It's interesting to see the parallel to the wingers. Something similar occurred to me in reading many of the comments on this site from people whose politics I myself identify with. When I see, as Todd says, the dismay at the Democrats not achieving something, like ending the war or impeaching and convicting Bush and Cheney, what occurs to me is a phrase we've often associated with the other side.

I mean the "stabbed in the back theory." When you can't achieve your ideals, it may not make sense to blame your own side, but it makes a kind of sense if you can't relinquish the certainty that you not only deserve to win, but on that very account you could win. I don't mean that the GOP blames their own side; they're way too disciplined and certain of "us vs them," and we could learn from that. I mean that the underlying theory and its motivation is much the same. 

I'm sorry to be so harsh to those on my side. It seems to mirror my own complaint. So I hope the underlying point won't make everyone even angrier.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

It is frequently easier to be angry at your own side because you expect something from them and you don't expect anything from the other side.

I have been told that focus groups show that some of the people voting for Nader do so out of a sense of frustration. This may arise because they have unrealistic expectations of how the political system functions: you run into problems, however, when you stress how the system operates: instead assessing whether your predictions as to what the system WILL do are accurate you get accused of advocating the less desirable outcome that you predict.

Todd, the big unspoken issue to me is: what does Nader do in between Presidential election years besides count his money?

Democrats like Al Gore and Wes Clark and Howard Dean got out of the election cycle and did a bunch of heavy lifting in very varied areas that suited them, and got results that mean something.

I don't see Nader doing anything besides stepping up with his money to spoil the election every four years. What the hell do you do, man? And besides, there's already new meat out there, namely Mike Gravel and Ron Paul. Lunch: eaten. Thunder: stolen.

Mr. Gitlin, while I'm sometimes tempted to write you off as a hopeless lefty, I must admit I'm now forced to reconsider my opinion. I've recently come to the conclusion that, like most things in the Universe, political affiliation is akin to a circle. There's no such thing as the "far left" or the "far right"--they're both just points on an endlessly continuous line. Move far enough to the left and suddenly you've crossed over from yin to yang and become a fascist. See Paul Wolfowitz as an example. And vice versa, of course. Balancing anger, pragmatism, idealism, disappointment and the desire for change is a delicate act. Some people get it right by being realistic in their expectations, and some get it very, very wrong. I happen to believe that the Naderites have gotten it very, very wrong. They support a vengeful dilettante who has already clearly shown us that he doesn't have the skills to become the mayor of a small town, let alone President of the United States. And why do they support him? Because they're pissed off, that's why. Because they'd rather fabricate and listen to lies about how "the Republicans and the Democrats are exactly the same" than to actually fight for something achievable within our system of best-compromise government. Because they'd rather waste their Starbuck's money whining endlessly about how bad things suck than to actually do something like making their local Congressperson's life a living hell by writing to them on a daily basis to demand change. Democracy may suck, but I don't see that they have anything better to offer.

Thanks for an excellent piece. Sorry for all the bad things I've said about you. *:o)

Gitlin is fighting the wrong enemy.

but there's more to it than that when you consider that nader isn't even a green. it is only out of cynical self-interest ($$) on both sides that the two are ever even allied.

when the greens smeared gore on his environmental record while putting up nader(!!) against him, any respect i had for the greens was gone. forever. as far as i'm concerned, the greens and nader have as much credibility as gonzales.

precisely. the two-party system isn't a quirk of statute or regulation, it is a fundamental consequence of the system of democratic government established by the framers in the constitution.

--Speaking to the indefatigable Max Blumenthal just last month, Nader denied ever having said there was no difference between the two major parties, insisting: "I said the similarities tower over the dwindling real differences."--

Isn't this pretty much like Bush and Rumsfeld insisting that they never said the threat from Saddam was "imminent?"

Must be fun supporting a man who uses the same rationale as Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld to defend his prior statements all the while proclaiming him to be superior to all of the leaders of both the other parties.

Well, by all means let us be clear about what Nader has said:

Nader has effectively stated that the differences between Democrats and Republicans are insignificant, despite the clearly articulated major differences listed in Todd's post, which is hardly exhaustive.

Better?

--This may arise because they have unrealistic expectations of how the political system functions--

Absolutely.

Reading the comments of Nader supporters, it is clear that nothing less that lockstep agreement (by Democrats) with Nader's preferred policies is acceptable.

Nothing short of that is meaningful to them and, therefore, despite vast differences, they view Democrats and Republicans as essentially without any differences.

People with extreme viewpoints that require adherence to a very strict ideology (sound familiar to anyone in power now?), call it political religion, are going to view anyone not like them as being all the same, because everyone not like them is, well, evil.

It is similar to how the Islamic extremists view the world: if you aren't a strict Muslim, as they interpret the Koran, then you are an infidel or blasphemer, an enemy, and there is no distinction between the various individuals who fall within the classification "enemy."

If you aren't a strict "liberal" or "progressive" (whatever Nader followers are choosing to call themselves and whatever that term means in their vernacular), then you are an enemy and one enemy individual is no different than another.

If Nader doesn't run they're talking about running Cynthia McKinney which will find them wandering even further from relevance. Nader, at least, is reasonable. McKinney is a straight-up radical.

Nader is a good weathervane, just watch who attacks him and the very accurate statements he makes about the state of Democracy in America today and it makes the establishment’s fifth columnists so easy to identify. The only real wing-nuts around (Wing-nuts because they represent such a small minorities intrests) are the establishment wing-nuts and the right-wingers, which are also mostly controled by the corporate establishment. I see an America with too many Fascists and even Nazis and very few, thank goodness, Communists (totalitarian lefties) who one usually associates as left wing nuts.

It makes me sick to my stomach to see so called Democrats attacking, Liberals, Democratic socialists (folks who believe in Social Security, single payer government health care, TVA and other successful and/or programs potentially useful to the general wealfare.) Attacking Liberals and Democratic Socialists is the stock and trade of the Republican Party who like in this blurb try to juxtapose them with the radical totalitarian left. I don't know why these Faux Neo-Liberals don't just go over to the Republican Party where they so obviously belong. Left wing nut indeed! No wonder you think you stir up venom; hell, I'm resisting taking a bite out you myself. Ssssssssssssssssssssss

Go Edwards...beat the sold out establishment flunkeys...

Leave Mr. Nader Alone! The man has spent his life trying to make America a better, safer, more democratic place to live. Shame!

"Reading the comments of Nader supporters, it is clear that nothing less that lockstep agreement (by Democrats) with Nader's preferred policies is acceptable." ---

You're making an error in this statement.

Ralph Nader's policies are shared by me. He did not introduce them to me or the vast majority of the people like me who support him. Ralph happens to act instead of just talk and offers solutions to the problems I and others have seen.

He's the reason we have seatbelts in cars. He's one of the biggest actions behind the creation of the EPA? The Freedom of Information Act? If you like that, Ralph helped create that too. Oh, by the by, Clean Air Act? Safe Drinking Water Act? Ralph was insturmental in their creation. These are some pretty damn good reasons for me to want to give this guy the Executive Office.

I would like to know where you were when Al Gore was a Tennessee Senator and his accomplishments there. I'd like to know how you feel about Tipper Gore. I'd like you to let me know what you felt when you first learned Lieberman was Gore's VP running mate.

Geez, you people get so wrapped up in playing politics, you don't recognize a good thing when you see it, only going for a mere shadow of what could be. Why? Because you don't think he can win? You don't want him to win?

Look at what he accomplished not in office. Think about what he could accomplish as President.

Funny, that's what I would say about Nader.

And, quite frankly, it's what Gitlin is saying about Nader.

I already got out my cases of cans of whupass in the last Nader thread, I think I'll hold my tongue here, except to say this: Nader is not a leftist or even an environmentalist, he's a consumerist. While he is excellent on some issues, his breadth is rather shallow. He has no notion of community organizing, but is inherently a federal wonk activist. To have him set up as the paragon of progressivism makes me ill.

Think what Nader could accomplish by picking a candidate who can win and actively campaigning for him or her? His reward might be a cabinet seat, say head of the EPA or Department of Labor or Department of Interior. Sure, it isn't as sweet as the White House, but it's better than helping the Republicans win.

In my opinion, one of Gore's biggest mistakes in 2000 wasn't going to Nader and offering him just such a cabinet position. I don't know if Ralph would have accepted it. But it could have made a real difference in the outcome of the race.

there is no right or left in the continuous line that makes up a circle.

And the other was selecting Lieberman as a running mate.

You are engaging in knee-jerk triangulation.

One of the Gore campaign's numerous *huge* mistakes was to throw Nader out of the debate audience although he had a ticket (courtesy of Amy Goodman). Perhaps they took Lieberman's advice on this (or Cheney's) in their doomed pursuit of the "vital center".

It was sort of analogous to the German Social Democrats' using death squads on Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebkenich. People don't forget this sort of atrocity. Resentment lingers for decades afterwards.

I have news for you guys, violence, bullying, and "shock and awe" don't work in getting votes for your candidate.

yep, that was just like a death squad. no knee-jerks about it.

I have supported every Democratic party nomination for president since 1972 but will not demonize Nader. He will appeal to the left as long as the Democratic party supports aggressive war and the export of US jobs abroad. I see Nader's strong showing in 2000 as a reaction against the unjustified aggression against Serbia in 1999 and against NAFTA. I worked in Gore's campaign but when Nader supporters mentioned these issues in their disgust against the Democrats there was little I could say. I attended a number of Nader rallies -- I could see why he was supported. Very few of these people identified with the Green Party.

Of course they made a serious error in judgment. But who could have predicted the GOP rule would turn out so disastrous? There is not much chance that these people will vote for Nader this time around.

Let me share with you one anecdote I heard during the 2000 election. The following is hearsay but only one step removed from the primary source. There was a Republican party fund raiser in Florida who directed a number of donors to not give to the Republican Party but to donate directly to Nader's campaign. He estimated that these people gave over $1 million to Nader. I knew then that Nader was going to be serious bad news for Gore.

Huh?

Gore's folks physically threw Nader out. That's thuggery.

hrebendorf writes (elsewhere on this site) that in his opinion "Thuggery is fine [in politics] as long as it gets results."

It's not fine. Where do you draw the line -- If thuggery is "fine" what about anthrax? It got results, does that make it fine?

With friends like these Hillary and Obama hardly need enemies. Oh, wait ... they were friends of Gore, too, and look how well he did. It looks like they have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

The Dems in 2000 -- they physically attacked a 70 year old man: Nader (who spent a life-time standing up for the little guy -- and therefore had to be punished, so it seems) and in the vice presidential debate said, "YesSir, Mr. Cheney, I wholeheartedly agree with you."