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
