Paul Stamler has really nailed it in my opinion. He sent an open letter to Ralph Nader that says it all.

Dear Paul,

Way to go! You've articulated it and nailed it. I've been thinking the same thought and haven't been able to verbalize it but you've done it for us. I'm mailing it to a number of people. It's really important.

Thank you so much for expressing what many of us feel and have not yet properly stated.

Gonna' put this on Mudcat.

Let's hold our breath and hope we don't get Bushwhacked on election day.

Gratefully,

Frank Hamilton

Date: Thursday, October 26, 2000 11:58 PM Subject: Dear Mr. Nader

>Dear friends: > >This is an open letter that I sent to Ralph Nader a few minutes ago. I >thought it an important thing to share with my politically progressive >friends. It's my own thoughts, not those of anyone else -- least of all the >Gore campaign. > >If you agree with the sentiments in the letter, and feel like passing it on >to other progressive friends, please feel free to do so (but not, obviously, >if this reaches you after November 7th!) If you are minded to send a message >to Mr. Nader himself, you can do so at: > >campaign@votenader.org > >I don't know if this small effort will have the slightest effect, but when I >see fellow progressives getting ready to drive themselves and the remains of >the progressive movement over a cliff, I feel honor-bound to at least put my >$.02 worth in. > >Peace. >Paul > > >Dear Mr. Nader: > >By now you've probably heard every damned argument in the country about why >you should get out of the presidential race or stay in the presidential >race, but forgive me if, for a moment, I bend your ear one more time. > >I'm not a member of, or advocate for, any political party or anyone's >campaign. And I agree with you completely that Al Gore's policies on >economic issues are nothing a progressive can jump up and cheer about -- >although he's not quite as rotten as his opponent on questions like the >minimum wage. But there are two things I'd like you to consider. > >The first is the fact that George W. Bush is the stalking horse for the most >reactionary social and economic forces in this country: the radical >religious right, the rabid anti-choice movement, the NRA, and those who >would further dismantle the structures of environmental and worker-safety >legislation that have been painfully built in the past three decades. These >forces have kept quiet, understanding that the majority of the American >public doesn't support most of their programs, but they've also mobilized >their people for bloc voting. Even if Bush's inclinations weren't already in >their direction (this is, after all, the man who proclaimed "Jesus Day in >Texas"), he would, if elected, take office owing a substantial debt to these >people. Do you really want to help put the reins of government into those >hands? > >The second is a simple, tactical question: Do you want to carry the >oppobrium for making the election of George W. Bush possible? And do you >want to tar the progressive forces in the country with that same oppobrium? >For as someone who grew up on the left, and who has watched the ups and >downs of progressive movements in this country since I was a child in the >1950s, I can say with certainty that the deepest problem with the American >left is its inability to work constructively with like-minded liberals and >moderates toward the achievement of its goals. For reasons I've always >thought were specious, the left in this country has usually preferred being >alone and powerless but ideologically pure to actually getting anything >done. I still recall my New Left buddies in college refusing to help elect >progressive candidates -- the headline in one paper read "We Are Not >McGovernable" -- or support progressive labor leaders. This inability to >form >coalitions (or even work with each other) has kept the left marginalized >most of my life, except for the brief period of the civil rights and >anti-Vietnam war movements in the sixties -- and even those movements were >eventually torn apart by factionalism. > >If your candidacy leads directly to the election of George W. Bush as >president, I doubt seriously that the American people would rush to the left >when his policies turned sour, or when he began paying back his debts to the >reactionaries who helped propel him into office. Instead, I think there >would be a massive reaction *against* the left, in the person of yourself >and your supporters, as the people whose short-sightedness allowed this >knave to take power. After a career in which you have achieved great things, >is that really how you want to be remembered? And do you really want to >bring the rest of us down with you? > >Thanks for your time. >Paul J. Stamler >St. Louis, MO > >