Case histories:
Weimar Germany, in
which Socialists and Communists fought street battles against each other
instead of uniting against Nazi brown shirts, may feel too far away. Still, together
they might have won against Hitler. Divided until the very last, they lost.
1968, when anti-war
protestors demonstrated against Humphrey, occasioning what journalists and historians
have collectively deemed a police riot in Chicago, is too complex, I think. It's
absurd to argue the protestors, people like me, should have sat back and put faith
in Humphrey, who gave exactly no indication of deserving it, and had never
differentiated himself from LBJ with regard to Vietnam. When LBJ refused to run
in '68, Humphrey should have too. Instead he campaigned under the banner of "The
Politics Of Joy."
Such Joy. Joy and
napalm. Joy and the draft.
He may have been
something once, way back, in progressive politics, but by '68 was farcical.
Nader is the best case
to present to Sandernistas who think it's better not to vote at all than to
vote for Clinton. Nader played a key role in Bush's win over Gore in 2000. To
put it another way, were it not for Nader, Bush would not have won.
Granted, there was Gore's
dull candidacy, Florida votes, an anti-democratic Supreme Court decision. Still,
Nader's impact, where it mattered, right at that point of impact, brought us
Bush, the invasion of Iraq and all the infinitely many sorry consequences.
For what it's worth
Nader, to date, stands by his candidacy. He did no wrong. The rest of us were
wrong.
I think that after his exemplary career as consumer advocate, Nader, trying to translate such insights into political acclaim, became, at any speed, the problem.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/06/ralph-nader-still-wont-admit-he-elected-bush.html
No comments:
Post a Comment