...evolved in to a discussion of the role of political incrementalism in formenting radical change. Nowhere is this discussion more important than in US politics, where radical voters are faced with a system designed to blunt the effect of radicalism.
I do not know how to formulate the question. I could try the following: "Is radical change best formented by participating in compromise with the system?" I don't think it's quite right, but I guess that the Nader candidacy provides a case in point. Voting for a Democrat means that you accept that the Democrats can deliver incremental change and that this change is required for long-term radical change. Voting for Nader means that you reject this as chimerical.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336
posted 25 February 2004 06:30 PM
We have seen several instances of radical change in traditional parties, usually involving a small group taking over the party machine. The rabid right has taken over the Republican Party with Bush at the helm. Some years ago in BC, Bill Vanderzalm and his followers took control of the Socreds. I'm sure you can think of others.
At the moment, I see no effort by the left to take control of the Democrats. To the contrary, most of the Democrats seem to be trying to demonstrate that they are as beligerant as the Republicans. Because of that, if I were an American voter I would vote for Nader. The Democrats need a loud signal that they need to be a real opposition. Maybe that's the answer you are looking for; the politicians have to get the message.
From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged