Ralph Nader all but endorsed John Kerry for president in an interview yesterday with the New York Times,
I don't want to give away too many of the details that I have in an upcoming Swans article on the attacks on Ralph Nader, but suffice it to say that Nader practically endorsed Kucinich in the primaries and said things about Howard Dean that were tantamount to an endorsement. It is my interpretation that he decided to run after it became obvious that the DLC powers in the Democratic Party, who really exercise hegemony, would never get behind Dean and would pressure Kerry to adopt their pro-business and pro-war agenda.
As Mark Lause pointed out on Marxmail, the fact that he is running is critical not the tactful remarks directed toward Kerry. If he decides, on the other hand, to pursue a "safe state" strategy, then the left would be wise to subject him to a strong critique.
Speaking of Swans, here's something from an article by Howie Hawkins that appeared in a recent issue that clarifies some of these questions:
There Never Were Any "Good Old Days" In The Democratic Party by Howie Hawkins March 1, 2004
"A liberation movement for the Democratic Party" is one of the goals Ralph Nader stated for his campaign in the question and answer period of his February 23 press conference announcing his 2004 independent presidential candidacy. He went on to a lament that progressives had let their Democratic Party slip away to corporate interests since about 1980.
While Nader is certainly correct to say that the Democrats are more thoroughly corporatized than ever, perpetuating the myth that the Democrats were ever a progressive party undermines the cause of independent progressive politics and his own campaign.
Indeed, whatever his intentions, Nader implicitly gave wavering voters permission to vote for Gore in 2000 with such statements as the Democrats could take back Green votes by going back to their progressive roots, and that one positive result of his campaign would be to create a spillover vote down the ticket to help elect Democrats to Congress.
In 2000 and now again in 2004, Nader seems to be underselling his own prospects by giving the Democrats more credit and import than they deserve. Nader had far more support and sympathy than the final 3% vote on Election Day in 2000 indicated. A Zogby poll found that 18 percent of the population seriously considered voting for Nader. An analysis of the National Election Study data by Harvard political scientist Barry Burden shows that only 9% of the people who thought Nader was the best candidate actually voted for him. If people had not voted strategically for the lesser evil, Nader would have had over 30 million votes instead of 3 million and might have won the election, especially if he had been allowed in the debates.
full: http://www.swans.com/library/art10/hhawk01.html
--
The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
