David Neiwert points us to the cover story of Pat Buchanan’s The American Conservative: a love-in between the man himself and self-appointed spokesman for pure progressive bodily fluids Ralph Nader. My first reaction is to say that he’s been a conservative lickspittle for so long he’s just skipping the middleman, but fundamentally he’s always been a reactionary at heart. His railing against smoking, drinking and gambling here is instructive, as are his questions about why a “born-again Christian president has done nothing about rampant corporate pornography and violence”; one assumes that he would tax sex if he could enforce it. Then there’s the railing against the “pro-Israeli” lobby. And note this answer concerning what Ralph would call “gonadal politics”:
PB: Let me move to the social issues. Would you have voted against or in favor of the ban on partial-birth abortion?
RN: I believe in choice. I don’t think government should tell women to have children or not to have children. I am also against feticide. If doctors think it is a fetus, that should be banned. It is a medical decision.
First of all, note the way this alleged straight-shooting anti-politician artfully dodges the question; I have no idea if he supports partial-birth abortion bans or not. Secondly, when has the term “feticide” been used outside of the National Review circa 1975? Third, note that his (tepid) support for abortion rights is located in the rights of doctors, not women, a flashback to the 60s, and not in a good way.
Why any progressive with two brain cells left to rub together would vote for Nader is beyond me. But then, that was what I thought in 2000.
It’s going to be grimly fascinating to hear Naderites trying to justify their reactionary collaborationalism this year. But it certainly won’t be worth it…