 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Moore to the Point Michael Moore's commentary is funny and easy to read, but it misses the mark in several ways ("Give the Devil a Bone," June 11). First, the issue is not the centrism of the Democrats, but the best strategy for challenging this centrism. Moore does not seem to understand that the nature of the electoral system dictates that the challenge should take place in Democratic Party primaries. This point is borne out by what happened to left third parties in 1948, 1968 and 1980. It should have been Nader vs. Gore in the primaries, which would have had a huge positive impact. Nader vs. Gore and Bush in the regular election was too late, and not helpful for building a progressive challenge in the future. Second, contrary to what Moore says, no liberal or progressive who voted for Clinton in 1992 thought he was liberal. The expectations for Clinton in office were very minimal, but he was a relief after 12 long years of Reagan-Bush. Third, there is no need to "blame" Nader, Moore and all the others who supported Nader for the election of Bush. But they should be blamed for their failure to take social science and history seriously in thinking about a progressive electoral strategy, and for continuing to advocate an utterly futile, short-sighted and self-defeating strategy that is a proven loser. Nader, Moore and the others should be helping to develop programs and candidates that people can vote for in Democratic Party primaries in 2002 and 2004. That's the best electoral arena to reach potential progressives, and the only way to transform the Democratic Party. G. William Domhoff
It is grimly funny to watch Michael Moore turn himself into a Republican spin doctor and try to weasel his way out of responsibility for the horrific damage he and his fellow Nader stooges have inflicted on the country. Moore's point that some of Bush's lamentable actions are reversals of steps that Clinton didn't have the guts to take until his final days as a lame duck has an element of truth. Fine, no one thinks that Clinton was a strong environmentalist. But Republican apologists are using this half-truth as cover, and Moore falls right into line. The arsenic standard may have been a last-minute booby trap for the Republicans. But many of the monument designations and other land management policies had been in preparation for a long time--the prohibition on logging in roadless areas, notably, was the product of a lengthy process that involved 1.6 million public comments. The rush to implement such policies at the close of the Clinton administration was simply due to the fact that, thanks to Ralph Nader, they couldn't be implemented, as they would have been, in a Gore administration. Serious, working activists almost universally deplore Nader and his connivance in electing Bush because their main consideration is creating the best circumstances for organizing. Fear can spur people to rally against an immediate threat, or to write checks to an organization or two. But the kind of patient, steady grassroots work that can actually transform politics and culture requires hope. People need to sense that they can make a difference, that improvements, however small, are being made, that democracy, however flawed, can work. As any organizer knows, you need to win at least occasionally. The concern isn't whether people in Washington or in state capitals are leading us, but whether they are effectively thwarting us. Those who are serious about grassroots work know that Democrats in power--sometimes helping, occasionally opposing, usually dithering in the middle--create a far better climate for organizing than Republicans. Endlessly struggling to hold back the tide of destruction flowing from the right, rather than being able to take satisfying, creative steps, breeds burnout and cynicism. A vote for Gore wouldn't have been a meaningful step toward social change or environmental protection, but a vote for Nader, predictably helping to ensconce Bush and the Republicans in power, seriously hampered those who are trying to bring about social change and environmental protection. That is the legacy of Nader and his minions. Philip Johnson
My thanks to Michael Moore for pointing out that the best prescription for political illiteracy is a few years of Republican control, so that I may better "see the evil out in the open rather than covered up in a liberal sheep's clothing that seems to fool a lot of people." Perhaps we can all vote for a fascist ticket in 2002 and 2004, so as to further minimize the risk of being duped by two-faced liberals. Edward Tverdek
Fact or Fiction? Geoffrey F. X. O'Connell states that the military in World War II was not "Colin Powell's Army," implying that the segregated army was well capable of massacring 1,000 black soldiers in 1943 ("Missing in Action," June 11). But it was Colin Powell's Army that investigated these charges and found there to be no evidence of such a massacre. The idea of a monolithic group of modern-day Army investigators covering up such an incident more than strains credulity. The fact that no one has come up with any list of so-called surviving family members of those massacred alone renders the massacre scenario to be without validity. O'Connell's article of strained possibilities falls quickly in line with theories of whites purposefully poisoning the black community with AIDS, the CIA attempting to destabilize Watts with crack cocaine, the rape of Tawana Brawley, etc. This brand of leftist paranoia and black victimology renders progressives open to charges of silliness at best and delusional propaganda at worst. There is enough history of real racism and misbehavior on the part of the powers that be, without resorting to charges that make us look foolish and distract us from the real work of social justice. Jan Houbolt
Thank you for Geoffrey F.X. O'Connell's informative article. I understand that you must express the incredulity of most of the readers you are trying to reach, but I do not find the story incredible at all. I lived through that era, and, being aware of the capacity for racial violence in our country at that time, I am also painfully aware of the strong motivation of established institutions to cover up even minor insurrections that led to violent reprisals. The inability to confirm what happened to so many men in uniform from that era strikes me as highly improbable without the assumption that there was a cover-up of massive proportions. I urge you to get the whole story out. Jerry G. Bails
|
