Re: [sixties-l] Re: to Nader to Gore to whose ox

From: Ted Morgan (
Date: 11/05/00

  • Next message: "Re: [sixties-l] Critique of Bruce Franklin >"

    Paula makes a legitimate point here about the "interests" involved in the
    election.  However, I would basically say that (a) it is almost impossible to say
    that electing Gore vs. electing Bush will mean I (or someone) will get benefit X,
    whereas I won't if Bush is elected and Gore isn't.  It far too convoluted for
    that.  And (b) there is clearly a short-vs.-long term issue at bottom here.  IF
    one could for sure say that electing Gore vs. electing Bush WAS going to affect
    benefit X, then I would say beneficiaries of benefit X should vote for Gore.
    [corollary: the rest shouldn't]   On the other hand, think of the millions whose
    futures will be greatly enhanced if the corporate-run machinery of government has
    to respond to a popular-based movement demanding, for example, universal
    single-payer health insurance; or a movement that makes it impossible to expand
    the power of global capitalism, in fact begins to contract its power and make it
    accountable to / bounded by ecological, social welfare, civil rights, and labor
    interests.  Again, it boils down to whether you see the 'harm difference' of Bush
    as significantly greater than the 'harm difference' of the continuation of the
    Gore-Bush Republicratic government owned by corporate conglomerates giving over
    more and more of our world to them.  I sure don't, so the only answer is to start
    building a mass movement on the left, grounded in the people and articulated by
    nationally notable folks like Nader.
    To the Democrats, like Barney Frank, Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice
    (8 times?), shame on me.  Folks like Jesse Jackson & Gloria Steinem, etc. make me
    ill.  They are so close to power, they can't see the world beyond it.
    Ted Morgan wrote:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 11/05/00 EST