Inasmuch as the Sixties list has no line on anything whatever, I don't understand Tom Nagy's unsubscription, unless he would have the list censor out people who don't agree with him. Bill Mandel nagy wrote: > Ok folks, I quit! > The so called '60's list serve shows it's true colors as a toy of the > Demo-Rebl. party. > I quit. Unsubscribe me. > Tom > > P.s. Apologies to folks suffering from the decline of the stockmarket. > > >===== Original Message From radman <email@example.com> ===== > >The US election crisis: why is Ralph Nader silent? > > > ><http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/nov2000/nad-n24.shtml> > > > >By Jerry White > >24 November 2000 > > > >Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader has maintained a deafening > >silence on the political crisis surrounding the results of the US elections. > >During his campaign, Nader correctly criticized corporate domination of the > >American two-party system as tantamount to the disenfranchisement of the > >broad masses of the American people and an affront to democratic rights. > >Yet in the face of a concerted effort by the most reactionary forces within > >the political establishment, who are lined up behind the Bush camp, to use > >patently anti-democratic methods and appeals to right-wing sentiment to > >gain control of the White House, Nader has not uttered a word of protest. > >It is remarkable that a presidential candidate who won 3 percent of the > >national vote, including nearly 100,000 votes in Florida, and presented > >himself as a progressive alternative to the Democrats and Republicans > >should have nothing to say about the events of the past two weeks. A public > >statement from Nader denouncing the attempt of the Bush campaign to gain > >the White House through the suppression of votes would undoubtedly > >strengthen popular opposition to the Republicans' machinations. > >Yet in several public appearances and television, radio and newspaper > >interviews since the election, Nader has said nothing about the election > >controversy. A spokesman at Nader's Washington, DC headquarters confirmed > >that the Green Party candidate had issued no public statements on the > >subject. When this reporter asked why, the spokesman said, "We're not > >deeply involved in what is going on down there. This is just a political > >battle between the Democrats and Republicans." When asked how Nader could > >remain silent about widespread charges of Republican vote-rigging and > >intimidation of minority voters, in which fundamental issues of democratic > >rights were at stake, the spokesman said, "It's Mr. Nader's prerogative to > >do so." > >How is Nader's silence to be explained? As his spokesperson indicated, he > >considers the electoral impasse to be nothing more than a dispute over the > >spoils of government between two identical corporate-controlled parties. It > >is something that ordinary people need not particularly concern themselves > >with. > >But how could that be? How could working people adopt an attitude of > >indifference toward political forces on the right prepared to ride > >roughshod over their democratic rights, as part of an effort to take full > >control of the levers of power? > >The working class must oppose the attacks on basic rights, but it must do > >so from its own independent standpoint and with its own > >methods. Opposition to the Republican right does not imply giving > >political support to Al Gore and the Democrats. Experience has shown that > >this party is incapable of seriously defending democratic rights against > >the reactionaries in the Republican Party. What this crisis poses to the > >working class is the need to construct it own political party, based on a > >democratic and socialist program, to defend the interests of the vast > >majority of American people. > >Nader's refusal to oppose the Republican-led attack on democratic rights > >demonstrates that his organization has no real independence from the ruling > >elite. His "plague on both your houses" position may appear radical, but in > >reality it is a form of adaptation and capitulation to the extreme > >right-wing forces that dominate the Republican Party. Precisely because the > >Greens are not based on the working class, in fact, they reject the very > >notion of the class struggle, they are incapable of mounting any resistance > >to the overt attacks on fundamental rights. > >Nader's silence on the current crisis is consistent with his mechanical and > >false conception that, because in an absolute sense an identity exists > >between the two parties, insofar as they both represent the interests of > >American big business, there cannot be any relative differences. But, of > >course, such relative differences exist, and in times of political crisis > >they can play a critical role in developments that affect broad masses of > >people. > >It is true that corporate interests dominate both parties and that the > >political differences between them have narrowed as the political spectrum > >of official politics has lurched to the right. But it is also true that > >over the past decade a ferocious battle has been under way between these > >two parties. This must have an objective source in conflicts between > >different sections of America's economic and political elite. > >The struggle within the ruling elite has escalated from a series of phony > >investigations against the Clinton administration, to the shutdown of the > >federal government, to the first-ever impeachment of a sitting president, > >to the current effort by the Republicans to hijack the election. To pretend > >that these events have no political significance is to deny reality. > >The Republican Party is controlled by extreme right-wing forces, which > >speak ultimately for powerful sections of the corporate establishment who > >consider even Clinton's conservative policies an obstacle to the far more > >extreme right-wing agenda they seek to impose on the country. They are > >determined to lift all restrictions on the accumulation of personal wealth > >and the exploitation of the working class. To achieve this, the Republicans > >and their religious right, racist and fascistic supporters are prepared to > >overturn democratic norms and constitutional rights. > >The Democrats, who have increasingly turned their backs on the workers and > >minorities in whose name they once claimed to speak, represent other > >sections of the ruling elite and more privileged social layers, who seek to > >defend the interests of American capitalism through the more traditional > >channels of bourgeois democracy. > >For working people to sit idly by while this battle is fought out within > >ruling circles is to court disaster. The basic issue involved here is not > >the fate of Gore or Bush, but the fate of the democratic rights of the > >American people. > >Nader's banal and complacent views were highlighted in recent remarks about > >the results of the election. In a November 17 interview on National Public > >Radio's Talk of the Nation program he said, "What's next? I don't think > >anything is going to happen regardless of whether Bush or Gore is elected. > >They will be deadlocked. It's too evenly divided. I don't think there are > >going to be any major changes in direction." > >Nader also told the New York Times that if Bush prevailed, his very narrow > >margin, the closely divided Congress and the Texas governor's own > >personality would limit the damage he could do. "He doesn't know very > >much," Nader said of Bush. "He is not very energetic. He doesn't like > >controversy." > >This is an utterly false assessment. Does it make any sense that the forces > >behind Bush, who have been prepared to throw the country into a > >constitutional crisis and raise the specter of divisions not seen since the > >Civil War, are suddenly going to opt for a more moderate course once they > >take the White House? On the contrary, sensing that their position is > >increasingly weak and unpopular, they will push ahead with their > >reactionary agenda. > >Nader, of course, does recognize that there are differences between the two > >parties. That is why he spent much of his time answering arguments that he > >was taking votes away from the Democrats, not the Republicans, and calling > >on the Democrats to return to their "progressive roots." > >Much more is involved on Nader's part than a theoretical error or a false > >appraisal of the dispute between the two parties. His silence is also bound > >up with political calculations of a reactionary character. Nader has said > >nothing about the Republicans' actions in the election campaign because he > >does not want to alienate right-wing forces whose support he is courting. > >This is not new. In his acceptance speech at the Green Party convention in > >June, Nader counseled Green members to appeal to conservative voters by > >saying his campaign championed "traditional, not extreme values," such as > >opposition to the "voyeurism of the media." He made no secret about > >appealing to supporters of Senator John McCain and backers of even more > >right-wing political figures. > >He made common cause with Reform Party presidential candidate Patrick > >Buchanan, joining the ultra-right politician in protectionist campaigns > >against trade agreements with Mexico and China, which Nader declared were > >"subverting American sovereignty." > >Finally, Nader expressed support for the Republican impeachment drive > >against President Clinton. In the course of his presidential bid he said he > >opposed the Senate acquittal of Clinton, and declared that he would have > >voted to remove Clinton from office. He reiterated this at a New York press > >conference before the election, saying, "Clinton should have been convicted > >by the Senate. He disgraced the office and lied under oath. Matters like > >these cannot go without sanction." > >By siding with the forces behind the impeachment campaign and in remaining > >silent during the present political crisis Nader has, in objective terms, > >aided and abetted the camp of right-wing reaction.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/04/00 EST