Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Politics

Journal snjoseph's Journal: Idiots, Useful and Otherwise 7

Journal by snjoseph
In a recent Nation column entitled "Bush's Useful Idiot", Eric Alterman writes:

As Americans die by the thousand in Iraq, the budget deficit explodes thanks to a tax cut targeting the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, the Justice Department demands women's private medical records from abortion clinics, and polluters are given carte blanche to despoil the earth and poison our children, the devastating evidence of Nader's myopia is everywhere around us.

If evidence of Nader's myopia is so omnipresent, Alterman should provide it. After all, what does he list? A war supported by Democrats; tax cuts supported by Democrats; police actions in support of a law supported by Democrats; and drilling and timber policies supported by Democrats. But Nader, you see, is not a Democrat.

Alterman makes out Nader's backers and funders to be "far-right Republicans" and "nativists." Hmm. Here's a list of the first five surnames that come up when you ask who's contributed to Nader:

  • Abbas
  • Abboud
  • Abdoo
  • Abdullah
  • Abi-Hashem

A real box of crackers, as you can see. I personally made a humble $250 contribution to Ralph's Revolt, which I suppose makes me a "nativist" too. This is an unusual turn for the son of immigrats. Truly Satan, the enemy of mankind, is powerful!

Alterman writes that Nader has "has no support among organized feminist groups, organized gay rights groups or mainstream environmental groups," nor among the union leadership. This is surely a joke, like attacking Teamsters for a Democratic Union for not having the backing of the Cosa Nostra. Every politically-conscious person knows that the liberal lobbyists and the union officialdom are part-and-parcel of the Democratic machine, slavishly committed to the Party in spite of whatever betrayals of the membership that might (and does) involve. If this gang won't endorse the only significant pro-feminist, pro-gay, pro-environment, and pro-labor candidate running, that says more about them than it does about Nader.

I was particularly amused by Alterman's outrage at Nader using a GOP-connected lawyer for his legal fight in Florida. If Alterman is so upset, why doesn't he find a Democratic lawyer who's willing to help? I'm sure Nader wouldn't mind. In fact, why doesn't the Nation organize a campaign to find attorneys with impeccable Democratic credentials to assist Nader on a principled basis, pro bono? Their magazine is so respectable and orthodox that their readership surely contains many well-heeled lawyers.

Alterman and ilk need to get serious about what the two-party system is doing to politics in this country. Forget for a second about the polls; why are Bush's approval ratings going up? Say what you will about us Naderites, but we clearly don't approve of Bush. John Kerry's "me too" campaign is legitimating all the Bush policies and making Bush look like the innovative and decisive leader. The "Anybody But Bush" argument makes the Left complicit in this disorienting of our own political audience and degrades our moral standing.

But enough of all this--I don't hold much hope for Mr. Alterman. He obviously prefers the comforts of conventional thinking to the challenge of building an independent US Left. No one will call him a "useful idiot"; or at least, no one will call him useful.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Idiots, Useful and Otherwise More

Idiots, Useful and Otherwise

Comments Filter:
  • Let the aggregate political difference between Democrats and Republicans be 1.0 for the purposes of these questions:

    What is the relative distance between Nader and Democrats -- i.e. d(Nader, Democrats)?

    d(Nader, Republicans)?

    d(Nader, Greens)?

    d(Democrats, Greens)?

    d(Republicans, Greens)?

    Please just provide your considered opinion; the distances need not conform to Euclidian geometry (but I will point out the fact if they do not, for whatever it's worth.) The values will be understood to represent

    • The Democratic and Republican Parties are openly capitalist parties completely dedicated to the unadulterated rule of big business at home and abroad. I never support these parties or any of their candidates. Therefore if you ask me for the "distance" between one of these parties and the Greens or Nader, the answer is probably infinity, since the major parties are, in all honesty, excluded from the spectrum of parties/candidates I would consider backing.

      I can't really answer the question about the Greens

      • Demogreens aren't Democrats, but they're pretty far from Nader right now (even if they believe, formally, in the same platform positions). Let's call the distance 2.

        Okay, so you think the right wing of the Green Party is twice as far from Nader as the Democrats are from the Republicans. Knowing what I believe to be a fairly representative sample of dozens of Greens, it becomes important to tell you the following.

        Either I believe a woman's right to control her reproduction is far more important than y

        • Okay, so you think the right wing of the Green Party is twice as far from Nader as the Democrats are from the Republicans.

          Sure. The Democrats and Republicans have no disagreements in principle, whereas the Right and Left Greens do.

          Either I believe a woman's right to control her reproduction is far more important than you do, or I believe the institution of progressive taxation is far more important than you do. However, you are a socialist, so it must be the former. Is their something I'm missing?

          I d

          • abortion access declined....

            In the face of a right-wing backlash against Clinton which wanted to do away with it altogether. Were there ever any proposals by congressional Democrats and/or Clinton to restrict abortions, or are you talking about things which came out of legislative compromises?

            and tax regressivity increased under Clinton

            Link, please. Under Clinton, 5,000,000+ rose above the poverty line, whereas the Bushes both put about 1.5 million under it. What is your definition of regressivi

            • Again, what is your definition of regresivity?

              You can do a prisoners dilemma between idealism and compromise, but as far as I can tell, only if you believe in a diety who doesn't care about real world outcomes (the "being tested on the holodeck" theological hypothesis), should idealism come out ahead.

              I have to say I admire the idealism, but to say that regresivity was worse under Clinton than the drunk driver's daddy, when there were race riots in L.A., shows a distinct lack of reality perception.

              • Again, what is your definition of regresivity?
                An inverse relation between the total effective tax rate and total income. "Increasing regressivity" means tax rate declines for higher income levels while increasing for lower incomes.

                The regressivity of the tax system has no direct connection to absolute poverty or race riots.

                I am trying to find acceptable links in response to your earlier questions. Patience is appreciated.

Slashdot Top Deals

Two percent of zero is almost nothing.

Close