Re: Gary Trudeau, Iraq and Nader

[Marvin Gandall <marvgandall@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Louis Proyect wrote:

> Marvin Gandall:
> >Though each side  claims to be acting on behalf of socialist ideals they
> >still espouse, in practice they nonetheless are campaigning for one or
the
> >other of the two liberal parties contesting the election against the
> >conservative Republicans around the range of issues described above. The
> >Greens, it is true, are the more assertive of the two in advancing the
> >liberal agenda -- especially concerning Iraq, where Nader has called for
the
> >phased withdrawal of US troops -- but this only reflects their relative
> >distance from power. It's perhaps worth recalling, in this connection,
that
> >Joshka Fisher was once the German  Peter Camejo, and this is not meant as
a
> >criticism of either.

LP: >This is far less about ideals than it is about challenging the 2-party
> system. I don't think there's much to distinguish between Kucinich and
> Nader politically. But the crucial difference is that Kucinich effectively
> liquidated his politics when he lined up behind Kerry. As the Tom Petty
> song goes, Nader is the "I won't back down" candidate. In 1948 Henry
> Wallace ran as the Progressive Party candidate with a New Deal platform
for
> all practical purposes. I would have backed Wallace, but not FDR. I think
> Marvin's problem is that he really can't tell the difference between the
> Democrats and social democratic parties. When he made an analogy between
> the Canadian NDP and the Democrats in the USA, I reminded him that the
> proper analogy is with the Liberal Party in Canada, not the NDP which was
> born out of the labor movement. The Liberal Party is of course the rotten
> bourgeois party that was headed up by Pierre Trudeau, Gary's distant
> relative. I can certainly understand why Marvin would blur class lines in
> this way, although it would be impolite to explain why.
------------------------------------------------
Ah, Louis, I had my stopwatch on waiting for your reply, and you didn't
disappoint. A Louis resolved to be "polite", no less. I will keep my
stopwatch going and see how long this lasts. :)

Of course, I recognize you are "challenging the two party system". You want
more parties - specifically, another liberal one. This is what we have in
Canada and in most other liberal democracies, and it has nothing to do with
socialism, which you are presumably defending against my ostensible effort
to "blur class lines". Why do you get so worked up about the Green Party,
for heaven's sake? If you were promoting a party with a socialist program,
I'd still question your political judgment, but at least I would better
understand your fervour.

The NDP, the Bloc Quebecois, and Liberals are all parties who share liberal
positions on most of  the issues I described in my post which differentiate
them from the eponymous Conservative party. They are thus programatically
aligned with the Democratic party and Green party in the US, and with the
social democratic and Green parties on the continent against their
respective conservative parties. The nuances of difference between these
liberal parties are less important than what unites them - a more
interventionist approach to the economy and more enlightened social policy -
and this becomes apparent where any get the chance to govern.

But the NDP does share something with the Democrats that the Liberal party
doesn't - the base of each is drawn from the unions and social movements,
and this provides the left with an opening it cannot find in other parties.
For politically serious people, this is a more significant fact than that
former Liberal leader "Pierre Trudeau is Gary's distant relative". As you
note, we've covered this ground before, without much progress. And, trust
me, the great majority of NDP'ers identify strongly with the Democrats - not
only this election - and are as agitated as their American fellow activists
about Nader running again.

Marv Gandall