Friday, August 12, 2005
Lefties helping the wingnuts:
James Wolcott has an interesting piece on liberals supporting the WOT (war on terror) and how they are responsible for giving aid and comfort to the American Taliban. I'm relatively new to this blogging business so what follows is a redux on many other posts in the distant past that cover the same topic I'm sure. But for me the crown jewell of liberalism helping the dark side must be Ralph Nader.
In politics I find myself on Naders side of the issues almost down the line. His work prior to his foray into presidential politics made him a lion of the left. BUT his actions in the 2000 election are directly responsible for the sorry state of affairs we find ourselves in now. The notion that Al Gore and George Bush were somehow the same idealogically speaking is absurd and the last 5 years have provided many painful examples of this truth. I contend the Nader is actually indirectly resonsible for our current debacle in Iraq. Is there anyone who would contend that Gore would have lied us into this? Afghanistan would have happened after 9/11 even if Nader had been elected. But Iraq is pure neocon folly and without Naders helping hand in the 2000 election that crowd would just be howling from the sideline think tanks and plotting impeachment coups in the halls of Congress. Maybe after Cindy Sheehan cracks the security at the Crawford compound and tries to enlighten the dunderhead in chief she can make a trip to Naderville and thank him for the part he played in the loss of her son.
The overall notion of Naders that American democracy would be better served by bringing down the two party stranglehold on our political system is I believe a truism. That being said the notion that American democracy is best served by a one party stranglehold on our democratic institutions thanks to the influence of Nader in bullheadedly pursuing the multi-party goal, as opposed to the check of having at least a Democrat in the Whitehouse is not a plausible argument. The fact that Naders campaign was a wholesale operation of the American Taliban in 2004 shows his worth to their cause.
In politics I find myself on Naders side of the issues almost down the line. His work prior to his foray into presidential politics made him a lion of the left. BUT his actions in the 2000 election are directly responsible for the sorry state of affairs we find ourselves in now. The notion that Al Gore and George Bush were somehow the same idealogically speaking is absurd and the last 5 years have provided many painful examples of this truth. I contend the Nader is actually indirectly resonsible for our current debacle in Iraq. Is there anyone who would contend that Gore would have lied us into this? Afghanistan would have happened after 9/11 even if Nader had been elected. But Iraq is pure neocon folly and without Naders helping hand in the 2000 election that crowd would just be howling from the sideline think tanks and plotting impeachment coups in the halls of Congress. Maybe after Cindy Sheehan cracks the security at the Crawford compound and tries to enlighten the dunderhead in chief she can make a trip to Naderville and thank him for the part he played in the loss of her son.
The overall notion of Naders that American democracy would be better served by bringing down the two party stranglehold on our political system is I believe a truism. That being said the notion that American democracy is best served by a one party stranglehold on our democratic institutions thanks to the influence of Nader in bullheadedly pursuing the multi-party goal, as opposed to the check of having at least a Democrat in the Whitehouse is not a plausible argument. The fact that Naders campaign was a wholesale operation of the American Taliban in 2004 shows his worth to their cause.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
