Comments on: Nader and the Dems

By: djw

djw — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:43:46 +0000

Thanks Harry!

By: harry

harry — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:33:03 +0000

This involves believing that a remarkable record extended during this Presidency (the longest period of unchanged court membership since the early 19th Century) was quite predictable and regular. Nope. I just said it was a good bet. It was, as it turns out (unlike the other bets). bq. There is a tendency for people who know a little about politics and elections to talk with a great deal more certainty about future outcomes on these fronts, a habit which is not supported, I think, by the evidence available—too much generalizing from small sample sizes, etc Best thing anyone has said in this thread (no offence to others)—and absolutely right. It makes many matters that people seem to be very confident about matters of political judgment, and in general provides a reason for people who agree on matters of political principle to try and be a bit more reasonable with each other about their disagreements, esp. in private, than they tend to be.

By: Steve Carr

Steve Carr — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 07:28:06 +0000

Not to belabor the obvious, but isn’t it a little strange to claim that welfare-for-work programs repudiate the New Deal, which created the first widespread workfare programs in the form of the WPA and the CCC?

By: Matt Austern

Matt Austern — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 06:38:57 +0000

One thing Nader’s run will not do: contribute to building a third party to the left of the Democratic Party. This shouldn’t be controversial. It’s not opinion, it’s fact. Nader is not running as the candidate of the Green Party, the Peace and Freedom Party, or any other left party. He’s running as the candidate of Nader. There may be reasons to support Nader, but you shouldn’t support him on the assumption that you’ll be helping to build some left party or another.

By: miss representation

miss representation — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 03:27:40 +0000

williestyle: I thought the DLC already nominated Leiberman once. Granted, I might be overstating their influence, but they are doing a far sight better than us Naderistas. Oh, and I was being sarcastic. If the DLC ‘nominates’ Lieberman, I assume it means they will get him on the ticket. As a Dem. Like before.

Steve: you’re simply parsing the wrong elements (maybe I structured them wrong). Not supporting gay marriage can be seen as a repudiation of Civil Rights. Welfare Reform could be seen as a repudiation of both the New Deal and Great Society programs. So, yes, support of the ‘reform’ as introduced in 1996, I would argue, is in direct contradiction of those ideals of those programs (I live in an urban area, where the pernicious affects of ‘welfare to work’ have been well documented). Let us belabor the connecting the dots some more.

By: john c. halasz

john c. halasz — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 01:46:21 +0000

Towards the end of his life, Foucault made some choice comments about the spirit of party politics and the party-line, and he wasn’t just talking about commies. He was talking about the way its spirit of disciplined conformity inhibits independent critical thinking through self-censorship and thus precludes any possibility of such independent critical thinking from having any sort of direct political effect. One can see that sort of thing clearly manifested in “left” Democrats’ denunciation of Nader and the Greens, just as one can see it in the quandary of the U.K. Labor Party, saddled with the now preposterous Toney Blare. I voted for Nader- (though he’s not necessarily my favorite- I might have preferred the likes of Barry Commoner)- and did so precisely in the hopes of securing the establishment of the Green Party with 5% of the vote. Of course, I live in Vermont, so there were no direct risks, and I wanted to cast a vote for Anthony Pollina, who is a very good egg, over Howard Dean. But I placed my bet, took my chances and lost. I can live with that, since I have no other choice. But a vote for Nader was a vote against the corporate-dominated power structure, butressed by the corporate-dominated media, with which the Clintonoid Democrats were thoroughly and often shamelessly in collusion. And it was a vote for the establishment of some other framework and forum to articulate and disseminate in the public realm critically different positions and views on crucial issues, that are more or less systematically blocked out by the established power-structure and its M.O. Politics is not just about plebescitary elections. It is also about maintaining critical discourses and organized pressure on an ongoing basis with respect to policy actions and outcomes that crucially effect distributions of power, wealth and opportunity and the composition of social and environmental well-being. I don’t know that the Green Party is necessarily the best suited to establish such a left alternative perspective- they are too white and too collegiate to answer to some of my concerns. But that such an alternative is a task that desperately needs doing, even amidst and inspite of the currently dire situation, is something I do not doubt. (And I think a point that the original post was trying to make). Right now I would count myself among Billmon’s imaginary popular front. But those who are solely concerned with electoral calculus should perhaps reflect that half the electorate does not vote and the voting percentages correlate highly with income distribution and ask themselves why this is so and how long is it sustainable. Clearly, in addition to endowing themselves with think tank networks to provide their media with instant “expertise”, the right-wing corporate hegemony crucially relies on suppressing the turnout of voters and dividing it up with its carefully contrived “wedge” issues. I don’t doubt that Gore would have been less evil than Bush, especially after 9/11. (Though there’s no denying Gore ran a terrible campaign- remember those sighs during the televised debate? Unbelievable!- and that Bush ran a bit under the radar- “a uniter, not a divider” and “humble foreign policy”- and that his capacity for outright lying and opportunism exceeded one’s normally low expectations for politicians, though, I think, if it hadn’t been for 9/11, he would have tanked much sooner than now.) But the current dire situation is no reason or excuse to narrow the full spectrum of political discourse and debate for reasons of expediency. To the contrary, in the light of the gathering difficulties we will face and their hard options, such a broad spectrum of debate and criticism is exactly what is needed to counter “full spectrum dominance”.

By: Steve Carr

Steve Carr — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 23:25:04 +0000

I’m sorry—being in favor of welfare reform and against gay marriage makes you an enemy of the New Deal? And what does corporatism have to do with whether or not gays are allowed in the military?

By: WillieStyle

WillieStyle — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 23:18:02 +0000

I’m confused. Are you talking about the Senator from CT that was the VP candidate in 2000, and one of the earliest declared Dem candidates for 2004? I don’t remember McAffulie saying that was bad for America. Or is there another Joe Lieberman that I’m not aware of?

You're kidding right? Lieberman ran as a Democrat. When he bowed out of the race for the nomination, he stayed a Democrat. He isn't about to go off and run as a third party candidate simply because he didn't get his way. Why? Because he's a Democrat. Part of being a member of a political party is accepting compromise when the majority doesn't agree with you. Part of being an enemy of a political party is scheming to defeat it when it's majority doesn't agree with you.

By: miss representation

miss representation — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 23:12:36 +0000

I’m confused. Are you talking about the Senator from CT that was the VP candidate in 2000, and one of the earliest declared Dem candidates for 2004? I don’t remember McAffulie saying that was bad for America. Or is there another Joe Lieberman that I’m not aware of?

By: WillieStye

WillieStye — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 22:54:21 +0000

Nor do I agree with the formulation that the ‘Greenies are the enemy.’ Unless of course, you are willing to posit that the DLC is the enemy as well. Enemy of the traditions of the New Deal, Civil Rights, ERA and the Great Society.

The instant the DLC recruits Joe Lieberman to run against John Kerry, I will brand them ‘the enemy’ as well.

By: miss representation

miss representation — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 22:50:53 +0000

I voted for Nader in ‘00. I don’t consider myself a Green. Nor do I agree with the formulation that the ‘Greenies are the enemy.’ Unless of course, you are willing to posit that the DLC is the enemy as well. Enemy of the traditions of the New Deal, Civil Rights, ERA and the Great Society. It’s hard to find that in the thicket of corporatist lap-dogism as espoused by McAffulie & Co. (who brought us, if I recall correctly, Welfare ‘Reform’ and support of the Defense of Marriage Act, and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell).

By: Hugh

Hugh — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 22:42:19 +0000

Wow. Still obsessed about Nader. It looks as though the Democrats are going to blow it again. The 2000 election ought to have been a cake-walk for Gore. How much of the vote did Nader get? Two percent? How much will he get in 2004? One percent? How many registered Democrats stayed home or voted for Bush? Probably a lot more than that. Instead of obsessing over the tiny little band of Nader voters, why don’t the Democrats focus on why they did so poorly in 2000 and why they will probably lose in 2004? That would be a much more effective use of their time and energy. Successful people, after a setback, will sit down and honestly assess how they blew it and how they can keep from making the same mistake again. Temper tantrums and scapegoating are counterproductive.

By: W. Kiernan

W. Kiernan — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 22:37:27 +0000

Russell Arben Fox sez: ...If I'd voted the way I had and had lived in Florida at the time, would I now be wishing that I hadn't voted the way that I did? Absolutely. 1.) I live in Florida, 2.) I voted for Nader in 1996, 3.) I voted for Gore in 2000, and 4.) I'm voting Democratic (obviously - I don't hate America) in 2004. Yet for these past three years, in hindsight, I've almost wished I'd voted for Nader instead. Why? Do I admire G. W. Bush? Step aside, I'm going to spit. No, just to have casted a visible protest vote. The thing is that the 2000 election in Florida was a foregone conclusion. You see, our Governor, Exclamation Point Boy, is an outright crook. Just look at the sleazy-ass con men he's surrounded himself with, throughout his entire career. Indeed, Jeb! strikes me as even worse - slicker, cleverer, eviler - than that half-witted brother of his. Then we have our illustrious Congresswoman Katherine Harris, axing all those tens of thousands of blacks off the voters's rolls. I'll bet even now ol' Strom gazes up from Hell at her with a father's pride. Then ultimately we have the hit men of the Scalia/Rehnquist axis on the Supreme Court. What I'm trying to say is, I'm morally certain that the fix was in: even if every last Nader voter in Florida had bit the bullet and pulled for Al Gore in 2000, Duh-Byuh would still have won by his 500 votes. And despite the ceaseless midnight train of body bags from Iraq, the collapsed job market, the exploding Federal deficit, the stupid lies and the transparent lies and the contemptuous lies, despite all that, no matter how large the majority Kerry or whoever gets in terms of actual votes cast, I guarantee you Duh-Byuh will carry Florida again in 2004. And in related news, I hear Fidel Castro is projected to win over ninety-eight percent of the vote in the next Cuban election. Must be the tropical weather.

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 21:47:55 +0000

“But, as someone who is not a Democrat, and thinks that building a third party to the left of the Democrats is, in the long term, essential to the development of a real social democratic voice in the US, I fear that a Nader run, even if it helps the Democrats, will set back the third party cause. ” Another point of view would be that the history of the Socialist Party USA shows that an independent social-democratic party in the US is not viable. Further, looking at the history of the UK Labour Party and comparing it to that of the Scandanavian Labour/Social Democrats, you could argue that dominance of social democratic ideas is best served where the split between social democrats and liberals was avoided or came later in history. (Universal sufferage came late to Scandanavia, so there was a longer alliance between social democrats and liberals.) Based on this, one would suggest that social democrats would be best strengthening their organization within the coalition that is the Democratic Party, rather than dicking around with third-party fantasies.

By: Jon

Jon — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 21:26:29 +0000

The stakes in 2004 are simply too great for Nader’s act of unbelievable self-absorption. There are times in history when the left-of-center and more-left-of-center must ally in order to stop imminent danger from the right. This is one of those times. In essence, a vote for Nader is a vote for the Bush platform. For more, see “Unsafe at Any Speed: The 2004 Nader Platform” http://www.perrspectives.com/articles/art_nader01.htm