What you say is generally true. So, What will be your action? What will be the basis upon which you organize and battle for ideas? I am trying to, first, understand for myself what our most essential relationships with reality are, and then to write about them to help create an intellectual frame work around which to organize, from which to act. If your questions are not rhetorical, they are answered in the essay.

The point is to “win the battle of ideas.” Convince those people. Win their support.

Once again: ORGANISE! ACT! Build independent movements.

The “lesser of 2 evils” mentality is a trap, even more so as the idea that the ‘Democrats’ actually are “less evil” is highly questionable. The policies and behaviour of US governments is very consistent.
Any American who genuinely wants change (for the better) should vote for McKinney or Nader. The reason they wont win is because so-called ‘progressives’ are too deluded or gutless to abandon the ‘Democrat’ party.

More importantly, elections are not the be all & end all. Their primary function (under the current system) is to legitimate what is essentially a dictatorship, and to distract people from more effective political action. ORGANISE! ACT!

But not every post is about the BIGGEST issues. Some is shorter term – like TODAY.

Will it matter if we’re just sitting around tapping our keyboards and thinking we’ve actually moved the “ball” forward? Absolutely NOT.

There is a little thing called proportionality. We can talk about Nader/Obama/McCain or we can talk about the world going to hell in a hand basket.

If Nader were to get 5-8% of say 100 m votes that would be a message that would resonate.

This was the opportunity the Left forfeited in order to obscure Zionism in 2004. Nader in 2000 scored ~2.5% of the vote running as a Green. It all feel apart in 2004. In 2003, we saw the LARGEST grassroots activism with huge popular support against the War on Iraq. The so-called “war for oil”. However other groups also included how Israel and Zionism as well was also a factor in the going to War. That rhetoric created the riff in the anti-war movement to such an extent that it has to be snuffed out. In order to censor such ideas the anti war movement had to be diffused. And so it was behind John Kerry.

Being the only real viable anti-war candidate, Ralph Nader, was hoping to use that civic energy to power his campaign. For whatever reasons, the Green Party and Nader could not coalesce in order to build upon that ~2.5% vote he received in 2000. Had Nader and the Green constructed that coalition in 2004, Nader would have certainly received 5% and having the INSTITUTION organization of the Green could have also engendered COATTAILS.

Since the Left squandered that opportunity, rather than coherently point out how the Left put themselves in such a weakened predicament and what needs to be done you get incoherent and wishful rants from one Max Shields.

The current polls show that both Obama and McCain are at 96% leaving only 4% for all 3rd parties combined. The last poll I saw has Nader and Barr at 2% each. Should Nader get 2% of the vote what does that mean — absolutely nothing. Why? because Nader has NO institutional base to do anything with after the election. The same was true with Ross Perot’s run. Nader’s run this year is similar to Perot’s as it is centered around a quixotic individual rather than the combination of a charismatic individual with a solid institutional base like Eugene Debbs.

That’s the main difference. This is why if I had to choose between Nader and McKinney I would choose McKinney because voting for her is a vote at least to help [re]build the Green Party because it is going to take YEARS before the Left has any real organizational strength.

This is the reality that unfortunately Max obscures with his rants.

Add further that the uneconomic growth paradigm is failing. Americans will never talk again about their advantage vis a vis “growth and prosperity”. Growth only has value for the wealthiest. Already, our materialism and consummerism has lost its glitter. Malls are emptying out of their store fronts. A wave of austerity as good is beginning to sweep the nation. It is “bad” for capitalism; but good for life.

Nader and those who follow (I suspect this will be the last time Nader runs) will have stronger and stronger voices, chipping away at the narrative. It will happen fairly quickly because the circumstance are dire and imminant. The next President will preside over the unraveling of the empire and what existed as the “American dream”. It was never really a “dream” as much as a capitalist propagandized fabrication…it worked for several decades. But the Party is Over!

So, it is not a feasible assumption to consider Nader or McKinney as “candidates” in the sense of level playing field probabilities. I think you would clearly agree.

That said, once again, if the unbelievable hypothesis of a Nader win were to happen, he would have to make some fancy adjustments to pragmaticism and perhaps end up like Jimmy Carter.

But again, that is fanciful because Nader is not running to win. Nor is McKinney. You don’t vote for either because you want THEM for president. You vote for them because how they address the “unaddressed” issues are what you think the country needs to attend to. Voices, when heard begin to change the narrative, particularly when the dominant narrative stops working.

In that sense a vote for either Nader or McKinney can have a substantial effect.

To your larger issue, and one that resonates with me, about the incapacity of the established powers to address these “unadressed” (dare I say “unaddressable”): I can only say that does a horse bark like a dog? The system, not the players, may adjust to circumstances but what defines the system is more or less the status quo. So, FDR could usher in some adjustments to stave off the capitalistic tendency to begin to devour itself. But lo and behold the monster is back stronger and more vile than ever.

The narrative is alive and the candidates to be president must live with it as it is. They will continue to do so post-election. Look at them through clear eyes and you’ll see what they’ll do given what surrounds them.

My comment on Nader was that I respected him, and that he and McKinney would be eaten up by Washington; both minor to the intention of the essay. But, both certainly true. You will have to take me at my word that I respect him. As to the other, any “leader’ depends on the good will or sphincter tightening fear of their subordinates. I believe that sound arguments can be made that only someone connected to the Washington establishment would generate either reaction (I do not see this as a good thing!). If the bureaucracy chose to prevent an effective presidency, then there would be none. I could be wrong, but I believe that many of the changes that Nader or McKinney would see as fundamental would be fought tooth and nail (to continue the eaten up allusion) by powerful and entrenched government functionaries over whom they would have little control.

It is an axiom that the best way to destroy a boss is to do exactly what he says to do, exactly as she says to do it. Multiply that by a few thousand midlevel managers and the government would melt down.

My remarks above were meant specifically to your Nader comments.

Your mentioning of Herman Daly puts you in very good company. His work on uneconomic growth is compelling and essential.

Please do not see my remarks as more than a little fedup with the anti-alternative choices of Nader and McKinney (among others) and perhaps a bit overstated in regard to your piece which is overall quite good.

First, you seem to miss the point on Nader and McKinney.

You need to understand Nader’s decades of work with the Washington sharks to bring about the only semblance of protection from corporate greed. this is not a man who’s about to get eaten alive – Obama may.

Second, McKinney was on the Hill for multiple terms. She’s a fighter.

All that said, neither of these candidates are in this to WIN the election. So, let’s be sane here. Your premise is bogus at best.

Nader and McKinney are in this and making themselves, their lives available to YOU and ME as a means to vote FOR something we BELIEVE IN!!

Sure Obama/McCain will be president. Tha’t not the point. Stop trivializing the blood, sweet and tears of Nader and McKinney and others who are not looking for personal gain.

Now go back to your room and re-write this piece – with humility@!