Gore vs. Nader Continues

Joel Bleifuss seems to blame those who voted for Barry Commoner and John Anderson in 1980 for Ronald Reagan's victory and policies ("Let's Win This One First," September 18). But Reagan won because Jimmy Carter's policies were a failure, not because of votes for Commoner and Anderson. The debacle that followed was a result of that familiar "move to the center" by establishment Democrats.

Then, instead of asking whether voting for lesser-evil Clinton in 1992 and 1996 did us any good, Bleifuss blames Clinton's move to the right on the new moral environment produced by Reaganism, which he has improperly attributed to support for Commoner and Anderson.

Bleifuss also speaks of the absence of any "political organization on the left to challenge" Clinton. But such a political organization of the left would surely include a strong third party led by a candidate who would threaten to drain away critical votes if the Democrats continued to serve only the corporate interest. The fact is that Clinton, by his own choices, moved to the right instead of trying to mobilize a mass democratic constituency with policies serving their interests.

A Gore-Lieberman victory would further consolidate Democratic Party control by the right-wing Democrats and the Democratic Leadership Council, reducing the likelihood of any long-run progressive change coming from within that party. So it would not be "us" that would "win this one," it would be Al From and the Democratic Party's corporate funders. The left will be more marginalized than ever.

Edward S. Herman
Penn Valley, Pennsylvania

We find it extremely insulting that the first true champion of social justice to run for president in decades is castigated by In These Times as being an unrealistic contender. It's as if the left of this country were all sitting in a hot tub being filled with 211 degree water, but Joel Bleifuss gets up and says: "At least we're not boiling."

We will not be renewing our subscription, nor giving subscriptions as X-mas gifts this year. It is time to start supporting true progressives, and we will only be giving our money to those groups or publications that are willing to be truly progressive.

Lisa Ornstein and Scott Westphal
Eau Claire, Wisconsin

After about 40 years of voting according to Joel Bleifuss' philosophy, I have had it. I don't want to live without the possibility of at least some hope. Voting for Bush or Gore gives me none. So, Bleifuss, save us from your elitist phony tears for those below the middle class. Putting us down as middle class and unaffected is meaningless. Things have changed. Get a life, hopefully not as editor of In These Times.

Dennis Kowalski
Chicago

Joel Bleifuss tells us about a dinner fight between old friends and blames them for the spat on "the strong feelings the Nader campaign has aroused." My strong feelings are aroused by the continued rightward drift of the Democratic Party--exemplified by the Gore-Lieberman ticket.

Bleifuss moans over the "real people really suffering" and then champions a Gore-Lieberman ticket that will cause more suffering among real people. Of course, after all his whoring, Bleifuss will do all right under Gore-Lieberman. Like his corporate candidates, the In These Times editor gives prostitution a bad name.

Michael Funke
Detroit

In the mainstream media vernacular, I am a swing-voter from the swing(ing)-state of Missouri. But my swing is not between the big-time contenders, but between the Democrats and Greens. I am swinging toward the latter because I am encouraged by the excitement they have generated and by their criticism of the ills of corporate one-worldism.

It saddens me though that many readers of this magazine have reacted so viscerally against those, including some In These Times writers, who argue that progressives should vote for Gore. As one old enough to remember divisive squabbles of the '60s and '70s, it seems we're falling into the same traps. At the very least, voting for Gore is an issue on which reasonable people can disagree. It seems that the insistence against doing so is based more on an idealist moral imperative than on a materialist strategy for change.

Michael Ugarte
Columbia, Missouri