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
Santa Cruz, California
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
Portland, Oregon
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
Chicago
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
Baltimore
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
St. Clair Shores, Michigan
![](/_transitional/unknown/letters.gif)
|