My problem with Republicans, who seemed to have changed a lot and become hellish little conformists while I was living overseas 60-80, is that they inhabit a country I don't want to live in! Nor, on the other hand, am I sympathetic with the conformism -- the groupiness -- of the Dems. But I do want to live in a system in which serious checks and balances govern capitalism and in which social democracy and sound economic policy (not driven by faux christian ideology) provide a foundation. Since unchecked capitalism is responsible for the destruction of the environment, that makes me a rabid Green. Since individualism is really important to me, there are aspects of Libertarianism which I find reassuring.
In spite of all the flag waving, I'd have to say I don't find many Americans who have a sense of country -- least of all Republicans but many Dems have lost their way, too.
I was a Nader Trader--swapped with a fellow in Oregon.
I'm really not as much of a Democrat as most of you assumed, I'm guessing.
It's just that they're all we got against this tsunami of Fascism we find ourselves drowning in.
Here's something interesting from TomPaine.com about the Greens' pickle:
Quote:The Green Party is in a quandary about 2004. To field a presidential candidate, or not? Most Greens think the Dems are too wimpy to effectively oppose President Bush. But many of them are shocked by Bush's radicalism and know that Green candidates inadvertently create -- like it or not -- a "spoiler effect" when they run against Dems. Sure, Gore should've won by a landslide. And, yes, we progressives believe in the goal of a multiparty system. And, of course, if we had proportional representation we wouldn't have to worry about the spoiler effect. But America's decades from these goals, and these are dire times. In the meantime, Democratic leaders need to feel the huge lift they could get if they fired up the party's progressive base. And then, post-election, they need to feel legislatively beholden to that base.
I was a Trader (with someone in Oregon, too) until it fell through apparently thanks to the California Atty Gen'l who scared everyone with the potential illegality. He was a stooge, for sure.
"Democratic leaders need to feel the huge lift they could get if they fired up the party's progressive base. And then, post-election, they need to feel legislatively beholden to that base." That, PDiddie, is precisely what the DLC is trying to spoil. There's a struggle for power in the party -- the DLC supporters on the one hand (certainly fewer in number but with more leadership and power) and the progressives and virulently anti-Bush, many more but without leadership EXCEPT (I think) Dean. He has the glorious combo of being a progressive who's a fiscal conservative. The others may have more money, but he has numbers behind him plus a ground swell of interest and excitement. At the very least, he will change the campaign, open up the issues, create a demand for a fearlessly progressive platform. What if he embraces the Naderites?
PDiddie -- Here's Dean's blog and the comments on Dean's relation to Green.
http://pub10.ezboard.com/fhowarddean2004frm9.showMessage?topicID=2.topic
Um, I'm sure I should know this, but what's a "Nader Trader"? Is that where one person votes for Nader (where a Democrat will win anyhow) and the other votes for the Democrat (where it's up for grabs)?
You got it mostly, Musketeer.
I voted Ralph in TX because there was no doubt about which color Deep-in-the-Hearta was gonna be. Hepped pump the Green numbers. In turn the Nader fellow helped Gore there in a tossup state.
Tarty, I didn't experience the cognitive dissonance that some had with the concept; and didn't exactly bond with my trading partner, but I enjoyed the thought of being able to manipulate the system in some small way.
I'm certain Katherine Harris got off more intensely, though.
