Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Nader campaign, part 1 (fwd)
Thanks for the clarification, Mine, I'll bear it in mind. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 12:54 AM Subject: [PEN-L:19914] Re: Re: Re: Re: The Nader campaign, part 1 (fwd) Mark, I would never put blacks, Indians, women and hispanics in the same equation with bankers. they are the victim, not the oppresssor.. Mine discrete and insular minorities protected by the "C" were/are who exactly? Blacks? American Indians? Women? Hispanics? Bankers? Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The comments about Jefferson and the Constitution are almost too silly to discuss. J was no great fan of the C, which he did not sign precisely because of its comparative conservatism, And as for the anti-majoritarainsim od the C, and especially the Bill of Rights, is that such a bad thing? Some people might think that it is the anti-majoritarianism of the C that is precisely its glory, in providing a defense against majoritarianian oppression. --jks Oh yes, the propertied minority needs vigorous protection against the masses. Just ask Madison, Federalist #10. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Nader campaign, part 1
In a message dated Tue, 6 Jun 2000 4:42:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "M A Jones" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Justin, you have a way of telling me things I already know while not answering the real point, which is about your strange affection for the glorious 'C' especially the notably undemocratic bits of it. Is it professional amour propre that disposes you thus, or what? Probbaly it is. I presume by the "notably undemocratic bits of it" you mean judicial review and constitutional protection for individual rights. But I do nota gree that these are undemocratic. I do not identify democracy with majority rule, but with popular rule. And popular rule can be impeded by majoritarian interference with the conditions for democratic decisionmaking, as it was during Jim Crow, where Southern Blacks were prevented from voting by the white majority. That is why enforcement of the 15th and other Reconstruction Amendments against the majority promotes democracy. The most particularly undemocratic feature of the Constitution I dislike most is the Senate, which gives Wyoming and Rhode Island equal influence in the upper house of the legislature to California or New York. That is a feature I would get rid of. I am also not keen on federalism, as it is now called (states rights), but that is because I think it cuts against policies I like rather than, necessarily, because it undemocratic. --jks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Nader campaign, part 1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 6/5/00 6:25:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Oh yes, the propertied minority needs vigorous protection against the masses. Just ask Madison, Federalist #10. I was thinking more of the 14th Amendment, due process, equal protection, that sort of thing. --jks Not to be scorned, but we shouldn't forget what Madison Co. had in mind in designing the U.S. government. The Bill of Rights wasn't part of the original document; it took a Civil War to get the 14th Amendment, and feminism to get the 19th. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Nader campaign, part 1
At 12:54 PM 6/6/00 -0400, you wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 6/5/00 6:25:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Oh yes, the propertied minority needs vigorous protection against the masses. Just ask Madison, Federalist #10. I was thinking more of the 14th Amendment, due process, equal protection, that sort of thing. --jks Not to be scorned, but we shouldn't forget what Madison Co. had in mind in designing the U.S. government. The Bill of Rights wasn't part of the original document; it took a Civil War to get the 14th Amendment, and feminism to get the 19th. and even when we got the 14th, wasn't it interpreted to allow the rise of joint-stock corporations at the same time that Jim Crow laws were allowed to take hold? Also, wasn't the ratification of the original Bill of Rights a response to grass-roots rumblings (e.g., Shay's rebellion) rather than leaping full-grown from the crania of the founding fathers? (BTW, why is it so common to refer to the latter as the "founders"? They were all males, weren't they?) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: The Nader campaign, part 1
Justin wrote: So, if you accept that refiorms are good and necessary, you have to support lobbuing for and otherwise trying to effect them through the esrablished channels. Otherwise, you will be out in the streets yelling for reforms that will be implemented, if at all, without your participation. This distinction (reform through established channels vs. yelling in the streets) is a false dichotomy. The two are connected and interact with each other. I accept the need for (good) reforms, but I think the best way to support lobbying (etc.) for them is to build a mass movement outside of the legal legislative realms, often involving yelling in the streets. (Seattle and the anti-IMF/WB demos spring to mind here as good examples of "street heat.") Reforms are almost always granted by the powers that be as a compromise, avoiding some even greater reform that they fear. (Bismarck invented the modern welfare state because he feared the power of the German Social Democratic movement.) If you let the lobbyists and lawyers run the show and dictate the limits of acceptable change, the movement for reform will die, since the other side has much more money for hiring lobbyists and lawyers. They'll win, hands down. The reform effort requires a backbone, which cannot be in the lobbying/legal process itself. In the language of cliche, the power of the people is needed to counteract the power of money. Yesterday, I heard a speaker from the AFL-CIO's largely successful "Justice for Janitors" campaign in LA. After noting the way that the AFL-CIO stagnated and fell when it was largely run by bureaucrats and lawyers, he noted that labor law is totally slanted against successful labor campaigns, but that if you organize people and press for change (outside normal channels) the law bends to accommodate the movement. (Most of the janitors are hired by contractors, which means that any kind of strike against the companies that hire the contractors is a secondary boycott, which is illegal. But not only did the law bend, but we saw the LA Establishment, including GOPster mayor Richard Riordan endorsing the janitors!) Similarly, the more "street heat" there is, the more likely it is that more "respectable" forces will arise to push for compromise. The lawyers and lobbyists will spring into action, mobilized by grass-roots pressure. Of course, they will also press to attain their own goals, so there is good reason for those taking part in the "street heat" to fear substitutionism, the substitution of the lobbyists and lawyers for the movement. None of this says that we should condemn Nader (though perhaps we should do so for other reasons). Instead, we should be very conscious of his limitations, incorporating them in the strategic vision and not relying on him to do stuff for the movement. But he has a role. But he is likely to do absolutely no good unless there's a popular movement that is pushing for progressive reform or even more fundamental change. To the extent that he tries to limit the movement, channelling it to serve his interests, however, he can be totally reactionary. If he uses his presidential campaign to mobilize people rather than to build his ego, that's great. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Nader campaign, part 1
What did I do to make you think I would disagree with this? --jks This distinction (reform through established channels vs. yelling in the streets) is a false dichotomy. The two are connected and interact with each other.
Re: Re: Re: The Nader campaign, part 1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The comments about Jefferson and the Constitution are almost too silly to discuss. J was no great fan of the C, which he did not sign precisely because of its comparative conservatism, And as for the anti-majoritarainsim od the C, and especially the Bill of Rights, is that such a bad thing? Some people might think that it is the anti-majoritarianism of the C that is precisely its glory, in providing discrete and insular minorities a defense against majoritarianian oppression. --jks Oh yes, the propertied minority needs vigorous protection against the masses. Just ask Madison, Federalist #10. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Nader campaign, part 1
discrete and insular minorities protected by the "C" were/are who exactly? Blacks? American Indians? Women? Hispanics? Bankers? Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The comments about Jefferson and the Constitution are almost too silly to discuss. J was no great fan of the C, which he did not sign precisely because of its comparative conservatism, And as for the anti-majoritarainsim od the C, and especially the Bill of Rights, is that such a bad thing? Some people might think that it is the anti-majoritarianism of the C that is precisely its glory, in providing a defense against majoritarianian oppression. --jks Oh yes, the propertied minority needs vigorous protection against the masses. Just ask Madison, Federalist #10. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Nader campaign, part 1 (fwd)
Mark, I would never put blacks, Indians, women and hispanics in the same equation with bankers. they are the victim, not the oppresssor.. Mine discrete and insular minorities protected by the "C" were/are who exactly? Blacks? American Indians? Women? Hispanics? Bankers? Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The comments about Jefferson and the Constitution are almost too silly to discuss. J was no great fan of the C, which he did not sign precisely because of its comparative conservatism, And as for the anti-majoritarainsim od the C, and especially the Bill of Rights, is that such a bad thing? Some people might think that it is the anti-majoritarianism of the C that is precisely its glory, in providing a defense against majoritarianian oppression. --jks Oh yes, the propertied minority needs vigorous protection against the masses. Just ask Madison, Federalist #10. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Nader campaign, part 1
In a message dated 6/5/00 6:25:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Oh yes, the propertied minority needs vigorous protection against the masses. Just ask Madison, Federalist #10. I was thinking more of the 14th Amendment, due process, equal protection, that sort of thing. --jks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Nader campaign, part 1
In a message dated 6/5/00 6:34:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: discrete and insular minorities protected by the "C" were/are who exactly? Blacks? American Indians? Women? Hispanics? Bankers? The phrase is from the famous (to Americal lawyers) footnote 4 of the 1939 S.Ct case US v. Carolene products, explaining that for bankers and other objects of what is called social and economic legislation, there is no special constitutional protection, but for discrete and insular minorities, which in the context meant primarily blacks, but not only them, the courts had to offer special constitutional protections because their minority status meant that would be at a disadvantage in the political arena, This is part of the basis of the notion that the couers have a special role to play in protecting individual liberties and minority rights. (Not numberical minorities, but mainly racial ones.) --jks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Nader campaign, part 1 (fwd)
In a message dated 6/5/00 7:54:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mark, I would never put blacks, Indians, women and hispanics in the same equation with bankers. they are the victim, not the oppresssor.. Mine Mine, you really are irony proof. Go syeep yourself in Marx as a rhetorician. Irony was his gavorite mode, after sarcasm.--jks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Nader campaign, part 1 (fwd)
In a message dated 6/5/00 7:54:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mark, I would never put blacks, Indians, women and hispanics in the same equation with bankers. they are the victim, not the oppresssor.. Mine Mine, you really are irony proof. Go syeep yourself in Marx as a rhetorician. Irony was his gavorite mode, after sarcasm.--jks OKEY! I got to know Mark's sarcasm later, sorry. Since so many posts were going back and forth, I was confused about who was saying what. My brain can not take everything all at once, if there is too much traffic. Mine
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Nader campaign, part 1
I don't talk about US domestic matters much because I don't know them much. But Nader is more than just that. He launched 'consumerism' in other countries too, so I'm interested. I'm old enough to remember the hoo-hah about vehicle safety in the 1960s and the susbsequent rise of consumer groups + issues in Britain. I thought then and I think now that it is all an utter distraction from what really matters; it is based on the crassest kind of self-seeking, privatising solipsism which boils great social/historical issues down to what's in it for me qua passive selfish consumer. What really mattered then and now for eg is not car safety but less cars and more public transport. What Nader did is help legitimise the care and ensures its social apotheosis to its current iconic status. That's disastrously bad. That's the essence of Nader's social constituency, what's more, and it cannot be the basis of a national issue-driven mass politics, except by default, ie because the real thing (a real mass socialism) is missing. But it's NOT missing any more. Seattle q.v. Therefore Nader remains a mere distraction and he and his ilk should indeed be revealed for what they are: a peculiarly rotten kind of little-Napoleon petit bourgeois politicking. Lou has hit the nail on the head again. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList - Original Message - From: "Rod Hay" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2000 5:03 AM Subject: [PEN-L:19866] Re: Re: Re: The Nader campaign, part 1 The political criticism of Nadar is valid, but the personal attack on him is misguided and fundamentally irrelevant. Rod Louis Proyect wrote: Yes, but not that much further. My parents, who lived on my dad's middle class income of about $25,000 a year back in those days, bought a $100,000 house in the NVA suburbs at the same time--it wasn't shabby, but it wasn't a mansion. You probbaly could have done better in the city in those days of white flight and before the city became fashoonable again. The main point is that it wasn't an $85 per month furnished room. be bought. If he stayed silent on no-fault, it was not because he was bribed, but because there are serious consumerist arguments against it. There are, The problem with Naderism is that we have to accept the honest motives of the leader pretty much as a given. It is in the nature of nonprofits, especially inside-the-beltway types like Public Citizen, to make decisions ON BEHALF of the public. It is inherently undemocratic. Even in the nickle-and-dime nonprofit I was president of the board of, there were constant complaints about the Executive Director making unilateral decisions--like starting a program in Africa, spending money on an ambitious direct mail program, etc. He once told me in private (I was the only person he ever really confided in) that he modeled the organization on the small businesses he ran in Utah, where he 'made everything go', even when it took big risks. We fired him in 1990 after he went totally overboard on certain financial matters. But with Nader you won't even get a board that has the gumption to challenge him. He is just too powerful for that. This, IMHO, sends the wrong kinds of signals to the left when the Greens nominate a guy like him. After accepting the nomination in 1996, he made a unilateral decision to lowkey the campaign. And today he is considering unilaterally whether to run as a Reform candidate, I'll betcha. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/ -- 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: The Nader campaign, part 1
In a message dated 00-06-03 21:11:11 EDT, you write: The main point is that it wasn't an $85 per month furnished room. be bought. If he stayed silent on no-fault, it was not because he was bribed, but because there are serious consumerist arguments against it. There are, The problem with Naderism is that we have to accept the honest motives of the leader pretty much as a given. It is in the nature of nonprofits, especially inside-the-beltway types like Public Citizen, to make decisions ON BEHALF of the public. It is inherently undemocratic. These are fair criticisms. They are of a different order and kind than corruption, which is what Ralph's former friend charges him with. --jks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Nader campaign, part 1
Mark Jones has discovered that anything but the self-described express movement for the revolutionmary overthrow of capitalsim is a distraction; reforms that merely improve people's livesw ithin existing constrints are bad. Hey, Mark, why doesn't this distrction theorya pply to a movement for more public transit, or national health, or indeed, racial equality? --jks In a message dated 6/4/00 4:16:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I thought then and I think now that it is all an utter distraction from what really matters; it is based on the crassest kind of self-seeking, privatising solipsism which boils great social/historical issues down to what's in it for me qua passive selfish consumer. What really mattered then and now for eg is not car safety but less cars and more public transport. What Nader did is help legitimise the care and ensures its social apotheosis to its current iconic status. That's disastrously bad. That's the essence of Nader's social constituency, what's more, and it cannot be the basis of a national issue-driven mass politics, except by default, ie because the real thing (a real mass socialism) is missing.
Re: Re: Re: The Nader campaign, part 1
In a message dated 6/3/00 4:31:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't know about Washington, but where I live a $100,000 home is pretty modest. (and that is Canadian dollars!) Rod $100,000 went further 25 years ago. Yes, but not that much further. My parents, who lived on my dad's middle class income of about $25,000 a year back in those days, bought a $100,000 house in the NVA suburbs at the same time--it wasn't shabby, but it wasn't a mansion. You probbaly could have done better in the city in those days of white flight and before the city became fashoonable again. As a lawyer I was amused Ralph's former friend's sneer at ATLA, the trial lawyer's association. Course we know those are very bad people, piranas. Except the trial lawyers are the plaintiff's bar, they sue sleazeball corporations and evil employers on behalf of little people. Ralph is friendly with them, but that is because he thinks they are socially useful. I agree. (I am not a trial lawyer or a member of ATLA.) I also do not believe he can be bought. If he stayed silent on no-fault, it was not because he was bribed, but because there are serious consumerist arguments against it. There are, although I think on balance it's better than fault insurance. Obviously it is not as good as national health (for the medical part of the insurance).--jks
Re: Re: Re: The Nader campaign, part 1
The political criticism of Nadar is valid, but the personal attack on him is misguided and fundamentally irrelevant. Rod Louis Proyect wrote: Yes, but not that much further. My parents, who lived on my dad's middle class income of about $25,000 a year back in those days, bought a $100,000 house in the NVA suburbs at the same time--it wasn't shabby, but it wasn't a mansion. You probbaly could have done better in the city in those days of white flight and before the city became fashoonable again. The main point is that it wasn't an $85 per month furnished room. be bought. If he stayed silent on no-fault, it was not because he was bribed, but because there are serious consumerist arguments against it. There are, The problem with Naderism is that we have to accept the honest motives of the leader pretty much as a given. It is in the nature of nonprofits, especially inside-the-beltway types like Public Citizen, to make decisions ON BEHALF of the public. It is inherently undemocratic. Even in the nickle-and-dime nonprofit I was president of the board of, there were constant complaints about the Executive Director making unilateral decisions--like starting a program in Africa, spending money on an ambitious direct mail program, etc. He once told me in private (I was the only person he ever really confided in) that he modeled the organization on the small businesses he ran in Utah, where he 'made everything go', even when it took big risks. We fired him in 1990 after he went totally overboard on certain financial matters. But with Nader you won't even get a board that has the gumption to challenge him. He is just too powerful for that. This, IMHO, sends the wrong kinds of signals to the left when the Greens nominate a guy like him. After accepting the nomination in 1996, he made a unilateral decision to lowkey the campaign. And today he is considering unilaterally whether to run as a Reform candidate, I'll betcha. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/ -- 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
