Isn’t it true that a lot of Nader supporters in 2000 made similar arguments about Gore’s record being just about as bad as Bush’s — especially since Gore had a demonstrated record deserving of criticism while Bush was a tyro?
Do you think that Gore would not have made much difference had he been President instead of Bush? Or at least not enough of a difference for what eventuated to matter? Are all neoliberals equally reprehensible?
How would a third-party President be able to advance the agenda you want to see advanced at all, given the exigencies of the congress and the judiciary and the two-party system?
I think what I’m getting at is that if you are a revolutionary, go ahead and be a revolutionary, and leave us compromised wishy-washy do-gooders (like Barney Frank) to do the actual work of representing the electorate and advancing liberty, justice, and equality as we see it. Someone has to keep the lights on and the plumbing working so that you can focus on the yelling and shaking your fist at the establishment. Someone has to work on powering those lights and purifying that water sustainably so that your nieces and nephews (descendantx? progeny/progenx?) can also have the opportunity to focus on their own yelling and fist-shaking.