Say It Ain't So, Ralph!
I had mixed feelings when some friends of mine pointed out that Ralph Nader had mentioned me as an "independent military analyst" in his Sunday appearance on NBC's Meet the Press. In responding to a question from Tim Russert about why he was running yet again, he cited a recent article of mine about how Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have not only ignored the Pentagon's record spending spree, but have adopted policies that may well involve increasing the military budget.
My point was that we need to get the Democratic frontrunners to address this issue in some fashion before they take office in 2009 (assuming a Democrat wins, which is not guaranteed by any means). It was NOT meant to suggest that we need a third party candidate in the race -- although obviously Ralph Nader is free to use the information as he sees fit.
A Democratic president would be so superior to John McCain in so many ways (most notably on Iraq, Iran, health care, and economic stimulus) that anything that risks helping McCain win the November election is irresponsible in the extreme. The only good news is that now that he is a perennial candidate (the Harold Stassen of the late 20th and early 21st century), he may draw relatively few votes. But given our winner take all system, even if the Nader vote were to tip one close state Republican it could make a difference for the worse.
He's obviously his own person, and he certainly has the right to run. But towards what end? There are other ways to get progressive views across that don't involve risking a Republican victory in November.
The most important way forward is to build a movement that will press home issues like cutting military spending and seriously addressing climate change on whoever is in Congress and the White House (but as I've suggested, I think a Democratic president would be far more responsive to these demands). Building a movement doesn't mean one guy coming out to run for president every four years (this time around, he can't even argue that he's trying to build the Green Party, as they already have a candidate). It means electing progressives to Congress, to governorships, and to state and local office; reinvigorating the trade union movement; and making environmentalism and peace imperatives for all Americans, not just issues they can choose to address or discard as if they were deciding what to wear to work in the morning. Another Nader run for president will not forward any of these objectives, and it may well do them great harm.
There are other ways to get progressive views across that don't involve risking a Republican victory in November.
May I ask what those other ways might be? We saw the voters express in very clear terms their desire to have the Congress force Mr. Bush's hand in ending the slaughter in Iraq. The result: An escalation of force, and another year of depleting our military and our treasury.
Under this allegedly progressive Democratic Congress, we have seen the ratification of further Administration incroachment on civil liberties. We have seen the authorization of the use of force against still another non-threatening Muslim nation. We have seen the confirmation of a SecDef who clearly is prepared to follow the McCain policy toward the Second Hundred Years' War. We have seen the confirmation of an Attorney General who will not condemn the same torture for which we have punished both enemies and our own soldiers in the past. We have seen zero initiatives -- count 'em: zero -- to amelioriate a condition that may make human life on earth impossible for our progeny just a few generations hence.
My representation in Congress consists of two conservatives and a Republican, and I am a resident of Pittsburgh, PA, not Athens, GA. It appears that the situation will remain that way for the forseeable future.
So if there are indeed "other ways to get progressive views across," I must ask you to enumerate a few. Otherwise I might have to ponder whether the Democratic Party has caught the "faith-based" disease that has debilitated the Republicans.
February 25, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ralph Nader is an announced candidate for president. The fact that some people don't like this simple fact is not going to change the situation. Nader's been through all this before and he feels, rightly, that many peoples' views are not being represented by the two major candidates.
If a Nader candidacy is seen by the Dem candidate to "do them great harm" then that candidate would be wise to adopt a more sensible policy on needless military spending. That's what Nader has stated, and I think he's right. The same applies to other policy areas including the ones Tankard mentions. Of course Kerry took the opposite tack, he challenged Nader's ballot access in every state and we know where he ended up.
The presidential election is a fine time do discuss issues and not conduct ad hominem attacks on candidates.
February 25, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh. So it's YOUR fault. Bastard.
(kidding)
I live in Connecticut. I didn't hear one nice thing about our "homeboy" today, and I talked to a good 50 locals.
February 25, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me echo the first two comments. Just what is the right way to put pressure on these mainstream politicians? If you hold your nose and vote for them no matter what, then they are free to move to the right, and that's just what they do. Obama is notorious (among some anyway) for how he echoes the AIPAC stance on Israel, claiming, for instance, that the Lebanese civilians who died in 2006 under Israeli bombs died because Hezbollah used them as human shields, which was flatly contradicted by Human Rights Watch.
What good does it do for human rights organizations to do their work if the "progressive" Presidential candidate feels free to ignore what they find and spout lies instead?
That said, I'll hold my nose and vote for whichever jerk gets the Democratic nomination. They know there are plenty of people like me out there, people who've been blackmailed into supporting them because the Republican is even worse.
February 25, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Precisely. The Republican is worse. They might NOT be so bad if Nadir hadn't insisted in showing us all how bad they can be.
So quit whining.
February 25, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah.
BTW, what was the name of that third Steely Dan album?
February 25, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Workerbee, see if you can hold more than one thought in your head at a time.
Yes, Republicans are worse. Okay, here's where you're going to have to stretch, because I'm going to say something else. The fact that Republicans are worse provides Democrats with an incentive to move in their direction to pick up as many center-right votes as they can. We need some way to pressure them not to move to the right and if all their leftwing supporters unite in chanting "The Republicans are worse", it just strengthens the incentive for drifting rightwards.
February 26, 2008 7:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're still whining. Bite me.
Nader is an asshole. He's useless and he's destroyed any legacy he might have had.
Bummer, isn't it. He did it all by hisself with a little help from the Republicans and their corporate money and their whacko dittohead zealot supporters. I think he raped the Green Party repeatedly. He made us the laughingstock of the free world. He lost us thousands, maybe even millions of members.
Consider global warming. Just WHY do you think the membership in the Green Party is down?
Nader.
There may be two or three people left in the country that disagree, and I'm sure they all post here.
February 26, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone, PUHLEEZE discard the notion that Nader cost Gore the 2000 election. The fix was in LONG before that election took place.
Here's a few fun games you can play to forever disabuse yourself of the notion that Florida EVER had a chance of going to Gore:
1. See if you can match the last names of any of the candidates with any of the high-ranking elected officials in Florida at the time.
2. Subtract the total Nader votes from the number of voters mysteriously "purged" from the rolls that year. Then subtract all the Republican-designed butterfly ballots.
http://www.pacifier.com/~ppenn/butterflybush.gif
3. Travel back in time and actually count the votes cast that fateful day, even after the purge and Nader's "theft."
Feel Better? I've often wondered why progressives would prefer to turn on a natural ally like Nader instead of accepting the overwhelming evidence that the 2000 election was stolen. Oh, but that's tin-foil hat stuff, I guess, and the treasonous Supreme Court decision is just something we all have to live with, unlike Nader.
We need Nader to keep the corporatists in line, and they would be wise to give him a hearing rather than beat up on him.
February 25, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
How interesting that you're annoyed by Nader running when he agrees with you. Yes, a Democrat is superior to McCain. But Nader actually agrees with you. The problem with our system is that you have a problem with the guy who actually represents your point of view.
February 25, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
all the nader supporters here seem very intelligent, yes, very smart. So let me ask them all something. What exactly is the plan ? Nader runs, he tips two states to McCain, McCain wins. Then next election, oh, democrats are still corporate, run again, mccain wins reelection. Next time around, same thing, now its President Rick Santorum. There are wars all over the globe, Times Square has a 15 foot high blast wall all around it, the supreme court is 8-1 and middle class women fly to mexico to have abortions. Next election comes around, oh, democrats are *STILL* corporate, dammit, Nader has to run again. Never winning. Never getting any more than a sliver of the vote. Just tipping a few states each time. Still winking like a madman on TV and being ignored by the populace, who are just not radical, I'm sorry.
So whats the outcome ? You're all so smart, whats the plan ? The democratic party will suddenly say, "OK! we'll move to the radical left Mr. Nader, please don't hurt us anymore !"
My money would be on Nader dies of old age before that ever happens. Are you all just hoping for a revolution ?
February 26, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps you would care to point out who the Nader supporters are that you are challenging. I'm not smart enough to see any in this thread. I do see a few people who think he has something to offer to the campaign and who have not been hypnotized by the DLC into thinking that Nader is not only paid for by the GOP (as thought the DLC would mind that!), but is actually the personification of evil.
You must be really smart, classeek. Not only can you predict things that that haven't happened yet, you know what caused those, and are able to recognize people who don't even exist. What a guy!
February 26, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
so far, your two im-not-going-to-answer-the-question replies to me have been pretty useless. Maybe stick to your nintendo for video tennis ?
February 26, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've got to say this kind of drives me nuts. Not Bill's piece, that I agree with. What drives me nuts is the poor understanding that people show of their electoral system.
The problem with third party candidates in the United States is related to the kind of system we have. As Bill pointed out, its a winner take all system. Its also known as "first past the post". That kind of system means that there can only be one winner to any political contest. Amassing as big a party as possible is the only way to win. Small parties have very little chance at winning so the incentive is to align your small party with a larger party. For larger parties the incentive is to appease the members of smaller parties and pull them into your party. Organizing a third party is simply unlikely to work unless one of the two major parties is in such disarray that you can effectively take their place.
If you want third or even fourth and fifth parties, you need to agitate for a constitutional change towards a parliamentary system based on proportional representation. There may be other ways that involve dual party endorsements like in New York, or building broad parallel organization that then turns into a party with ready-made strength. But even in those cases, under our current system you'd probably end up destroying one of the two current parties and creating a new two party system.
February 26, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
About a year ago, someone on this blog made a pretty good case that most republican systems evolve into a two-party system through a natural process of consolidation.
It's one of those unfortunate facts of life that we may deplore but are unable to prevent -- just as we cannot eliminate violence from society nor prevent classeek from wasting electrons.
February 26, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe stick to your nintendo for video tennis?
I would certainly learn more that way than reading your posts, so thank you for that suggestion. But in the meantime, I take it that you are unable to point to any alleged Nader supporters and were using this thread the way you use that old t-shirt while having a that special moment with yourself.
That's fine. Just so we know.
February 26, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
tankard -
let me correct myself, since you obviously aren't going to let it go until i spell it out exactly. You support Nader in terms of his approach towards getting progressive views across. It's in your first post, where you ask, "May I ask what those other ways [to get progressive views across] might be?". Namely, Nader's method of running for president every four years is the *only* way to get progressive views across. Not by running for senate, or the house, or for mayor, or for democratic nominee; just...*the president*. Please tell me if I am misinterpreting your support of Nader's techniques.
This idea seems ridiculous and ineffective and only adds to the probability of extreme right wing leaders being elected. Nobody is going to become "more progressive" due to Nader's actions and the democratic party is neither going to collapse nor move more leftwards as a result of losing. If you can show me how this is not the case, you can certainly change my mind. Or you can just keep hurling insults.
February 26, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're all so smart, whats the plan ?
Are you all just hoping for a revolution ?
your two im-not-going-to-answer-the-question replies to me have been pretty useless.
Maybe stick to your nintendo for video tennis ?
This idea seems ridiculous and ineffective
Pardon me for "hurling insults," classeek. Now that you have broken through my stupidity with your impeccable grammar and proofreading, your flawless logic, and your astonishing insight, you have completely changed my mind. I now think that Nader is a monster, 100% responsible for every single flaw in strategy from the left since Jefferson put all those "f's" into the Declaration of Independence.
Still -- and I hope you will not think I am criticizing you here, Sensei -- there a couple of points that escape my feeble understanding It would mean so much to me if you would clarify:
-- Does the fact that I think SOMEONE needs to present a left-of-center point of view make me a traitor, or just extremely unpatriotic?
-- Will my sentence be mitigated give that I have voted for Humphrey, McGovern, Carter (twice!), Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton the Elder (twice!), Gore, and Kerry?
-- Does the fact that Nader perceives that he will not be able to address issues of, say, civil liberties by running for mayor of Paducah mean that he's a surrogate for Hitler or just a psychotic serial killer?
-- Have you refused to answer either of my questions* as a teaching tool or because I am beneath your contempt?
* What are "other ways to get progressive views across" with no real progressives running engaging in the national debate? I'm still not clear, even though you are otherwise transcendent in your clarity.
* Who are Nader supporters in this thread? Unless The Master (that's you) tells me otherwise, I'll continue to think that I've never voted for him nor worked for him and probably never will.
Thank you for taking time from your busy schedule to respond to me and to chide me for my immature ignorance, Yogi. But especially thank you for granting me enlightenment.
February 27, 2008 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink