Jim Bywator's comments (Inside America, 10 June) on the presidential campaign seem a little wide of the mark.
True, the case against backing Nader is easy: he's not a leftist, but, rather, some sort of radical, and his campaign certainly isn't 'independent working-class politics'.
And I'd be happy with that if there was something better on offer. Two facts seem to suggest backing Nader:
1. Nader does state, plainly: impeach Bush, withdraw from Iraq, repeal the Patriot Act, make deep cuts in military spending, double the minimum wage, provide universal health care etc. His radicalism is an anti-fat cat, 'left' radicalism. Nader's candidacy may rally some of disaffected, disenfranchised America (OK, we haven't written the campaign script, but such politics may open things up for people like us - if we advocate intervention, and what's the alternative?).
2. It is very important that the "vote lesser evil, vote Democrat; don't stand or you'll let the Republicans in" idea - an idea that has crippled the development of the US left/workers' movement - is broken. Nader's doing that, which is grist to our mill.
Opportunism? Yes. Propelled by the urgent need to seeing the two-party American political system break up. In the ferment our people can gain.
Dan Katz
