Doesn't the whole thing come down to where you live? I live in New York. Right now Gore holds a lead between 13 and 15 1/2 per cent depending upon which poll you read. My decision is an easy one. I can have my cake (voting for Nader) and Gore will still win my state. The question is really for those of you who live in the "battleground" states. I agree that a progressive movement to suceed may have to make alliances with Democrats. But I ask on what terms? Power respects power. The Democratic Leadership Council types take the left for granted. Remember, when you are taken for granted for are taken. The questions still comes down to whether you would rather vote for what you want and not get it, than vote for what you don't want and get it. I suggest that the left in the 60s was naive, not in assessing its power but in knowing what to do with the power it did possess. How far to the right would Gore be if Nader was not in the race? Four years ago many where critical of Nader because he didn't run a "real" race for the Presidency. Now some of those same people are critical of Nader because he won't drop out. I have even heard people be critical of Nader because they suggest that if he were to win he couldn't govern because he has no party support. I guess those are the same people who complain about having to wear seatbelts. It is truly amazing to me that people who once believed that a revolution was possible in this country, now accept the continuing privatization of our remaining freedoms by the corporate state. The Nader campaign is far from perfect. I wish he had made a stronger case against police brutality and racial profiling, but that doesn't lessen the importance of what he is doing. Young people want to vote for him. People who haven't voted in years want to vote for him. Doesn't it seem a bit absurd that leftist intellectuals and survivors of the 60s are agonizing over whether to vote for Ralph Nader or Al Gore? Chuck Todd Jones
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 10/31/00 EST