cj#575> re: Political Right Action


Richard Moore

Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996
Sender: •••@••.••• (Joe Ferguson)
Subject: Re: cj#564> On political Right Action

Hi Richard,

Good post this one

>        We have no right to blame the power of our formidable corporate
> foe, nor the confusion of the propagandized masses.  Until we as
> activists/leaders begin to act collectively in pursuit of essential goals,
> _we_ are the primary barrier to progress.

The acceptance of a larger responsibility in this last paragraph is a
great step if activists around the world would take it.

I have been feeling more and more that it is exactly "leaders" that are
no longer needed in the world, but maybe one more group of "leaders" is
needed: those that lead the people to the point where leaders are no
longer needed.  (Paradoxical.)

I too, would like to know more about Nader.  There's a post, that came
through at one point, an article.  If I find it I'll forward it, because
it had references.  Interestingly, one reference is the name of a book
by an associate of Nader who later came to hate him and fear he might
some day be president.  So that might be an interesting perspective to
read, with reasonable detachment, for any valid flaws in the man.

Regarding Nader, I feel, through my own experience I know much more about
him than either major presidential candidate (except I know they're bought
and paid for).  As far as this November goes, I think Nader, even if not
perfect, is a clear choice.

- Joe


        re/leaders: Leadership is essential to democracy.  Movements and
progress never occur unless leaders appear who can crystallize popular
sentiment and inspire collective action.  Without leadership The People are
a mob.  Especially if a progressive government were to come to power, good
leadership would be crucical to anything useful or lasting coming out of

        A key part of today's democracy-destroying propaganda campaign is
promulgation of a general skepticism re/leaders and leadership.  In Germany
during the 20s and 30s they had a straigtforward approach to undermining
leadership -- Army Intelligence simply shot each emerging political leader
who wasn't right-wing (an early instance of death squads).  Today we have
media-death squads who use ridicule or personal-dirt instead.

        The demonization of government, the formal part of our leadership
system, is extremely dangerous.  Everyone seems to hate government, to see
it as inherently un-reformable.  They seem to think less (or no) government
will make life better.  It would be exactly the same as a depressed person
thinking that cutting off his head would make him happy.

        But the person who chooses suicide leaves others behind to suffer.
If we allow government to be taken away, our children will suffer for
generations under the corporate fascism alternative.

        re/Nader.  I have problems with Nader, from the perspective of
progressive ideology (see next message, below).  But as far as the
elections go, I think all progressives should vote the Nader/Green ticket.

        We simply MUST abandon the "lesser of two evils" mentality.  It is
keeping us enslaved.  There is no longer any significant difference between
what we get from the Dems and the Repubs.  Under Clinton we got NAFTA, the
Terrorism Bill, the Telecom Bill, accelerated saber rattling against Cuba
and Libya, continued starvation of Iraqi civilians, accelerated prison
construction, continued pandering to corporate interests, etc.  It was
establishment business as usual, pure and simple.  The Presidency (under
the Republicrats) is a figurehead position which does not determine policy:
policy is set by the unelected, non-partisan elite establishment.

        Clinton's alleged "liberalism" is a sham.  He makes noises about
health care and gay rights, but when it comes to central issues, he has no
liberal slant whatsoever.

        If Dole were to be elected by a landslide, the importance (and
danger) would not be that "Dole's" policies would be worse than
"Clinton's", but that the landslide would indicate popular right-wing
sentiment, giving a mandate for further slide into fascism.  If Dole sneaks
in with a minority vote due to vote-splitting, the people will know the
mandate doesn't exist, and what we'll get won't be any different than what
Clinton would give us.

        A vote for Nader "says something", while a vote for Clinton is a
wishy-washy pro-incumbent vote.  A 10% increase in the number of Nader
voters means a lot to increasing progressive confidence, a 10% swing in
Clinton's vote means very little.


Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996
Sender: •••@••.••• (John Lowry)
Subject: Re: cj#564> On political Right Action

>        Am I getting a warped impression of what Nader's about?  Is he
>over-conditioned by his consumerist background?  I see "citizenship" as
>being the heritage we should reclaim: we are owners of our system, not
>grateful consumers of its largesse.   If Nader is proposing empowered
>consumerism as a substitute for citizenship, then I fear he's more part of
>the problem than part of the solution.
> ...

Yes, Nader is a *consumer* activist.  After his early book (with Green)
"Corporate Power in America," he saw the folly of taking the new feudal
masters head-on, and took the sequitious, "consumer" route in opposition to
their hegemony, with some success.  Indeed, that success may may obfuscate
the limitations of the tactic, which would be bad news for all; but even you
have acknowledged that we will not smite the corporations -- we have to live
with them.



    Posted by Richard K. Moore  -  •••@••.•••  -  Wexford, Ireland
     Cyberlib:  www | ftp --> ftp://ftp.iol.ie/users/rkmoore/cyberlib