didn't vote for 
Nader. Instead, they looked at the "viable choices" (as the two-party line 
says they should) and decided they preferred the Fool over the Knave, often 
because the former was more pleasant on TV. (I'm sorry, but can you imagine 
Al Gore giving Presidential speeches over the next 4 years? Maybe it's 
slightly better than Bush, but...) When you have a choice between two 
Republicans, you go for the one who does it better. You go for the real 
thing rather than the amazing simulation.

BTW, Gore seems to have done very poorly among white suburbanites. This 
should suggest to the DLC types that they've failed and should turn back to 
the "New Deal" base (as Gore did a little when he started getting 
desperate), but I doubt they'll do it, since they are campaign-contribution 
driven. (The key is finding a fund-raising alternative to the now-banned 
renting out of the Lincoln Bedroom.) Instead, they'll probably struggle to 
make future "third party" efforts even more difficult (as they have in 
California), probably justified in the name of democracy. The whole 
silliness of the popular vote vs. electoral college conflict (which may 
give the Presidency to Bush even though Gore won in terms of votes) could 
be solved with the "instant run-off" system. However, the Dems and the GOPs 
will fight this system because it would encourage third-party efforts. The 
Greens and other third-party types will be shoved aside in this decision, 
since the New York TIMES and other establishmentarian political forces 
(backed by Nathan) will blame too much democracy (deviant parties) for the 
problem.

I'm all in favor of the "instant run-off" system, and I bet that the Greens 
are too. However, the duopoly parties don't want it. In fact, if it comes 
up in respectable circles, I'd bet that people like Arlen Spector (boo!) 
will push it...

>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. 

I won't tak

Re: Re: Nader 3? Blaming who?

[Ken Hanly]

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
>

Re: Re: Nader 3? Blaming who?

[Carrol Cox]

Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:

> Nathan:
>
> >The continual evasion by Nader and other Green supporters for the results of
> >their leadership and actions is incredibly distressing on that point.

Nathan, do all voters to the left of Calvin Coolidge belong to you Democrats by
devine right or something/ How dare you assume that anyone for any reason *owes*
you a vote. Geez! It is absolutely bizarre that a loser should whine about those
who hate him not voting for him. How dare you say that I should vote for a war
criminal just to please your dainty political palate. The incredible arrogance of
it all.

Incredible stress does not begin to pay the proper penalty for such arrogance. I'm
going to spend my leisure moments for the next four years chortling about how the
Democrats think that we *owe* them a vote withour their lifting a finger to earn
it. It's going to be a lovely four years.

Where in the Constitution does it say that any American *owes* a vote to anyone?
Gee Whiz!

Carrol

> 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.
>
> I'd rather see Gore supporters taking responsibility for scaring a
> good number of potential Third Party supporters into wasting their
> votes on the loser.
>
> Yoshie

Re: Nader 3? Blaming who?

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Nathan:

>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.

I'd rather see Gore supporters taking responsibility for scaring a 
good number of potential Third Party supporters into wasting their 
votes on the loser.

Yoshie

Re: Re: Re: Re: nader 3?

[Lisa & Ian Murray]

SUVs? The fact that the American Petroleum Institute ate Gore for
lunch in the fight over the BTU tax in 1993?

You can say that Gore didn't try hard enough for taxes on emissions.
But you can't say that he didn't try. And you can't blame dirtier air
in Portland-Seattle over the past eight years on Gore--blame it on
the *Democratic* congress in 1993 that wouldn't pass his energy tax.

The political naivete of people who think that the White House is
some kind of dictatorial center of power continues to astonish me.
People should be smart enough to realize that Gore has been fighting
on the right side for environmentalists, but that the support he has
gotten from the rest of the political system was very weak...


Brad DeLong

**

Damn,

And here I was thinking you were going to utter those simple words:
regulatory capture of the EPA; his pet agency.

If you consider the 3rd paragraph a passive voice flame, nice try.  Like you
I worked in DC. I watched the rewrite of the Clean Air Act become a tragedy
foisted on the US citizenry by lawyers on K Street doin' the revolving door
thang on Capitol Hill, arguably the real cause [along with the arrogance of
the Big 3 "catering" to the consumer choice of a public in deep denial of
our ultimately organic being and the causal webwork we're embedded in]of the
problem.

Dictatorial? No. Arrogantly Authoritarian; yes, along with the rest of the
institutions "controlled" by the Repugs.

Ian

RE: Re: Nader 3? Blaming who?

[Lisa & Ian Murray]

 
 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
*

Why don't you email them your suggestion Nathan? http://votenader.com

Ian 

Re: Nader 3? Blaming who?

[Nathan Newman]

- 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

Re: Nader 3? Blaming who?

[Jim Devine]

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.

Re: Nader 3? Blaming who?

[Brad DeLong]

>  >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/08/00 09:34AM >
>
>the biggest display of political incompetence I have
>seen this fall, save for the way that Al Gore has run his campaign...
>
>(
>
>CB: Do you think Gore should have stuck with the one what brought 
>him to the dance, Clinton ?

No. I think he should have spent the last eight years getting some 
debate training. And I think he should have run much more explicitly 
on prosperity: everyone's wages have gone up during the past eight 
years, while during Reagan-Bush only the rich benefited from 
increasing real GDP...


Brad DeLong

Re: Re: Re: Nader 3? Blaming who?

[Brad DeLong]

>Brad,
>  I'm going to repeat my comments to Michael
>Perelman earlier.  I suspect that a Bush-Cheney
>EPA will not be all that much worse than a Gore-
>Lieberman one, although probably marginally so.

"Perhaps"? "Perhaps"?

And as I said, if you think the issues are important, then marginal 
differences have enough weight to matter.

Re: Re: Re: Re: nader 3?

[Brad DeLong]

>BDL>>If you think there's no difference between a Clinton-Gore EPA and a
>Bush-Cheny EPA you need to have your brain overhauled.
>
>Why is it that the people who claim to care the most about issues so
>often turn out to care the least about them?
>
>
>Brad DeLong
>
>*
>
>Why has the air in the Portland-Seattle corridor gotten dirtier in the last
>8 years? And no you can't play the "it would have been worse" card a la
>Churchill.

SUVs? The fact that the American Petroleum Institute ate Gore for 
lunch in the fight over the BTU tax in 1993?

You can say that Gore didn't try hard enough for taxes on emissions. 
But you can't say that he didn't try. And you can't blame dirtier air 
in Portland-Seattle over the past eight years on Gore--blame it on 
the *Democratic* congress in 1993 that wouldn't pass his energy tax.

The political naivete of people who think that the White House is 
some kind of dictatorial center of power continues to astonish me. 
People should be smart enough to realize that Gore has been fighting 
on the right side for environmentalists, but that the support he has 
gotten from the rest of the political system was very weak...


Brad DeLong

Re: Re: Nader 3? Blaming who?

[J. Barkley Rosser, Jr.]

Brad,
 I'm going to repeat my comments to Michael
Perelman earlier.  I suspect that a Bush-Cheney
EPA will not be all that much worse than a Gore-
Lieberman one, although probably marginally so.
If Gore wins, he will be busy trying to prove he is
not too radical of an environmentalist, especially
as he has lost several states due to his supposed
environmentalism, such as West Virginia.
  OTOH, Bush has a bad rep on the environment
and will be trying to prove that he is not so bad.
Upshot is not too much difference.
   I have already said I think the bigger differences
will be on taxes, social security, and policy towards
labor unions.  I hope that if Bush wins with Gore winning
the popular vote, as now appears likely, that the newly
increased Dems in the Senate will be emboldened to
filibuster any serious garbage, including outrageous
appointments, that Bush tries to make.
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Brad De Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 1:25 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:4088] Re: Nader 3? Blaming who?


>>  >If you think there's no difference between a Clinton-Gore EPA and a
>>>Bush-Cheny EPA you need to have your brain overhauled.
>>
>>Brad: Surely by now you have caught the point: people don't feel there is
>>ENOUGH of a difference
>
>If the issues are that important, then even small differences are
>important enough to swing your vote--unless you are clueless indeed.
>
>>to endure a permanent abandonment by the Democratic
>>Party of many of its core values in the face of serious underlying shifts
>>in the American economy and society (short term booms not withstanding).
>>Surely you can imagine a different set of preferences over a longer
>>time frame?
>>
>>For years now I have had to listen to the Clinton-Gore operatives tell me
>>that I didn't understand real politics.  Now it turns out THEY were the
>>ones who miscalculated.  More then a million people have 'defected' and
who
>>do they to blame?  Can't be they 'triangulated' a little too close?  No,
>>its the one million people who are too purist and expect too much.
>>
>>In fact it was their blind arrogance...
>
>You shoot yourself in the foot and then look around for someone else to
blame?
>
>Why not be an adult, recognize that there is a big difference between
>a Clinton-Gore EPA and a Bush-Cheney EPA, and admit you fucked up?
>
>Take some responsibility for the actions of your faction. Be a grown
>up. If you want to make the world a better place, do politics for
>real. If you'd rather express yourself, go join a theater troop
>somewhere.
>
>
>Brad DeLong
>
>

Re: Re: Re: Re: Nader 3? Blaming who?

[Rob Schaap]

>To demonstrate your immense weakness and inability to mobilize voters 
>while at the same time working against your own substantive political 
>positions is the biggest display of political incompetence I have 
>seen this fall, save for the way that Al Gore has run his campaign...

Bollocks, Brad.  To do nothing when the political process has been torn from
the bounds of democracy is worse than incompetent.  And everybody knows the
left is institutionally weak, so no ground lost there.  Today, lots of Gore
voters know they felt obliged to vote for their second-favourite candidate.
Soon, they might learn that the popular vote ain't trusted in the Great
Democracy, and that it can be overturned by a thing called an electoral
college.  You can't predict what comes of such moments of clarity.  But I'm
betting it's gonna make for a more animated and radical political culture
than America has had for three decades.  

Cheers,
Rob. 

Re: Re: Nader 3? Blaming who?

[Rob Schaap]

G'day Ricardo,

You point out:

>...and there's no contradition stating that Nader had every right to 
>stay 'till the end (and to have participated in the debates) and 
>concluding, if only at the last minute, that since Nader's campaign 
>was going nowhere, and since the Gore-Bush campaign was so 
>close, and since one is intelligent and more sentitive to social 
>concerns and the other is an idiot, then one should vote for Gore 
>and not Nader.  

Quite right.  But voting for Nader is not something that should be
represented (although it will be) as lefties cutting off their noses to
spite their faces.  The Democrats HAVE been taking diabolical liberties with
their constituency, and have been getting away with by ever offering the
less appalling alternative in a well-judged balancing act.  The fight to
knock down the walls of the ever-narrowing corridor thusly made has to start
somewhere and that means a nettle has to be grasped at some stage or other. 
At least then the public consciousness, or more accurately (I suspect), its
morale, might be raised to the idea that it could just demand something
beyond the walls - that they're supposed to express the boundaries rather
than their betters.  If the electoral college goes against the voting
majority, that'll heighten it all the more.  Good.  So I guess I'm arguing
there is nothing contradictory about stating that Gore is better than Bush,
but that one should have voted for Nader, anyway.

Cheers,
Rob.

Re: Nader 3? Blaming who?

[Ricardo Duchesne]

> Face it: your faction fucked up bigtime. You thought that you could 
> demonstrate the mass voting power of the American left without 
> swinging the election to the right-wing candidate.



...and there's no contradition stating that Nader had every right to 
stay 'till the end (and to have participated in the debates) and 
concluding, if only at the last minute, that since Nader's campaign 
was going nowhere, and since the Gore-Bush campaign was so 
close, and since one is intelligent and more sentitive to social 
concerns and the other is an idiot, then one should vote for Gore 
and not Nader.  






 
> But three percent of the vote--one-fifth of Perot's share in 1992--is 
> not enough to impress anyone: the DLC will spend the next four years 
> reminding everyone how small the Nader vote share was and how 
> difficult it would be to capture it for the Democratic candidate 
> (compared to the votes they think you could capture by fighting for 
> the votes of, say, school voucher supporters in the center). Three 
> percent of the vote may well, however, enough this time to swing the 
> election for the right-wing candidate.
> 
> To demonstrate your immense weakness and inability to mobilize voters 
> while at the same time working against your own substantive political 
> positions is the biggest display of political incompetence I have 
> seen this fall, save for the way that Al Gore has run his campaign...
> 
> 
> Brad DElong
> 
> political incompetence
> -- 
> Professor J. Bradford DeLong
> Department of Economics, #3880
> University of California at Berkeley
> Berkeley, CA 94720-3880
> (510) 643-4027; (925) 283-2709 voice
> (510) 642-6615; (925) 283-3897 fax
> http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/
> 

Re: Re: Re: Nader 3? Blaming who?

[Brad De Long]

>Sorry, I don't think you want to listen (and this has been the larger
>problem all along) and I'd rather not continue in this tone.  Signing off
>for now.
>
>PA
>
>  >
>>Why not be an adult, recognize that there is a big difference between
>  >a Clinton-Gore EPA and a Bush-Cheney EPA, and admit you fucked up?
>>

Look: if the environmental issues are important, then even a small 
difference between Gore and Bush should put you on the Gore side.

Face it: your faction fucked up bigtime. You thought that you could 
demonstrate the mass voting power of the American left without 
swinging the election to the right-wing candidate.

But three percent of the vote--one-fifth of Perot's share in 1992--is 
not enough to impress anyone: the DLC will spend the next four years 
reminding everyone how small the Nader vote share was and how 
difficult it would be to capture it for the Democratic candidate 
(compared to the votes they think you could capture by fighting for 
the votes of, say, school voucher supporters in the center). Three 
percent of the vote may well, however, enough this time to swing the 
election for the right-wing candidate.

To demonstrate your immense weakness and inability to mobilize voters 
while at the same time working against your own substantive political 
positions is the biggest display of political incompetence I have 
seen this fall, save for the way that Al Gore has run his campaign...


Brad DElong

political incompetence
-- 
Professor J. Bradford DeLong
Department of Economics, #3880
University of California at Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720-3880
(510) 643-4027; (925) 283-2709 voice
(510) 642-6615; (925) 283-3897 fax
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/

Re: Re: Re: nader 3?

[Lisa & Ian Murray]

BDL>>If you think there's no difference between a Clinton-Gore EPA and a
Bush-Cheny EPA you need to have your brain overhauled.

Why is it that the people who claim to care the most about issues so
often turn out to care the least about them?


Brad DeLong

*

Why has the air in the Portland-Seattle corridor gotten dirtier in the last
8 years? And no you can't play the "it would have been worse" card a la
Churchill. And how about Browner on the Everglades, or her patronizing
attitude towards the experts on international trade in toxics when we had
[and won] the debate with her here in Seattle prior to WTO?

Ian

Re: Re: Re: Re: nader 3?

[Eugene Coyle]

Brad De Long wrote:

> >Just reflecting on Nader getting 3%.  If Bush wins the enviros who agonized
> >over the vote, and then voted for Gore will lose.  They'll regret not voting
> >for Nader
> >
> >If Gore wins, he will, with certainty, sell out the enviros, and then they'll
> >regret not voting for Nader.
> >
> >Many, of course, will not comprehend that Gore has sold them out, and they'll
> >fume that the poor president can't get anything done, just as they have
> >excused Gore/Clinton for their environmental sell-out for the past eight
> >years.
> >
> >Gene Coyle
>
> If you think there's no difference between a Clinton-Gore EPA and a
> Bush-Cheny EPA you need to have your brain overhauled.
>
> Why is it that the people who claim to care the most about issues so
> often turn out to care the least about them?
>
> Brad DeLong

Like Gore?

Re: Re: Nader 3? Blaming who?

[Paul_A]

Sorry, I don't think you want to listen (and this has been the larger
problem all along) and I'd rather not continue in this tone.  Signing off
for now.

PA

PS I am not a faction
>You shoot yourself in the foot and then look around for someone else to blame?
>
>Why not be an adult, recognize that there is a big difference between 
>a Clinton-Gore EPA and a Bush-Cheney EPA, and admit you fucked up?
>
>Take some responsibility for the actions of your faction. Be a grown 
>up. If you want to make the world a better place, do politics for 
>real. If you'd rather express yourself, go join a theater troop 
>somewhere.
>
>
>Brad DeLong

Re: Nader 3? Blaming who?

[Brad De Long]

>  >If you think there's no difference between a Clinton-Gore EPA and a
>>Bush-Cheny EPA you need to have your brain overhauled.
>
>Brad: Surely by now you have caught the point: people don't feel there is
>ENOUGH of a difference

If the issues are that important, then even small differences are 
important enough to swing your vote--unless you are clueless indeed.

>to endure a permanent abandonment by the Democratic
>Party of many of its core values in the face of serious underlying shifts
>in the American economy and society (short term booms not withstanding).
>Surely you can imagine a different set of preferences over a longer 
>time frame?
>
>For years now I have had to listen to the Clinton-Gore operatives tell me
>that I didn't understand real politics.  Now it turns out THEY were the
>ones who miscalculated.  More then a million people have 'defected' and who
>do they to blame?  Can't be they 'triangulated' a little too close?  No,
>its the one million people who are too purist and expect too much.
>
>In fact it was their blind arrogance...

You shoot yourself in the foot and then look around for someone else to blame?

Why not be an adult, recognize that there is a big difference between 
a Clinton-Gore EPA and a Bush-Cheney EPA, and admit you fucked up?

Take some responsibility for the actions of your faction. Be a grown 
up. If you want to make the world a better place, do politics for 
real. If you'd rather express yourself, go join a theater troop 
somewhere.


Brad DeLong

Re: Re: Re: nader 3?

[Brad De Long]

>Just reflecting on Nader getting 3%.  If Bush wins the enviros who agonized
>over the vote, and then voted for Gore will lose.  They'll regret not voting
>for Nader
>
>If Gore wins, he will, with certainty, sell out the enviros, and then they'll
>regret not voting for Nader.
>
>Many, of course, will not comprehend that Gore has sold them out, and they'll
>fume that the poor president can't get anything done, just as they have
>excused Gore/Clinton for their environmental sell-out for the past eight
>years.
>
>Gene Coyle

If you think there's no difference between a Clinton-Gore EPA and a 
Bush-Cheny EPA you need to have your brain overhauled.

Why is it that the people who claim to care the most about issues so 
often turn out to care the least about them?


Brad DeLong

Re: Re: Re: nader 3?

[Carrol Cox]

Eugene Coyle wrote:

>
> Many, of course, will not comprehend that Gore has sold them out, and they'll
> fume that the poor president can't get anything done, just as they have
> excused Gore/Clinton for their environmental sell-out for the past eight
> years.

This is crucial to understand the power the Democratic Party has to block
progressive action in the United States. I remember now my first baby steps
towards radicalism (I was 35 at the time). I had gotten marginally involved in
some local civil-rights activity (this was 1965), and attended some sort of
regional or state-wide rally or forum My memory of just what it was or where it
was held is extremely vague. What I do remember is a conversation I had with a
black woman afterwards (though I don't remember what in the meeting triggered the
conversation). In the course of it I came up with the slogan, "Clobber your
lukewarm friends." I think I probably had Senator Paul Douglas specifically in
mind but I'm not sure.

In any case I was operating out of the premises Gene describes above. I trusted
the Democratic Party in principle, but felt that they were lacking in vigor or
were afraid to press their case against Republican opposition. I thought that
they would if they could, and we only had to create enough heat to give them the
courage of their convictions. This also, I presume, is the principle followed by
those who hope the Green Party will push the Democrats to the left. Nonsense.
Enough mass struggle, enough trouble in the streets, and everyone in the Senate
to the left of Thurmond and Helms will fall all over themselves to move to the
left. Without trouble in the streets Senator Wellstone will be no better than
Senator Helms.

Regardles of who is elected, a central task of the left in the years to come is
to break the hold of the Democratic Party on those who, freed from that hypnotic
trance, would be vigorously left.

Clinton lacked neither courage nor principle. He fought courageously for what he
really believed in. He really believes in screw single mothers. He really
believes in slaughter Iraqi children. My own conviction is that he would have
carried out those policies even if he thought they were politically dangerous.
Gore will do the same. On the other hand, Bush might be just opportunisitc and
soft-headed enough to be pushed around some by enough mass mobilization.

Carrol

P.S. Anyone who takes advantage of the wordplay opening I gave above won't earn a
living as a comic.

Re: Re: nader 3?

[Eugene Coyle]

Just reflecting on Nader getting 3%.  If Bush wins the enviros who agonized
over the vote, and then voted for Gore will lose.  They'll regret not voting
for Nader

If Gore wins, he will, with certainty, sell out the enviros, and then they'll
regret not voting for Nader.

Many, of course, will not comprehend that Gore has sold them out, and they'll
fume that the poor president can't get anything done, just as they have
excused Gore/Clinton for their environmental sell-out for the past eight
years.

Gene Coyle

Jim Devine wrote:

> At 02:40 PM 11/7/00 -0800, you wrote:
> >  What do you think of the reports that many of the Nader voters are
> >defecting to Gore?  What a shame.  If Gore wins, he will bear the
> >blame for the recession, showing the Democrats that they need to be
> >even more market friendly.
>
> don't worry about the recession. The war in Colombia will pump up aggregate
> demand quite nicely, while also forcing Gore to abandon his Herbert
> Hooverite vision of fiscal policy.
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Re: nader 3?

[Jim Devine]

At 02:40 PM 11/7/00 -0800, you wrote:
>  What do you think of the reports that many of the Nader voters are
>defecting to Gore?  What a shame.  If Gore wins, he will bear the
>blame for the recession, showing the Democrats that they need to be
>even more market friendly.

don't worry about the recession. The war in Colombia will pump up aggregate 
demand quite nicely, while also forcing Gore to abandon his Herbert 
Hooverite vision of fiscal policy.

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Re: Re: Nader Paradox and the odds

[Jim Devine]

At 10:48 AM 11/2/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Of course with these probabilities, Nader and even
>Buchanan and McReynolds and Browne and Magelin
>should be discussed.

hey, it's Hagelin! let's give the meditators their due...

BTW, I've noticed a lot of more stuff on US National Public Radio about 
meditation-related issues since Hagelin challenged the Buchananeers.

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Re: Nader Paradox and the odds

[J. Barkley Rosser, Jr.]

  Of course, he actually ran for president back
in 1948 on the Dixiecrat ticket.  Even took a few
states.  Also holds the record for the longest filibuster,
over 24 straight hours in 1957 against an early civil
rights bill.  A real man of principle, although I understand
that bladder strain was more of a problem than sperm
count in that one.
  Actually there is still another possibility at around
1 in a million.  You get the scenario that gives us Thurmond,
but then the Senate goes Democratic.  In that case it would
be Robert Byrd as he is the senior Dem and thus would be
the President Pro Tempore.  But, of course, the Senate race
might produce an evenly divided Senate, in which case the
sitting Vice President, Al Gore, could cast the tie-breaking
vote for Byrd.  Wow! Besides quoting Shakespeare and
the Constitution, he could wear a sheet and have some
crosses burned at his inauguration in memory of his former
membership in the KKK.
 Of course with these probabilities, Nader and even
Buchanan and McReynolds and Browne and Magelin
should be discussed.  But, hey, since we have a dead
man running for the Senate in Missouri (Mel Carnahan),
who is leading in the polls even, maybe we should bring
back Gus Hall for another run.  Where is he now when
we need him so much?
Barkley Rosser
http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb
-Original Message-
From: Lisa & Ian Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 5:58 PM
Subject: RE: Nader Paradox and the odds


>
>>
>>
>> > But then we have 1 in 100,000 that the race for House
>> >Speaker deadlocks and it goes to the President Pro Tempore
>> >of the Senate and thus STROM THURMOND IS ELECTED
>> >PRESIDENT!  (all hail the POTUS!)
>> >Barkley Rosser
>>
>> In which case it would be time to get Monica away from
>> Weight-Watchers (or
>> wherever she's hanging out now) and back into her thong and into the Oval
>> Office. Ol' Strom's ticker would give out like that.
>>
>> Carl
>
>Hey in DC they used to call him Sperm Thurmond so he'd probably be able to
>be very presidential  with Monica
>
>Ian
>
>> _
>> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>>
>> Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
>> http://profiles.msn.com.
>>
>
>

Re: Nader campaign claims good poll numbers

[Jim Devine]

At 09:57 AM 10/22/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>The MC at the Nader rally ... claimed poll results showing Nader at ... 9% 
>in Connecticut.

where people know Joe Lieberman well?

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine

Re: Nader on FoxNews

[martin schiller]

Michael Perelman said on 9/28/00 8:06 PM

>I understand that RN will be on TV tonight.  How could he be as funny as
>Bush?  Slate reports

RN appeared on Fox News yesterday with Phil Donahue(sp) and described 
Bush as a corporation disguised as a human being. Sounds a little like 
Steve Gaskin's "A corporation is not a person". Gaskin _is_ funny.

M

Re: Nader on Letterman

[Jim Devine]

You scared me. I thought you were referring to Richard Nixon, who allegedly 
is tanned and rested and ready to run for office again (in Hell). Of 
course, Nixon was better than the current crop of politicians.

At 09:06 PM 9/28/00 -0700, you wrote:
>I understand that RN will be on TV tonight.

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

RE: Nader Demands ...

[Eric Nilsson]

Re exchange between Doug and Max:

Doug: ". . . Service sector workers, who are by far a majority of the U.S. 
working class, may well gain from trade."

Max: "What gain would that be?"


The single most important determinant of real wages of service workers is
likely the minimum wage. If international trade contributes to lower US
prices (but don't reduce minimum wage or service wages), then service
workers might benefit from trade as far as consumption goes.

But, IF the minimum wage is effected by international trade in some way then
maybe service workers are not necessarily better off when trade increases.

Whether by coincidence or not, the correlation over 1960 to 1999 between the
real value of the minimum wage and the ratio of trade deficit divided by GDP
is 0.6. (Of course, the real value of min wage generally fell after 1970 and
the trade deficit started to get worse a bit later so the correlation is not
a surprise).

Why might worsening trade deficit lead to lower real minimum wage? Possibly,
trade problems pushes min wage increases off the political agenda. (Assuming
Congress/Press/President can focus on only one economic issue at the same
time). 

Possibly, trade deficit contributes to nationalist/pro-capitalist ideology
and this tends to lead public to look more at wages as a cost to business
and to possibly think that increased min wages might reduce competitive
positions of US firms. These things might make an increase in the minimum
wage less politically practical.

Further, as management in certain 'trade-impacted' industries becomes more
aggressive in keeping wages down for trade reasons, this aggression might
spillover to affect aggressiveness in other (service) industries. 


Eric




Eric Nilsson
Economics
California State University, San Bernardino
San Bernardino, CA 91711
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


 winmail.dat

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Nader Demands Banning,Pulping ofHarry Potter

[Doug Henwood]

Max Sawicky wrote:

>Average hourly wage, service sector
>(not incl. 'protective' svcs.)
>$1999
>
>  19731979   1989   19951999
>male 10.69   10.02   8.63   8.19   8.53
>female7.838.08   7.45   7.39   7.70
>
>>From State of Working America, 2000-2001 (forthcoming)
>
>I suppose this could have been worse without trade,
>even tho wages were higher when there was less trade.

Wages have risen over the last 5 years with trade - the average 
hourly service sector real wage is up 8% since its trough in late 
1994. Wages fell in earlier years with trade. Wages have risen in 
countries more open to trade than the U.S. Where's your cause-effect?

Doug

RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Nader Demands Banning, Pulping ofHarry Potter

[Max Sawicky]

. . . Service sector workers, who are by far a majority of the U.S. 
working class, may well gain from trade. I don't see any evidence 
that EPI's trade work ever considers this as a possibility.  Doug


What gain would that be?

Average hourly wage, service sector
(not incl. 'protective' svcs.)
$1999

 19731979   1989   19951999
male 10.69   10.02   8.63   8.19   8.53
female7.838.08   7.45   7.39   7.70

>From State of Working America, 2000-2001 (forthcoming)

I suppose this could have been worse without trade,
even tho wages were higher when there was less trade.

mbs

Re: RE: Re: Re: Nader Demands Banning, Pulping ofHarry Potter

[Doug Henwood]

Max Sawicky wrote:

>Nobody does more on non-standard work arrangements than
>we do.  Ditto the minimum wage.

Yes, you do. EPI does lots of great stuff, and I'm a big fan of all 
you folks. Maybe your latest hire, Heather Boushey - who starts 
today, right? - will prod a bit of a rethink of the trade stuff. 
Because despite all your work on "nonstandard" arrangements, the 
trade stuff always seems to revert to the guy-in-the-auto-plant 
model. Service sector workers, who are by far a majority of the U.S. 
working class, may well gain from trade. I don't see any evidence 
that EPI's trade work ever considers this as a possibility.

Doug

RE: Re: Re: Nader Demands Banning, Pulping of Harry Potter

[Max Sawicky]

DH . . .
Max, you been studying at the Nathan Newman School of False Binaries? 
You're either for the working class or for open trade?


I was trying to say that binaries are the wrong
way around this -- that some quantification is
necessary to draw any conclusions.  Words have
failed me.  Again.

>DH:
I was criticizing EPI's typical trade models, which seems to assume 
no gains from trade. . . .

I was referring to your resort to consumer well-being,
on one occasion.  We've been thru the other stuff so
I will not rehash.

DH . . .  I sometimes get the 
feeling that EPI's modal worker is a guy
who works in a car plant. . . .

Nobody does more on non-standard work arrangements than
we do.  Ditto the minimum wage.  So while your feeling is
understandable, it is not well-founded.  At the same time,
at least in my own view, the wage of the 'guy in the
auto plant' is crucial in putting upward pressure on labor
standards in general.
 
. . . And the "working class" includes Mexicans, who might feel a little 
differently about import restriction than you do.   Doug

We've been working w/scholars and activists in Mexico
from the very beginning of the NAFTA stuff.  We're
pretty familiar with how they feel.  Incidentally,
we're going to be putting out a book on Mexico that
is a counterpart of our State of Working America
(the latter due out on Labor Day).

mbs

Re: Re: Nader Demands Banning, Pulping of Harry Potter

[Doug Henwood]

Max Sawicky wrote:

>BDL's new piece on Nader is civil enough, but it got me to thinking 
>about a point that has come up before -- the business of comparing 
>consumer benefits to worker losses in trade debates.  Henwood 
>brought this up (once) and provoked in me the realization that the 
>logic of this exercise militates against all that we customarily 
>understand as left politics, in the broadest sense.  If consumer 
>benefits (narrowly defined) are the highest priority, then we have 
>to oppose any constraints on production cost minimization, in terms 
>of minimum wages, industrial action, trade unionism, environmental 
>regulation, etc.  This is a problem for would-be progressive free 
>traders, at the very least.  Now I'm wondering how well it can be 
>put in analytical terms.
>
>To elevate consumer well-being above working-class income is to say 
>that, as an historical matter, cost reductions in consumer goods are 
>the greater contributor to general well-being than increases in 
>income (whether from labor or from government programs) and output.

Max, you been studying at the Nathan Newman School of False Binaries? 
You're either for the working class or for open trade?

I was criticizing EPI's typical trade models, which seems to assume 
no gains from trade. You simply take a deficit figure, divide it by 
some cost per job, and assume that that equals the number of jobs 
lost to imports. Gains from trade could be - I'm using the 
conditional because this sort of thing is hard to prove definitively 
- very broadly distributed, while the losses could be very narrowly 
distributed. The fact that EPI-style trade politics isn't all that 
popular is a clue that that may be the case. I sometimes get the 
feeling that EPI's modal worker is a guy who works in a car plant. 
But there are more than 10 times as many U.S. workers in retail as in 
transportation equipment (and, about 3/4 of autoworkers are male, 
whereas about half of retail workers are female).

The politics of minimum wages, unionization, environmental 
regulation, etc. are all much clearer: labor broadly benefits and 
capital broadly loses from these. With trade, the class incidence is 
a lot murkier, but EPI-ers never face this squarel.

And the "working class" includes Mexicans, who might feel a little 
differently about import restriction than you do.

Doug

Re: Re: Nader Demands Banning, Pulping of Harry Potter

[michael]

Not long after Jevons et al. formulated neoclassical economics, political
commentators began to tell workers that they should evaluate their
situation in terms of rising levels of consumption rather than their
working conditions.
 -- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Nader Demands Banning, Pulping of Harry Potter

[Brad De Long]

>BDL's new piece on Nader is civil enough, but it got me to thinking 
>about a point that has come up before -- the business of comparing 
>consumer benefits to worker losses in trade debates.  Henwood 
>brought this up (once) and provoked in me the realization that the 
>logic of this exercise militates against all that we customarily 
>understand as left politics, in the broadest sense.  If consumer 
>benefits (narrowly defined) are the highest priority, then we have 
>to oppose any constraints on production cost minimization, in terms 
>of minimum wages, industrial action, trade unionism, environmental 
>regulation, etc.  This is a problem for would-be progressive free 
>traders, at the very least.  Now I'm wondering how well it can be 
>put in analytical terms.

True. But...

Nah. It's time for pas d'enemie sur la gauche.The neoclassical 
assumption that your welfare is primarily your welfare as a consumer 
(plus a *private* disutility of work term) automatically rules out 
any concern for the producer-side benefits of living in a vibrant 
production-based community rather than being an anomic seller of 
one's labor-power.  Bob Reich had a nice piece around 1990 about how 
most of the game is in how "legitimate" interests are defined.


Brad DeLong

Re: Nader Demands Banning, Pulping of Harry Potter

[Max Sawicky]

BDL's new piece on Nader is civil enough, but it got me to thinking about a point that 
has come up before -- the business of comparing consumer benefits to worker losses in 
trade debates.  Henwood brought this up (once) and provoked in me the realization that 
the logic of this exercise militates against all that we customarily understand as 
left politics, in the broadest sense.  If consumer benefits (narrowly defined) are the 
highest priority, then we have to oppose any constraints on production cost 
minimization, in terms of minimum wages, industrial action, trade unionism, 
environmental regulation, etc.  This is a problem for would-be progressive free 
traders, at the very least.  Now I'm wondering how well it can be put in analytical 
terms.

To elevate consumer well-being above working-class income is to say that, as an 
historical matter, cost reductions in consumer goods are the greater contributor to 
general well-being than increases in income (whether from labor or from government 
programs) and output.  Now obviously a decrease in the price level for a given nominal 
wage is an increase in real wages, and an improvement in consumer well-being is good 
for workers as consumers.  The problem is that these things need not dovetail 
precisely.  The case of Nader is ironic here because no one did more to popularize 
consumerism, and no one is doing more right now to promote labor in terms of his power 
to earn income.

The political connection between a defense of labor in one place and the well-being of 
labor in general is obvious but fuzzy from a quantitative standpoint.

I would grant that the ultimate criterion is consumption, but with proper 
qualifications as to definition (i.e., considering non-market amenities) and 
distribution.  We have to ask what openness with respect to trade does in this 
dimension, relative to managed trade and industrial policies aimed at holding up labor 
standards.  If, for instance, gains from trade tended to be small and reaped by those 
scoring low by our consumption criteria, that would discount the merits of openness 
from our social welfare standpoint.  By contrast, if trade management or international 
labor standards had negligible impact on incomes, that would commend free trade 
policies as progressive.  BDL raises yet another consideration -- the impact on 
workers in other countries.  This obviously complicates the analysis, but it also 
brings up the same offsetting factors that apply to the 'home' country.  Ultimately 
one cannot do this sort of exercise without resorting to some kind of quantification, 
somet!
hing that rarely enters into our debates and necessarily hampers them.  Dean Baker was 
onto this some time ago at EPI and concocted a measure of the gains from openness -- 
he called them 'gatts.'  It was easy to show these were dwarfed by contractionary 
fiscal/monetary policy, among other things.

mbs


>We all know that you cannot evaluate the effects of trade policy by looking just at 
>what happens to the incomes of those who lose. You have to look at what happens to 
>the incomes of the winners as well--there should have been a paragraph about how the 
>newly-hired China-based columnists working for $25 a column can now afford eyeglasses 
>for their children. . . .

Re: Nader add

[JKSCHW]

Can you sign me off or put my account in suspension for a couple of weeks? I'm going 
on holiday. Thanks. --jks

In a message dated Thu, 10 Aug 2000 11:12:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Michael 
Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

<< I just saw the Nader ad on Slate.  It should be quite effective.

--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 >>

Re: Re: Nader add

[Doug Henwood]

Louis Proyect wrote:

>And I saw an ad on televison the other night. Highly professional and
>effective--attacks the Democrats and Republicans equally as fat cats. His
>adman apparently ran Jesse Ventura's ad campaign.

Bill Hillsman is his name; also did Wellstone. For a scan of his wild 
& crazy college yearbook photo, see 
.

Doug

Re: Nader add

[Louis Proyect]

And I saw an ad on televison the other night. Highly professional and
effective--attacks the Democrats and Republicans equally as fat cats. His
adman apparently ran Jesse Ventura's ad campaign. Doing it for free or low
cost I believe. Meanwhile Nader is going to support the CWA strike, attend
their picket line.

At 08:10 PM 8/10/00 -0700, you wrote:
>I just saw the Nader ad on Slate.  It should be quite effective.
>
>--
>Michael Perelman
>Economics Department
>California State University
>Chico, CA 95929
>
>Tel. 530-898-5321
>E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/

Re: Nader

[Stephen E Philion]

> 
> New York Times Op-Ed, July 23, 2000
> 
> RECKONINGS / By PAUL KRUGMAN
> 
> Saints and Profits
> 
> 
> And was I the only person who shuddered when Mr. Nader declared that if he
> were president, he wouldn't reappoint Alan Greenspan -- he would
> "re-educate" him? 


OOOh, the red-baiting begins.

steve

Re: Re: Nader-Greens- Labor

[Mine Aysen Doyran]

I think Neil's analogy was appropriate. What is your point anyway?

Mine


> >What kind of analogy  was yours anyway ? Comparing  the  AFL's Labor >fakers
>
> >Party corral
> >in 2000 to the Bolsheviks  clever  mass tactics  of 1917?  On July 4, a >lot
>
> >of people do  get tanked up.
> >So we'll forgive you today.
>
> >Doug H.


NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_
Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Request a CDROM  1-800-333-3633
___

Re: Nader-Greens- Labor

[neil]

point of information on the Greens-Mexico ;

The Greens Party  of Mexico have  also been practicing their brand of
'pragmatism'
(in politics a very bourgeois method of  their dirty work) .

Oh yes, true,  they were opposed to the corrupt  PRI bandits --but their
pro-capitalist opposition
put them in support of the right wing PAN outfit. Pragmatists above all
want to 
be on the winning bourgeois side. The PAN may dole out some rewards now.

Louis Proyect --check your history out , you are wrong -yet again
In the Bolsheviks July '17 Days ,  the Bolshevik opposed armed
demonstrations for tactical 
reasons, 1) they knew though Bolshevik support in the soviets though
growing each day -
 Bolshevik programme support was still a minority view and the soviets
(workers/soldiers councils)
 would not vote yet  for insurrection. 2) they knew as a minority , the
advanced Bolshevik-soviet workers &
 sailors  and soldiers arming  themselves could be a provocation for
Kerensky's Govt  and the Kornilovs
Army to smash the  growing  revolutionary tide.

Events by Oct '17 had changed &  now the bolsheviks were  a majortity in
soviets . The soviets themselves
voted in majority for Bolsheviks to set up Military Revolutionary Committee
and plan the siezure of
state power.

What kind of analogy  was yours anyway ? Comparing  the  AFL's Labor fakers
Party corral 
in 2000 to the Bolsheviks  clever  mass tactics  of 1917?  On July 4, a lot
of people do  get tanked up.
So we'll forgive you today.

Doug H.

I have been to a few  LA Labor Party  getherings before. In 1998  Labor
Partyites 
in SF and LA  were just Ga-Ga over the Barbara Boxer  US Senate campaign.
But let no one mention
that they might be doing Democratic donkey work! Many   California  LPers
worked like trojans to make
sure we have the Democrats gaining the Governorship , + Assembly , and
Legislature majorities. 
Now, that has happened,  capitals austerity and takebacks continue
nonetheless.. .  
How can any Party that uses any flimsy excuses to garner votes
for their so-called lesser evil bourgeois Party ever be serious about
breaking anybody from
the Demo-publican  political  stranglehold?
One the contrary the LP has its 4yr. track record -- It's  Playacting is
over  and  the LP
 never really  broke from the Democrats  and it will not oppose all the
unions backing 
Gore and Co. now. Where is the LP opposition to this?

Neil.

Re: Re: Nader, etc (fwd)

[md7148]

>"neil":
>>The LP acts as a  political filter to keep escaping workers from fleeing
>>the Democrats
>>deceit and lies and building an anti-capitalist movement   

>Whenever I read stuff like this, I am drawn back to Trotsky's description
>of the July Days, when Bolsheviks went out in the streets to try to
>persuade angry workers from demonstrating for the immediate overthrow of
>Kerensky. Basically, the peasants had to be drawn in or else the
>revolution >would be unsuccessful.>Louis Proyect
>Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/

Drawing peasent support makes sense. No?

The other difference it seems to me is that Bolshevik party was a 
communist party whereas LP is a labor party. Not every labor party is per
se a communist party altough we socialists desire that it should be.
May be I am wrong, Lou.

Mine

Re: Re: Nader, etc

[Louis Proyect]

"neil":
>The LP acts as a  political filter to keep escaping workers from fleeing
>the Democrats
>deceit and lies and building an anti-capitalist movement   

Whenever I read stuff like this, I am drawn back to Trotsky's description
of the July Days, when Bolsheviks went out in the streets to try to
persuade angry workers from demonstrating for the immediate overthrow of
Kerensky. Basically, the peasants had to be drawn in or else the revolution
would be unsuccessful. Some of the workers were so pissed off at what they
regarded as Bolshevik timidity that they punched them in the nose. For
certain radicals, we are in an eternity of July Days.

Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/

Re: Re: Nader, etc

[Doug Henwood]

neil wrote:

>It is not quite true that the so-called US Labor Party has no candidiates-
>It does--99% Democrats!  This LP  is no labor independence from capitals
>parties
>at all. It is financed 95% by the AFL  trade unions and they are recruiting
>  sergeants for
>the campaign of Gore %& Co. (differences on NAFTA, WTO, notwithstanding).

How do you know this? Do you know any actual LP members? Do you know 
what they think of the Democratic Party? Or is this just some wind-up 
rhetoric?

Doug

Re: Nader, etc

[neil]

It is not quite true that the so-called US Labor Party has no candidiates-
It does--99% Democrats!  This LP  is no labor independence from capitals
parties
at all. It is financed 95% by the AFL  trade unions and they are recruiting
 sergeants for
the campaign of Gore %& Co. (differences on NAFTA, WTO, notwithstanding).

The LP acts as a  political filter to keep escaping workers from fleeing
the Democrats
deceit and lies and building an anti-capitalist movement   . If you wear a
union jacket with
 a LP button on it, you still vote for,  & work for the Democrats, but now
the LP leaders tell you
 this is 'labor independence'. 
Like most DP apologists amongst workers, they find one single issue  the
Democrat 
is more 'progressive' on than the Republican (in words) e.g abortion rights
, (curtailed
 version of course), rights to privacy,  (also shrunk) etc " rights that
cost the bourgeois state  nothing  in
big expense. Then they show how reactionary the Republicans are on these
issues -
Finally you told to vote for the "lesser evil" . But you still get to vote
for evil.
No wonder the ruling class is laughing all the way to their stuffed vaults 
and stock exchanges, banquet tables, etc!

Neil

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: = Nader

[Jim Devine]

At 03:22 PM 7/3/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Among the
>minor parties, however, besides Buchanan (Reform) and Nader (Green),  I 
>doubt that
>anyone will get more than a couple of hundred thousand votes.

one weird thing is that the more Buchanan looks successful at getting votes 
("stealing" them from George W.), the less that the "lesser of two evil" 
supporters of Gore can yell at the Nader supporters for "stealing" votes 
from their hero. So there's a symbiotic relationship between Pat and Ralph...

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Re: Re: Re: Re: = Nader

[Doug Henwood]

Rod Hay wrote:

>Do the other minority parties like the Labor Party, etc., have presidential
>candidates? And who are they?

The Labor Party, much to the chagrin of many members, refuses to run 
any candidates yet, thinking it best to build a membership-based 
party first.

Doug

Re: Re: Re: Re: = Nader

[Joel Blau]

By agreement, the Labor Party is not running anyone for a while. The Socialist Party
is running David McReynolds, and if you dig around (perhaps someone else on pen-l
knows this) I'm sure there is a web site where 10 or so others are listed. Among the
minor parties, however, besides Buchanan (Reform) and Nader (Green),  I doubt that
anyone will get more than a couple of hundred thousand votes.

Joel Blau

Rod Hay wrote:

> Do the other minority parties like the Labor Party, etc., have presidential
> candidates? And who are they?
>
> Rod
>
> Joel Blau wrote:
>
> > Two points:
> >
> > 1) I agree--I don't  think it would be wise to channel all political activity
> > through one candidate. On the other hand, given the attenuated conception of
> > politics that most Americans hold, electoral activity assumes an excessive
> > prominence. From this persective, it is significant that in this
> > election--unlike every other back to 1980 (Barry Commoner), someone who is
> > anti-corporate is getting some media attention. In this setting, the American
> > electoral system is both a barrier and facilitator. In a state where the vote
> > is tight, a Nader
> > vote would prompt much more hand-wringing. I live in New York, however, and if
> > Gore doesn't win New York, Bush is a shoo-in any way. So for me, and for others
> > in states with large Gore leads in the polls, it is a comparatively easy
> > decision.
> >
> > 2) And yes,  campaign reform is a much more profound structural issue than the
> > Nader candidacy. The Nader candidacy will evaporate in four months, helping the
> > Green party and maybe fostering some coalition building on the local level. But
> > real campaign reform would have powerful long-term implications. I'd choose the
> > second over the first in an instant.
> >
> > Joel Blau
> >
> > Chris Burford wrote:
> >
> > > At 23:49 02/07/00 -0400, you wrote:
> > > >Mark:
> > > >
> > > >Your argument is seriously marred by the notion of Nader as a political
> > > >detour. The implication is that in his absence, the mass anger would
> > > >assume a more acceptable form. I believe in critical support of Nader, but
> > > >I reject both of your premises. At this time, at least in electoral
> > > >politics, Nader is the most successful anti-corporate messenger we
> > > >got--frightening enough to warrant a full denuciatory editorial in the New
> > > >York Times. This may not speak well for the American left, but given its
> > > >desultory state, what would you expect? For a reasonably large,
> > > >nonsectarian movement, he is basically what there is to work with. And the
> > > >notion that without him, workers would move left is as much a fantasy as
> > > >the notion that trade unionists would act more militantly if they weren't
> > > >held back by all those union bosses. The Nader campaign may be full of its
> > > >own ambiguities, but one thing is certain: most people who vote for him do
> > > >not have another more radical consciousness that they hold in secret and
> > > >upon which they would act if he were not around.
> > > >
> > > >Joel Blau
> > >
> > > It is good that the internet provides opportunities to compare experience
> > > in many countries. From east of  the Atlantic it seems obvious that good
> > > people would want to support Nader and others would want to support Gore,
> > > (all with many qualifications). Rather than striving to discredit one or
> > > other position, perhaps the important thing is to debate *how* different
> > > candidates may be supported.
> > >
> > > Basically I suggest the position taken by different candidates should be
> > > seen as the result of the balance of forces, rather than the cause of
> > > future change. It is dogmatic to rule out any interest in an electoral
> > > result, but it is reformist to focus the main thrust of political activity
> > > around one candidate.
> > >
> > > A lot depends on the bourgeois electoral system. Livingstone was running
> > > for election in a PR political system that meant a protest vote for him,
> > > did not hand the London Assembly over to the Conservative Party.
> > >
> > > Third Party politics in the USA can punish the second most popular
> > > candidate, but whether it can really shift the balance of the debate over
> > > the next decade is more questionable.
> > >
> > > The funding of the system of electoral politics has been increasingly
> > > prominent in the USA and in other countries. Would not a campaign for
> > > reform of this be more fundamentally revolutionary in weakening the hold of
> > > capital over public debate?
> > >
> > > Chris Burford
> > >
> > > London
>
> --
> Rod Hay
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The History of Economic Thought Archive
> http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html
> Batoche Books
> http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/
> 52 Eby Street South
> Kitchener, Ontario
> N2G 3L1
> Canada

Re: Re: Re: = Nader

[Rod Hay]

Do the other minority parties like the Labor Party, etc., have presidential
candidates? And who are they?

Rod

Joel Blau wrote:

> Two points:
>
> 1) I agree--I don't  think it would be wise to channel all political activity
> through one candidate. On the other hand, given the attenuated conception of
> politics that most Americans hold, electoral activity assumes an excessive
> prominence. From this persective, it is significant that in this
> election--unlike every other back to 1980 (Barry Commoner), someone who is
> anti-corporate is getting some media attention. In this setting, the American
> electoral system is both a barrier and facilitator. In a state where the vote
> is tight, a Nader
> vote would prompt much more hand-wringing. I live in New York, however, and if
> Gore doesn't win New York, Bush is a shoo-in any way. So for me, and for others
> in states with large Gore leads in the polls, it is a comparatively easy
> decision.
>
> 2) And yes,  campaign reform is a much more profound structural issue than the
> Nader candidacy. The Nader candidacy will evaporate in four months, helping the
> Green party and maybe fostering some coalition building on the local level. But
> real campaign reform would have powerful long-term implications. I'd choose the
> second over the first in an instant.
>
> Joel Blau
>
> Chris Burford wrote:
>
> > At 23:49 02/07/00 -0400, you wrote:
> > >Mark:
> > >
> > >Your argument is seriously marred by the notion of Nader as a political
> > >detour. The implication is that in his absence, the mass anger would
> > >assume a more acceptable form. I believe in critical support of Nader, but
> > >I reject both of your premises. At this time, at least in electoral
> > >politics, Nader is the most successful anti-corporate messenger we
> > >got--frightening enough to warrant a full denuciatory editorial in the New
> > >York Times. This may not speak well for the American left, but given its
> > >desultory state, what would you expect? For a reasonably large,
> > >nonsectarian movement, he is basically what there is to work with. And the
> > >notion that without him, workers would move left is as much a fantasy as
> > >the notion that trade unionists would act more militantly if they weren't
> > >held back by all those union bosses. The Nader campaign may be full of its
> > >own ambiguities, but one thing is certain: most people who vote for him do
> > >not have another more radical consciousness that they hold in secret and
> > >upon which they would act if he were not around.
> > >
> > >Joel Blau
> >
> > It is good that the internet provides opportunities to compare experience
> > in many countries. From east of  the Atlantic it seems obvious that good
> > people would want to support Nader and others would want to support Gore,
> > (all with many qualifications). Rather than striving to discredit one or
> > other position, perhaps the important thing is to debate *how* different
> > candidates may be supported.
> >
> > Basically I suggest the position taken by different candidates should be
> > seen as the result of the balance of forces, rather than the cause of
> > future change. It is dogmatic to rule out any interest in an electoral
> > result, but it is reformist to focus the main thrust of political activity
> > around one candidate.
> >
> > A lot depends on the bourgeois electoral system. Livingstone was running
> > for election in a PR political system that meant a protest vote for him,
> > did not hand the London Assembly over to the Conservative Party.
> >
> > Third Party politics in the USA can punish the second most popular
> > candidate, but whether it can really shift the balance of the debate over
> > the next decade is more questionable.
> >
> > The funding of the system of electoral politics has been increasingly
> > prominent in the USA and in other countries. Would not a campaign for
> > reform of this be more fundamentally revolutionary in weakening the hold of
> > capital over public debate?
> >
> > Chris Burford
> >
> > London

--
Rod Hay
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The History of Economic Thought Archive
http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html
Batoche Books
http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/
52 Eby Street South
Kitchener, Ontario
N2G 3L1
Canada

Re: Re: = Nader

[Joel Blau]

Two points:

1) I agree--I don't  think it would be wise to channel all political activity
through one candidate. On the other hand, given the attenuated conception of
politics that most Americans hold, electoral activity assumes an excessive
prominence. From this persective, it is significant that in this
election--unlike every other back to 1980 (Barry Commoner), someone who is
anti-corporate is getting some media attention. In this setting, the American
electoral system is both a barrier and facilitator. In a state where the vote
is tight, a Nader
vote would prompt much more hand-wringing. I live in New York, however, and if
Gore doesn't win New York, Bush is a shoo-in any way. So for me, and for others
in states with large Gore leads in the polls, it is a comparatively easy
decision.

2) And yes,  campaign reform is a much more profound structural issue than the
Nader candidacy. The Nader candidacy will evaporate in four months, helping the
Green party and maybe fostering some coalition building on the local level. But
real campaign reform would have powerful long-term implications. I'd choose the
second over the first in an instant.

Joel Blau





Chris Burford wrote:

> At 23:49 02/07/00 -0400, you wrote:
> >Mark:
> >
> >Your argument is seriously marred by the notion of Nader as a political
> >detour. The implication is that in his absence, the mass anger would
> >assume a more acceptable form. I believe in critical support of Nader, but
> >I reject both of your premises. At this time, at least in electoral
> >politics, Nader is the most successful anti-corporate messenger we
> >got--frightening enough to warrant a full denuciatory editorial in the New
> >York Times. This may not speak well for the American left, but given its
> >desultory state, what would you expect? For a reasonably large,
> >nonsectarian movement, he is basically what there is to work with. And the
> >notion that without him, workers would move left is as much a fantasy as
> >the notion that trade unionists would act more militantly if they weren't
> >held back by all those union bosses. The Nader campaign may be full of its
> >own ambiguities, but one thing is certain: most people who vote for him do
> >not have another more radical consciousness that they hold in secret and
> >upon which they would act if he were not around.
> >
> >Joel Blau
>
> It is good that the internet provides opportunities to compare experience
> in many countries. From east of  the Atlantic it seems obvious that good
> people would want to support Nader and others would want to support Gore,
> (all with many qualifications). Rather than striving to discredit one or
> other position, perhaps the important thing is to debate *how* different
> candidates may be supported.
>
> Basically I suggest the position taken by different candidates should be
> seen as the result of the balance of forces, rather than the cause of
> future change. It is dogmatic to rule out any interest in an electoral
> result, but it is reformist to focus the main thrust of political activity
> around one candidate.
>
> A lot depends on the bourgeois electoral system. Livingstone was running
> for election in a PR political system that meant a protest vote for him,
> did not hand the London Assembly over to the Conservative Party.
>
> Third Party politics in the USA can punish the second most popular
> candidate, but whether it can really shift the balance of the debate over
> the next decade is more questionable.
>
> The funding of the system of electoral politics has been increasingly
> prominent in the USA and in other countries. Would not a campaign for
> reform of this be more fundamentally revolutionary in weakening the hold of
> capital over public debate?
>
> Chris Burford
>
> London

Re: = Nader

[Chris Burford]

At 23:49 02/07/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Mark:
>
>Your argument is seriously marred by the notion of Nader as a political 
>detour. The implication is that in his absence, the mass anger would 
>assume a more acceptable form. I believe in critical support of Nader, but 
>I reject both of your premises. At this time, at least in electoral 
>politics, Nader is the most successful anti-corporate messenger we 
>got--frightening enough to warrant a full denuciatory editorial in the New 
>York Times. This may not speak well for the American left, but given its 
>desultory state, what would you expect? For a reasonably large, 
>nonsectarian movement, he is basically what there is to work with. And the 
>notion that without him, workers would move left is as much a fantasy as 
>the notion that trade unionists would act more militantly if they weren't 
>held back by all those union bosses. The Nader campaign may be full of its 
>own ambiguities, but one thing is certain: most people who vote for him do 
>not have another more radical consciousness that they hold in secret and 
>upon which they would act if he were not around.
>
>Joel Blau

It is good that the internet provides opportunities to compare experience 
in many countries. From east of  the Atlantic it seems obvious that good 
people would want to support Nader and others would want to support Gore, 
(all with many qualifications). Rather than striving to discredit one or 
other position, perhaps the important thing is to debate *how* different 
candidates may be supported.

Basically I suggest the position taken by different candidates should be 
seen as the result of the balance of forces, rather than the cause of 
future change. It is dogmatic to rule out any interest in an electoral 
result, but it is reformist to focus the main thrust of political activity 
around one candidate.

A lot depends on the bourgeois electoral system. Livingstone was running 
for election in a PR political system that meant a protest vote for him, 
did not hand the London Assembly over to the Conservative Party.

Third Party politics in the USA can punish the second most popular 
candidate, but whether it can really shift the balance of the debate over 
the next decade is more questionable.

The funding of the system of electoral politics has been increasingly 
prominent in the USA and in other countries. Would not a campaign for 
reform of this be more fundamentally revolutionary in weakening the hold of 
capital over public debate?

Chris Burford

London

[PEN-L:7460] Re: Nader Voters' Support for Prop 209

[Max B. Sawicky]

Nathan Newman wrote:
> 
> > M. Sawicky wrote:
> > A class appeal is the best (only?) way to overcome backward views
> > on race. Otherwise you are reduced to moral preachments.  You can
> > try saying that race divides people to their disadvantage, but that
> > presumes some larger concept that subsumes race:  class.
> 
> This is an impoverished definition of class that equates it simply with
> economic inequality between groups.  But what is crucial about class is
> its specific relation to exploitation around the axis of the means of
> production between owners of capital and workers. . . .

This is mere rhetoric.
What is crucial about class to real people is that a working-class
status renders them incapable of realizing their justifiable
expectations about living a full life made possible by fair
compensation for their labors and by appropriate collective action
to supply what they need which is not available in markets.
I'm not even talking about inequality, which most people don't
care about, unfortunately.

We're looking at private ownership of most capital for the
foreseeable future, so we might as well devote ourselves to
making the best of the situation.

> Racism is economic
> exploitation organized around racial differentiation WITHIN the working
> class where white workers collaborate with capital to assure their
> privileged caste position.

It's not obvious that white workers are 'collaborating' with
capital to maintain a caste advantage these days, except insofar
as they fail to support affirmative action and anti-discrimination
measures.  If I see you drowning and I fail to help you, I may be
criticized for my apathy or cowardice, but I'm not exactly holding
your head under water, though the result is the same.  This makes
a political difference because your formulation implies the levelling
of accusations against workers.  In labor and housing markets the active
collaboration of white workers in discrimination is real but limited.
Education is different because whites express racist sentiments
in their political choices.  Racism today is more a question of what
elites and those in positions of authority are doing (employers,
mortgage
bankers, etc.).

> There is no inconsistency between a class appeal to white workers that
> fights for a larger slice of the wage/profit split while also supporting a
> racial caste system that reserves the best high-paying jobs to while male
> workers.  In fact, if achieved, such a class appeal combined with racism
> promises the best result for such white male workers.

This was truer in years past than today.  These days the last thing
Capital
wants is to forego a slice of profits for the sake of "buying off" white
workers.  They're screwing everybody.

> In fact, this is exactly how white male workers have traditionally
> organized in the United States, often successfully.  The American
> Federation of Labor was formed by nearly all-white craft unions who
> withdrew from the declining Knights of Labor to institutionalize the
> privileged position of their members.  In the West, anti-Chinese
> organizing was a key factor in supporting the growth of unions in the
> West.  George Frederickson argues in his book WHITE SUPREMACY that through
> this anti-asian struggle, "unionism and working-class politics achieved
> more legitimacy and influence in some of the industrial regions of the Far
> West than in most other sections of the country."

You are skipping over about sixty years of labor history here by
characterizing the entire 20th century in pre-1935 terms.
The early incarnations of feminism and abolitionism were
pretty gamey by today's standards as well.

> Which brings us to Buchanan:
> > > One, an anti-corporate message is not enough, since that easily harbors a
> > > "Buchanan" racist vote.  Progressives have to link a clear anti-racism
> > > message to its anti-corporate message.
> >
> > Bull.  That presumes that Buchanan was really anti-corporate in any
> > substantive way.  He wasn't/isn't.
> 
> Ignoring the honesty of his convictions (and given his families honest
> worship of Mussolini I'll give him the benefit of the doubt), Buchanan's
> words are as anti-corporate and class-based as a large chunk of union
> rhetoric over the years in the US. Listen to a Buchanan speech denouncing
> meatpacking companies who use immigrants to drive down wages in order to
> increase profits. Listen to Buchanan denounce affirmative action as a plot
> by elites to lower the living standards of white male workers. In all
> those speeches, you hear the echoes of over a century of Jim Crow union
> organizing in the United States.  He may side with corporations against
> many other workers, but then there is little difference there since many
> of the AFL craft unions collaborated with employers in breaking
> alternative industrial unions (notably the IWW) that tried to organize all
> workers.

You're confusing demagogy with substantive anti-corporate rhetoric
and pol

[PEN-L:7438] Re: Nader Voters' Support for Prop 209

[Nathan Newman]

On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, Max B. Sawicky wrote:

> > This is the trap of "class not race" anti-corporate messages.  The same
> > thing happened in the NAFTA debate where anti-immigrant messages easily
> > penetrated the movement for fair trade.  (Significantly, Nader refused to
> > condemn Prop 187 as well.)
> 
> A class appeal is the best (only?) way to overcome backward views
> on race. Otherwise you are reduced to moral preachments.  You can
> try saying that race divides people to their disadvantage, but that
> presumes some larger concept that subsumes race:  class.

This is an impoverished definition of class that equates it simply with
economic inequality between groups.  But what is crucial about class is
its specific relation to exploitation around the axis of the means of
production between owners of capital and workers.  Racism is economic
exploitation organized around racial differentiation WITHIN the working
class where white workers collaborate with capital to assure their
privileged caste position.

There is no inconsistency between a class appeal to white workers that
fights for a larger slice of the wage/profit split while also supporting a
racial caste system that reserves the best high-paying jobs to while male
workers.  In fact, if achieved, such a class appeal combined with racism 
promises the best result for such white male workers.

In fact, this is exactly how white male workers have traditionally
organized in the United States, often successfully.  The American
Federation of Labor was formed by nearly all-white craft unions who
withdrew from the declining Knights of Labor to institutionalize the
privileged position of their members.  In the West, anti-Chinese
organizing was a key factor in supporting the growth of unions in the
West.  George Frederickson argues in his book WHITE SUPREMACY that through
this anti-asian struggle, "unionism and working-class politics achieved
more legitimacy and influence in some of the industrial regions of the Far
West than in most other sections of the country."

Which brings us to Buchanan:

> > One, an anti-corporate message is not enough, since that easily harbors a
> > "Buchanan" racist vote.  Progressives have to link a clear anti-racism
> > message to its anti-corporate message.
> 
> Bull.  That presumes that Buchanan was really anti-corporate in any
> substantive way.  He wasn't/isn't.

Ignoring the honesty of his convictions (and given his families honest
worship of Mussolini I'll give him the benefit of the doubt), Buchanan's
words are as anti-corporate and class-based as a large chunk of union
rhetoric over the years in the US. Listen to a Buchanan speech denouncing
meatpacking companies who use immigrants to drive down wages in order to
increase profits. Listen to Buchanan denounce affirmative action as a plot
by elites to lower the living standards of white male workers. In all
those speeches, you hear the echoes of over a century of Jim Crow union
organizing in the United States.  He may side with corporations against
many other workers, but then there is little difference there since many
of the AFL craft unions collaborated with employers in breaking
alternative industrial unions (notably the IWW) that tried to organize all
workers.

The problem with class appeals is that it can easily swell on
free-floating resentments against the rich that are easily redirected
against other, less powerful scapegoats.  Just witness the career of
Father Coughlin or other racist, anti-semitic "class appeals." Or the
shifting of Communist votes in France to Le Pen's movement.  

The alternative tradition of progressive organizing in the US is not one
that tried to remain silent on the issue of race--that was the failed
strategy of the Knights of Labor and the Debsian Socialist Party--but that
confronted racism directly as a strategic and moral imperative in
building a class-based movement. It was the strategy of CIO unions
encouraged in this strategy by the Communist Party, A. Phillip Randolph,
and a range of other forces making anti-racism a key component of the
fight for justice

It was a movement that actively promoted equality of opportunity in the
workforces they organized and made sure that workers understood the moral
and strategic reasons why short-term advantages of white supremacy should
be sacrificed. It actively opened the doors of opportunity to all workers
and as World War II made the US a key employer and contracts, parts of the
labor movement made affirmative action employment a key demand.  A.
Phillip Randolf threatened a march on Washington unless Roosevelt
implemented such an affirmative action policy and left-led unions forced
such policies on employers.  Union leaders like Harry Bridges of the ILWU
were so dedicated to affirmative action that when the war ended and some
workers needed to be laid off, he advocated abandoning seniority rules in
order to preserve racial diversity in the workplace.

In the post-McCarthy period, we had a

[PEN-L:7417] Re: Nader Voters' Support for Prop 209

[Max B. Sawicky]

Nathan Newman wrote:
> 
> . . .
> In Nader's run for President, one of the most criticized aspects of his
> Presidential campaign (other than his refusal to campaign) was his refusal
> to publicly oppose the anti-affirmative action Prop 209.
> . . .
> However, the disturbing result is that 30% of Nader's supporters voted for
> Prop 209.  That number is almost a third of the margin of victory for Prop
> 209 (given Nader's 4% of the vote statewide).

This should not be too too disturbing.  Unless you were steeped in the
history of the 70's, you might not know that pollsters discovered
a large number of voters who rated the Georges McGovern and Wallace as
their top two choices for President.  As you could imagine, they were
split on which was their first choice and which their second, but they
did lump them together.  What this points up is that people can harbor
a conflicted bunch of left and right sentiments.

The pro-209 Naderites could be taken as testimony to contradict your
thesis -- that the class feeling was sufficiently strong to overcome
Nader's "liberal" image on race.  As silent as Nader might have been
on race, it is hard to imagine that voters did not associate him with
their perception of the civil rights agenda.

I'll go further and disagree with your implication that those who
voted for 209 were captivated by racism.  The solid, albeit
minority blocks of blacks and hispanics who voted for 209 are
testimony to the inescapable reality that other considerations
were in play, perhaps mistaken ones, but much more complicated
ones than Buchananite racism.  That's really an outrageous
slur.  Labeling somebody immoral reflects political frustration
more than clear analysis, and of course it does absolutely nothing
to persuade the object of the criticism to change his or her mind.

> This is the trap of "class not race" anti-corporate messages.  The same
> thing happened in the NAFTA debate where anti-immigrant messages easily
> penetrated the movement for fair trade.  (Significantly, Nader refused to
> condemn Prop 187 as well.)

A class appeal is the best (only?) way to overcome backward views
on race. Otherwise you are reduced to moral preachments.  You can
try saying that race divides people to their disadvantage, but that
presumes some larger concept that subsumes race:  class.

> . . .
> One, an anti-corporate message is not enough, since that easily harbors a
> "Buchanan" racist vote.  Progressives have to link a clear anti-racism
> message to its anti-corporate message.

Bull.  That presumes that Buchanan was really anti-corporate in any
substantive way.  He wasn't/isn't.

I think you confuse the ideological imperative of being anti-racist
with the problem of how to be so in a politically effective way.
If it was just a matter of stating what is obvious to you and me,
we would be in better shape politically.

> Secondly, progressive intervention in the Democratic Party still matters.
> Cltinon was reluctant to oppose Prop 209, but Jesse Jackson, Eva Patterson
> (a key Bay Area leader of the anti-209 effort) and others exerted power
> within the party to pressure Clinton to publicly support affirmative
> action.

Right.

> . . .
> Democratic.  Clinton was reluctant to spend money publicizing his
> opposition to Prop 209, so most of the advertising on the subject came,
> ironically, from the Dole campaign and from the meager funds of the
> anti-209 campaign.  With more financial resources, more voters could have
> been moved and Prop 209 could have been defeated.

His reluctance extended to the election of anyone other than his
fat self, not just to 209.

> Part of what progressives need to orgganize for is control of the hundreds
> of millions spent by the Democratic Party nationally and in states like
> California.  If only a few million had been diverted to the anti-Prop 209
> campaign, the initiative could have been defeated.

Good point, but how to do it?

> And any future progressive third party  campaigns have to make anti-racism
> a key part of their message or they will merely be a pale populist shadow
> of the Dems.

Ditto.

I don't mean to pick on you in this list but you raise questions
that interest me more than other conversations going on here.

Wishing I was on the left coast, as the temp has swung decisively
below 40 here (which is plenty cold enough for me),

Max

[PEN-L:5382] Re: Nader, Affirmative Action, and Lesser Evils

[R. Anders Schneiderman]

Doug wrote,

>My objection to Nathan's original comments was that it was too easy simply
>to equate a position on AA with a position on racism. Clinton, for example,
>supports some kind of AA - details characteristically hazy - but he's also
>the prime mover behind the current mania for welfare reform, which is more
>deeply racist in cause and effect than just about any other political issue
>I can think of. Along those lines, for those who missed Paul Gigot's column
>in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, I've appended excerpts. (Note to
>copyright police: I got this from the WSJ's web site, which is free for
>another month, so I'm not exactly trafficking in purloined words.)

I don't know how you can say that Clinton's welfare reform is more deeply
racist than any other political issue; by any measure I can think of, his
crime reform wins that Gold medal. :)

Again, my problem (and it was me you were responding to, not Nathan) was
that Nader hadn't taken a position on stopping racial discrimination,
either through affirmative action or some other approach.  This is exactly
the kind of area where Clinton needs to be kicked some more, and it's
really disappointing to see that the only 'progressive' third party
candidate with any visibility is someone who refuses to talk openly about
the issue of racism in the U.S.

I don't expect to be happy with any Democratic President--or, for that
matter, any third party progressive candidate who manages to get elected
President.  Given the U.S.'s position in the global economy, I figure the
day our President doesn't make my stomach churn is probably the same day
there's a coup.  The only reasons I can see for a third party is either
because we need pressure on the Dems or because we're convinced that if a
third party won some measure of power, it would be somewhat less noxious
than the Dems.  In either case, I think Nader's position--and the national
reaction to it--is a sad commentary on the nature of progressive third
party efforts in this country.

Anders

P.S.  I loved Gigot's comments about Ellwood!  Serves the bastard right.

[PEN-L:5326] Re: Nader, Affirmative Action, and Lesser Evils

[Doug Henwood]

At 1:26 PM 7/24/96, R. Anders Schneiderman wrote:

>The issue of racism is one of the central problems facing our country
>today. It's also one of the central issues the Right is using to divide our
>side.  If Nader is going to duck it, then I don't see how anyone who
>believes in social justice can take him seriously as a progressive
>Presidential candidate.

Taking a position on racism and taking a position on a.a. are two different
things. I doubt Nader would support ending AFDC as an entitlement, which
the Commander-in-Chief does. I doubt Nader supports the war on drugs, that
Clinton so eagerly promotes. Both policies - which your candidate dearly
supports - are deeply racist in effect. This lesser evilism thing is very
complicated.

Doug

--

Doug Henwood
Left Business Observer
250 W 85 St
New York NY 10024-3217
USA
+1-212-874-4020 voice
+1-212-874-3137 fax
email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
web: 

[PEN-L:5325] Re: Nader again

[R. Anders Schneiderman]

Jim writes:

>It's just not true that the position of all third-party advocates is
>that one picks someone whom you actually support. There are other
>reasons.

>* A vote for a third party can be seen as part of a strategy to
>pressure the two-party duopoly to lean in our direction. If the
>political establishment gives a nut like Ross Perot the time of day,
>it's because he set up a third party that won a bunch of votes. If a
>left-wing third party got a lot of votes (something Anders is
>working against, at least on pen-l), they'd have to start listening
>to us a bit more. We might win some concessions, as with those that
>Nixon granted in the face of mass movements. (They might also turn
>to more sustained repression, as after World Wars I and II in the U.S.
>and the Cointelpro, but that's a risk we have to take.)

That seems entirely sensible to me. My problem is:

1) I don't see any third parties--at least on the West Coast--that have
their shit together enough to create sustained pressure.  If they did, I'd
join them (and that's why I've joined local efforts through the Progressive
Alliance in Alameda County, CA).  I vote for third party candidates on the
local level when I think they can either win or can create enough pressure
that they effect the 2 parties.  On the national level, I vote Democratic
because I think the harm a Republican could do outweighs the impact a third
party vote will have.  For example, I think we would've been much worse off
with Bush, because I think the grassroots far right would've taken much
more advantage of Bush's failings than our side could have, because they're
got a strong grassroots movement and we don't.   If that ever changes, I'd
think seriously about voting Third party for president.  Until then, I'm
putting my energies into groups like Californians for Justice, which I
think have a much better chance of affecting the debate over the long run.

2) If the point of a third party is to move the debate, then it doesn't
make any sense to vote for Nader.   The last thing our side needs to have
is a "Perot" who deals with class but not race--especially when Pat
Buchannon is out there.
If Nader doesn't have what it takes to provide some leadership on the issue
of addressing racism in the U.S., then he should stay out of Presidential
politics and stick to the fine single-issue work he's done on consumer
issues.

>* Advocacy of a third party is not the same as purism. It also
>involves a certain amount of compromise. (I reject the dichotomy of
>"pro-Clinton vs. pure.") (As Doug notes, it's weird to see someone
>attack Nader in a purist way while defending Clinton. Purity
>is a matter of degree.)

I don't have any problem with compromise; that's what politics are all about.
Any serious Third Party work is going to involve lots and lots of compromise.
My problem is that some folks on our side savage Clinton for his numerous
compromises (for which he ought to be savaged) but then are pretty silent
when a third party Presidential candidate like Nader is completely gutless
on an issue as central as racism.  That, it seems to me, is a sign that our
side still doesn't take racism seriously.

Anders

[PEN-L:5324] Re: Nader, Affirmative Action, and Lesser Evils

[R. Anders Schneiderman]

Doug wrote,

>I can't speak for Nader; his refusal to talk about "gonadal politics," as
>he calls it, is also unfortunate. But I do think it's a bit of a leap to
>conclude that Nader is "another White Boy on the Left who doesn't take
>racism seriously." You could also argue that affirmative action is entirely
>in accordance with ruling class strategy - as Marx said, the better a
>ruling class is able to absorb the natural leaders of the oppressed
>classes, "the more solid and dangerous its rule." Would making that
>argument be a sign that one "doesn't take racism seriously"? Anders, like
>his comrade Nathan, seems very quick to accuse others of various failings,
>even as they're composing an apology for Bill Clinton.

Doug, I didn't say that Nader had to argue in favor of affirmative action;
I said he had to take a serious position on racism:

>you'd expect that he'd come out strongly on the
>issue, strongly defending affirmative action and attacking the Republicans.
>If he had some philosophical problems with affirmative action, then at a
>minimum you'd expect a progressive presidential candidate would a) strongly
>and repeatedly attack the Republicans for using affirmative action as a
>smoke screen  and b) strongly and repeatedly argue for an alternative set
>of programs designed to aggressively eradicate discrimination.

The issue of racism is one of the central problems facing our country
today. It's also one of the central issues the Right is using to divide our
side.  If Nader is going to duck it, then I don't see how anyone who
believes in social justice can take him seriously as a progressive
Presidential candidate.

Anders

[PEN-L:5305] Re: Nader, Affirmative Action, and Lesser Evils

[Nathan Newman]

On Tue, 23 Jul 1996, Michael Perelman wrote:

> I have trouble accepting Anders's criticisim of Nader.  Nader has always 
> limited himself to consumer and environemntal type issues.  He has never 
> shown much interest in foreign affairs or questions, such as gays in the 
> military.  Neither has David Brower, but both have done wonderful work 
> [for the most part] in their chosen fields.
> 
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department

Michael,

I've worked in a Nader organization and I can see contributing money to
single issue politics like Nader.

But running for office is about the whole array of issues people face.  If
Nader won't face those, he has no business running and the folks
supporting him have no business doing so.

Every serious activist in California in the last two years has been
knee-deep in the racist assaults on immigrants and affirmative action.  We
have national legislation on welfare to cuts tens of billions of dollars
in spending on legal immigrants, massive incarceration of the black and
latino poor, and assaults on the most basic crumbs of affirmative action.

For Nader to run for office in California and not even address the issues
of immigrant rights and affirmative action is offensive.  Clinton may be a
"lesser evil" but his justice department fully opposed the
anti-affirmative action Hopwood decisions as they came up through Texas,
his Supreme Court appointees supported gay rights in the Colorado
decision, he has repeatedly threatened to veto legislation that included
187-style attacks on immigrant school children, and has spoken out for
keeping affirmative action in areas of education and employment.

Nader's silence in the present racist assault is inexcusable.  Clinton has
at least the excuse of pragmatism in his compromises--if he didn't, maybe
he wouldn't get reelected and even worse policy would get enacted.  That
may be bullshit, but it's an argument.

Nader's silence seems just self-indulgent and an appeal to a narrow class
appeal around his anti-corporate agenda that, frankly, always borders on
anti-immigrant protectionism.  

In 1994, I voted Green for US Senate.  The Greens ran Barbara Blong who
took principled positions on Prop 187, health care and against "3
Strikes".  I was nervous that that vote would throw the race to Michael
Huffington, but at least Blong was on principle better than Feinstein
across the board.

I can't say that about Nader versus Clinton.  On many issues, I frankly
trust Clinton more than Nader.  I've worked in Nader organizations and he
has never had a serious commitment to affirmative action in his own
organizations.  Most Nader groups are staffed and led by white folks and
there has been little outreach, mostly because of his organizations'
studious silence on most race issues.  

--Nathan Newman

[PEN-L:5300] Re: Nader, Affirmative Action, and Lesser Evils

[Doug Henwood]

At 8:58 PM 7/23/96, R. Anders Schneiderman wrote:

>I think Nader's position is appalling, and I find it hard to understand how
>anyone can argue that voting for him is any better than voting for Clinton.
>When Clinton does things that make my stomach turn, it's usually because
>he's protecting his butt.  Nader doesn't have that excuse; he has no power
>to protect.  The only reason Nader didn't take a stand on this issue is
>because he's another White Boy on the Left who doesn't take racism
>seriously.

I can't speak for Nader; his refusal to talk about "gonadal politics," as
he calls it, is also unfortunate. But I do think it's a bit of a leap to
conclude that Nader is "another White Boy on the Left who doesn't take
racism seriously." You could also argue that affirmative action is entirely
in accordance with ruling class strategy - as Marx said, the better a
ruling class is able to absorb the natural leaders of the oppressed
classes, "the more solid and dangerous its rule." Would making that
argument be a sign that one "doesn't take racism seriously"? Anders, like
his comrade Nathan, seems very quick to accuse others of various failings,
even as they're composing an apology for Bill Clinton.

This "Clinton is protecting his butt" argument is one of the most ancient
apologies for lesser evilism. Clinton was one of the prime movers in
pushing the Democratic Party rightward. Was he "protecting his butt" when
he helped found, and later lead, the DLC? How about when he was enforcing
right to work laws in Arkansas? When he was signing Rickey Ray Rector's
death warrant? The man has a history; he's not some good-hearted liberal
forced rightwards by circumstance. Insofar as he believes in anything at
all (aside from his re-election) he is a classic neoliberal yuppie
Democrat.

Doug

--

Doug Henwood
Left Business Observer
250 W 85 St
New York NY 10024-3217
USA
+1-212-874-4020 voice
+1-212-874-3137 fax
email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
web: