[Marxism] Normon Solomon: Socialist Worker's wink and nod at right wing

[Billy Thekid <bill_linville2222@xxxxxxxxx>]

http://www.socialistworker.org/2004-2/507/507_07_NaderDebate.shtml

NORMAN SOLOMON:
SW?s wink and nod at the right wing

OMISSIONS IN the Socialist Worker editorial "Millionaire vs. billionaire" (July 
9) leave key questions unasked and unanswered. The editorial couldn?t bring 
itself to mention any differences that a Kerry presidency might plausibly make 
compared to another four years of the George W. Bush administration.

Yes, Kerry would be a bad president, but some bad presidents (and have there 
been any other kind?) are worse than others. Why pretend there would be no 
significant contrast between the two--on such matters as civil liberties, 
reproductive rights, environmental protection, civil rights and judicial 
appointments?

The Socialist Worker editorial concedes that the election will be won by either 
Bush or Kerry. Unless a subtext is that "the worse it gets, the better it gets" 
for true leftists and their organizing prospects, then we might want to ponder 
a comment by comedian Dan Kaufman: "The only thing worse than the lesser of two 
evils...is the greater of two evils."

The editorial speaks about the need for "a political alternative" to the two 
corporate parties. Green Party activists are continuing with efforts to build 
such a party. On the other hand, Ralph Nader is pursuing an "independent" 
candidacy that is cozying up to the Reform Party, the same party that ran 
right-winger Patrick Buchanan for president in 2000.

In Oregon, right-wing groups--including a notorious antigay organization--have 
worked to get Nader on the ballot. The Oregonian (June 25) reported that the 
head of the Nader campaign in Oregon "said he saw nothing wrong with the 
Republican outreach efforts. ?It?s a free country,? he said. ?People do things 
in their own interest.?" Building "a political alternative" while accepting 
tactical alliances with xenophobic and antigay forces? I?ll pass.

The July 9 editorial in Socialist Worker sneers at "rumors and gossip that 
Nader is taking money from the Republicans." But the July 9 front page of the 
San Francisco Chronicle, as well as numerous other verified pieces of reporting 
this month, have documented that tens of thousands of dollars have already 
poured into the Nader campaign from big pro-Bush donors.

What?s more, the Citizens for a Sound Economy group, headed by the former House 
Republican leader Dick Armey, is mobilizing its members in several "swing 
states" to collect petition signatures to help get Nader on the ballot. At some 
point, unless it?s willing to lose credibility in a major way, Socialist Worker 
will need to acknowledge that the Nader campaign is now getting major boosts 
from Republican groups.

Rest assured that (contrary to the editorial?s conclusion) I still recognize 
the need for political alternatives to the two corporate parties. That doesn?t 
mean I?ll wink and nod at priorities that seem likely to increase the 
already-massive power of right-wing forces in the United States.

SOCIALIST WORKER REPLIES:
A lesser evil is still an evil

WE?RE USED to hearing distortions and insults about Ralph Nader from the 
Democratic Party?s attack dogs, but not from Norman Solomon. But Norman has 
decided that nothing matters more than John Kerry?s victory over George W. Bush 
in November--so he?s joined the anti-Nader chorus.

Which is why he wants us to believe that Nader--after four decades of 
uncompromising liberal opposition to corporate power and political 
corruption--is turning his back on everything he?s ever stood for to jump in 
bed with the Republican Party.

Norman says that known Bush supporters have poured "tens of thousands of 
dollars" into the Nader campaign--as if Nader has been bought. As of the 
beginning of July, of the $1 million raised by Nader so far, $41,000 came from 
major Bush contributors, according to Business Week Online.

Does Norman believe that John Kerry hasn?t taken in more than 4 percent of his 
$182 million from corporate interests more accustomed to showering campaign 
donations on Republicans?

No one, Socialist Worker included, denies that Republican-connected 
organizations have taken some steps in some states to help Nader get on the 
ballot. These groups oppose Nader?s progressive politics, of course. They want 
Nader on the ballot for the same reason that Democrats want him off--because 
they figure he will hurt Kerry?s chances.

Norman should say as much--or, if he thinks otherwise, document examples of the 
Nader campaign collaborating with a Bush-connected organization. Likewise, 
while Nader can be criticized for seeking the endorsement of the right-wing 
Reform Party--as Socialist Worker has done--Norman should at least admit that 
Nader didn?t shift his overwhelmingly left-wing platform in doing so.

That?s more than Norman can say about Kerry. Every day brings a new article 
about the Kerry campaign?s strategy for appealing to conservatives and 
corporate interests--while remaining wholly "unconcerned about antagonizing his 
liberal supporters," as the Los Angeles Times put it.

Norman says that Nader is "accepting tactical alliances with xenophobic and 
antigay forces." Yet he is willing to make a "tactical alliance" with the 
Democratic Party to defeat Bush. Does Norman claim that Kerry--an opponent of 
gay marriage--represents a pro-gay agenda? Or that a senator who voted for the 
invasion of Iraq and the USA PATRIOT Act is standing up to xenophobia?

The only conclusion we can draw is that some "tactical alliances" bother Norman 
more than others--depending above all on whether they harm or help Kerry?s 
chances of taking the White House away from Bush. This is the real issue for 
Norman, and he should stick to it.

Is he right that George Bush has to be beaten in November by any means 
necessary? Socialist Worker has never denied that there are differences between 
Kerry and Bush--though we also insist on pointing out the shockingly large 
areas where the differences are negligible, when they exist at all.

The question today--as in 2000, when Norman supported Nader--is whether the 
differences justify a commitment to a "lesser evil" candidate who shares so 
much in common with the greater evil. We say no.

By supporting one pro-corporate political party because it stands slightly to 
the left of the other, activists give up their political independence and set 
back efforts to build the kind of struggles and political organization that can 
win real change.


                
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism