|
..... and it points to a very live issue, though it's not _completely_ clear that nader understands the issue....
<sorry bout the length of this post, btw, good luck>
In a nutshell, the issue is practicality vs principle.
To get america outta the crapper, it is necessary to remove bush from office. anything inhibiting that goal ought itself be removed. This is practicality.
OTOH, principle is involved in a deep way. Convention democratic wisdom says that the republicans achieved the preidency thru a variety of duplicitous means: crony-ism, electioneering, and so on. If democrats in their efforts to regain the presidency use similar tactics, then, arguably, the country is no better off. This is principle.
The Nation's original letter to Nader dealt specifically with this issue, and in a head-on way. Their stance was, in essence, something like what we might expect from general patton: principles won't count for much if the next election is lost, because america itself might thereby be lost.
The Nation does indeed come down on the side of practicality, over principle.
Part of the reason this choice may have been made easier for them is another part of conventional democratic wisdom: nader is an egomaniac. Presumably a part of this idea is lingering bitterness over the 2000 election (results). I personally think this is unfair - that the 2000 election shouldn't have been that close in the first place, but whatever.
In any case, while the Nation does come down on the side of practicality, they do so after explicitly acknowledging the choice in this snippet:
"But when devotion to principle collides with electoral politics, hard truths must be faced. Ralph, this is the wrong year for you to run: 2004 is not 2000. George W. Bush has led us into an illegal pre-emptive war, and his defeat is critical."
Nader, in his response, comes down forcefully on the side of principle, in essence charging The (current) Nation with hypocrisy/betrayal based on its history.
THE DIFFERENCE: Nader nowhere betrays even an inkling that this choice, between principle and practicality, is key. And therefore, I suppose, nader's response provides fodder for those who are inclined to think of him as egomaniacal.
I happen to think that nader is very bright, and if he does have an ego problem, I suspect that it's not so bad as to completely blind him to reality. So I need another explanation of his rather one-sided response.
My guess is that he's not going to run.
I think he wanted to register his vote for the side of principle, and remind especially The Nation of the importance of principle. This would explain his jilted response. But I suspect he actually more or less agrees with The Nation on the claim that the trump issue is bush's removal (tho he might have a hard time actually saying this out loud :). And given that it's hard to see how one might reasonably think his candidacy as helpful on the goal of removing bush (tho he made a weak attempt at it), my conjecture is that he'll declare that he's not running within the next few days....
again - this is all pure speculation on my part....
wow - who woulda thunk that a 3 second thought required so many words to comunicate? rofl
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(108 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
