Nader and the Dems

Not to pile on, but Bradley, “a potentially strong candidate on offer”? As unsatisfactory a nominee as Gore was, Bradley would have been worse.

The vituperation – just so. I have fond memories of the vituperation that got heaped on me in 2000. I always wonder…well, a lot of things about this. Such as why one didn’t see the same kind of reaction from Republicans to Perot. And why pundits always talk with approbation about ‘multi-party democracy’ when they’re saying what places like Iraq and Ivory Coast ought to be doing – but scream like banshees at the idea of multi-party anything here. You’d think there was a law mandating two parties and no more.

I have long argued that our political process is outdated – and I still think that. But this is not the year and the time for making that correction. However, assuming the Democratic victory, this is an objective for the future. Our two-party system is failing and I think it is clear that we have come a long way from the democratic principles that were to be the underpinnings of this country. We have grown in ways that weren’t anticipated (that is the nature of growth) and it is extremely important that this be addressed. Instead of a democracy “of the people, by the people, for the people” we have a grab for power which of its nature alienates “the people” and concentrates on buddy systems, “special interests,” and cronyism. If we believe in a democracy, we the people need to take it back. I am passionate about political reform and the current administration makes it more than abundantly clear that it is essential to the future of our country. But it can wait till after the election. Our politicians need to give up the greed and fear, and return to the lofty principles that the founding fathers expressed. This is idealistic, I know, human nature being what it is, but we will lose the special quality of being an American that we have taken for granted all our lives if we don’t act quickly. Even then, this will be a very difficult process. Change always is – and we need radical change to counter the corruption that likens us to other despotic regimes and autonomous dictators. I fear for our nation!

Im with you on the third party thing. I would love to see a third party emerge, particularly since I see little difference between the dems and the reps these days. I differ in the fact that I would like to see the third party be more libertarian and economically conservative than the republican party, but Im definately all about the third party thing. Your logical process on how to build one and the traps that are easy to fall into seems quite sound.

“You’d think there was a law mandating two parties and no more.”

Effectively, there is. Winner-take-all elections reward broad-based, quasi-coalition parties and penalize parties that emphasize ideological consistency (“purity,” if you will) at the expense of broad electoral appeal.

Short of adopting proportional representation, stronger left alternative parties will weaken the liberal-left cause. (Stronger right-wing alternative parties would weaken the right-wing cause as well, which is why I hope that Roy Moore runs for president this year.)

I would prefer to have proportional representation, but it is simply not an option for the 2004 election. Given the choice that ACTUALLY EXISTS, I refuse to vote in a way that will make it more likely that Bush will be in office for four more years, or of pretending that my good intentions trump the real-world results of my actions.

That should be “or to pretend.”

Incidentally: “Well – tell that to Lincoln, that’s all I can say.” A nice example of an argument that establishes the opposite of what was intended (very perlocutionary, in fact). The Republican party arose in large part because the Whig party had collapsed. If the Democrats have a similar collapse in the next few years, then the coast will be clear for a progressive “third” party — and not otherwise.

Also, in the 1860 election, Lincoln benefited greatly from the division of his opponents into several different factions, each with their own popular presidential candidate. Does this suggest anything?

Well, arguably the Democratic party has collapsed. The huge rate of non-voting could be a hint.

I sympathize with your reluctance Harry, and also your unrepentant feelings. Timothy Burke’s mighty sigh about the unsalvageable nature of Nader-voters yesterday prompted me to think again about my Nader votes (in 1996 and 2000). I put down my thoughts here: http://philosophenweg.blogspot.com/2004_02_01_philosophenweg_archive.html#107757866273564627

Wasn’t the problem that Nader refused to transfer his votes to Gore by endorsing him (at the last minute)?
Of course, in the winner-takes-all system, a 3rd party candidate cannot get elected… but he can be a power broker, and push the Democrats to the left on some issues. But Nader refused to do this, and I think that’s why people are mad at him.

Of course, its a matter of judgment, and I understand that Democrats can be very pissed off about this, but I must, like Ophelia, take issue with the tone of some of this. I’m not a Democrat. The Democrats have to compete for my support, as do the Republicans, etc. They chose not to in 2000, or in 1996, and they are choosing not to now. That’s fine — but then to blame me for them losing is a bit rich. Anyway, I take it as further evidence of my fracture thesis.

The prospects for a 3rd party are, of course, not promising. But federal funding would have made a real difference to the effectiveness of the Greens in places like New Mexico and California where they are capable in my view of making breakthroughs in the right circumstances. No-one sensible thinks this can be done by winning a 3rd party presidential race. The issue is whether such a race can contribute to lower level success. In 2000 it might have. Not in 1996 (when Nader ran very unenthusiastically) and not in 2004.

BTW, the winner-take-all system is *not* the main barrier to building a 3rd party. Britain has a vibrant 3rd party and 4th 5th and 6th parties, all with representation, despite having winner-take-all. It has much more to do with ballot-access laws (incredibly restrictive in many states) and district size — huge districts make it hard to develop the local base needed for a realistic third party run. And, of course, if a left third party really got moving the Dems would have to compete with it (as Ophelia says), but this would be a good thing.

Finally, I think the Dems shouldn’t discount the real possibility that Nader will help them. It all depends on whether he can find vulnerabilities in Bush that Kerry is to risk -averse to look for. In fact, my guess is that’s Kerry’s only chance, because I am deeply pessimistic about his prospects as things stand.

bq. Second, it is precisely because unpredictable things like September 11 can happen that risking a Bush presidency made no strategic sense.

Easy to say this after the fact. I don’t remember anyone using this argument in 2000. I admit I’d have discounted it if they had done, but, really, I didn’t encounter anyone with that sort of foresight.

Take that out of the equation and I stand by my basic judgment.

bq. Yes, we would have seen that deluge of, what, the 5 or 10 percent of American voters whose politics are to the left of the Democrats? That was really worth getting George W. elected.

Of course not. But getting Dem control of congress in 2002 and a highly likely Dem victory in 2004? Maybe? Even given 9/11 I think the Dems could have taken the House if they weren’t such a shower. Naderites didn’t make them that.

I should say, too, that I think Gore would have been as bad a President as he was a candidate, so I just don’t buy the ‘Bush is so much worse than Gore would have been’ line.

“Gore’s program was not that different from Bush’s”

I always thought that people who made this claim were simply not paying attention so I am very disappointed to read it here. The massive tax cuts, elimination of EPA programs and support for social conservative causes were not at all surprises.

Harry writes:

The Democrats have to compete for my support, as do the Republicans, etc. They chose not to in 2000, or in 1996, and they are choosing not to now. That’s fine — but then to blame me for them losing is a bit rich.

Hey, pal, look around you. The Democrats are your neighbors, as are the Republicans. Don’t you dare lecture me on what I am obligated to do for you and then criticize me because you don’t like my tone.

“…so I just don’t buy the ‘Bush is so much worse than Gore would have been’ line.“—Harry

and

“Gore’s program was not that different from Bush’s“—Harry

“I always thought that people who made this claim were simply not paying attention so I am very disappointed to read it here.“—zaoem

Me, too.

This has been a radical presidency, and history will view it as such. It’s incredible to me that there’s anyone on the left that hasn’t clued in to this yet.

In terms of policy, this administration is much, much worse than either Nixon’s or Reagan’s. Foreign policy, national security, fiscal policy, social policy, judicial appointments, civil liberties…in each area this administration has been at best, incompetent, and, at worst, disastrous or malevolent.

And I think that Nader and his followers quite rightly should answer to their portion of the responsibility for this. There’s nothing quite so infuriating as a well-meaning fool who gives aid to one’s enemies and then says, “Don’t blame me!”

Now I haven’t thought this through deeply, but it seems to me that small third and fourth parties typically have to form coalitions to get anything done. Doesn’t the US system have a close analog to that in the kind of horse-trading/pandering that goes on in both parties in the primaries? It isn’t like we avoid electing wing-nuts to Congress. There are a couple of far-left Democrats who might be in a third party under another system and a few far-right Republicans who might be in a fourth party under another system.

Just as in a system with more parties, you have to pay attention to the wing-nuts when you have a tight balance of power, and you can tell them to screw themselves when you have a broader majority.

Is the difference really so enormous?

bq. Any time an election is really close, there are numerous factors one can identify that would have shift the balance. Several strategic errors the Democrats made fall into this category, as does Nader’s run. To say that the former are responsible in a way that the latter isn’t just doesn’t make any sense. Given the closeness, they’re both responsible—as is the Supreme court, crappily designed ballots, the failure to promise some choice pork to New Hampshirians, etc.

I have to be real quick bu t wanted to acknowledge that, yes, this is absolutely right, and I completely overstated in the post. Lots of causal factors, including, of course, all the people who voted for BUSH!
So when people blame Nader voters they should hold back a bit, and assign the blame among the many factors, many of which Dem leaders and strategists were responsible for.

bq. if you really thought that Bush was not that different than Gore because he was running as a moderate, you were being willfully naive, or you don’t understand American politics.

Again, maybe a slight overstatement. I thought (as did many people, including many Democrats) that Bush would be kept ona tighter leash than he was. And, I still think that post-2002 he would have been had the Dems won both houses as they would have done absent 9/11.

Predicting 9/11 aside, no-one has given me a reason to believe that I was being unreasonable in 2000 to think that the expected all-things-considered effects of a Nader vote were positive. AS I say, it didn’t turn out like that. Also, I completely understood and respected the fact that others on the left made different judgments and voted for Gore. I argued with those of them who were willing to engage, but without fervour or vituperation because it seemed to me a matter on which reasonable leftists could disagree (like the Afghan war and even the Iraq war, in fact). So, what I’m saying is that it was a matter of judgement.

Actually it doesn’t require a constitutional amendment to implement proportional representation *for presidential electors*. How electors are apportioned is left to the states, and two – Nebraska and Maine – already do it proportionally. It would, however, require an amendment to use PR for the legislature.

I dont understand the attitude of voting against someone instead of for someone. That sort of thinking tends to land you out of the frying pan and into the fire. If you beleived Nater would have been a better president than Gore or Bush, then be proud you voted for him. I am probably not going to vote for Bush, but I am certainly not going to vote Dem just to “vote against Bush”. Of course, Im not even remotely left wing, so Im a little out of place in this argument, but I think the whole idea of voting against someone is part of what got us where we are. We are willing to vote for a bad leader as long as he is not as bad as the one we jsut had. Its sort of like thinking the devil you dont know is better than the devil you do, and thats a bit against the conventional wisdom.

The Nader voters didnt put Bush in office, they voted for something they believe in. I have a lot more respect for that than in political strategy. The ends do not jsutify the means. Putting a lousy person in place so that you cna later build on that jsut doesnt make sense to me.

I will refrain from commenting on whether Bush or Gore would have been better, or the same, or whatever, that discussion should go on a different thread.

So when people blame Nader voters they should hold back a bit, and assign the blame among the many factors, many of which Dem leaders and strategists were responsible for.
Agreed. I especially think the strategic Democratic people should be ashamed of themselves for letting right-wing propaganda get to them about Clinton–leading to the less than useless Leiberman choice and the bizarre absence of our generations greatest campaigner (and popular two term president) from the campaign trail late in the game. However, we shouldn’t use that as an excuse to forget that Nader’s candidacy (not his individual voters, or course) was entirely sufficient to create a Bush II presidency where there wouldn’t have otherwise been one.

As to the predictability of Bush II’s radicalism, you’re correct that I shouldn’t overemphasize this, as I have been constantly amazed by just how bad this administration is on so many fronts. But much of it was knowable in advance (and 9/11 made it worse, of course). The choice of Cheney should have been a pretty clear warning sign–a complete dismissal of any need to appeal to moderates with anything more substantive than rhetoric, another indication that the extractive energy industries are likely to have a free reign of policy, etc.

As to the Dems taking back the house and senate in 02 w/o 9/11, I’m inclined to agree that such an outcome would be likely, but it can hardly be assumed. 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. Outcomes like this simply can’t be taken for granted–there are too many contingencies, many much less in scale than 9/11, that can change the balance, espcially given the small number of actaully contested seats in any given year. On Sept. 10th, I think I would have placed the odds of retaking congress above 50%, but certainly not above 70%.

And if any of the above commentors has any particular reasons for viewing Gore as singularly bad compared to the universe of Moderate southern Democrats (like, say, John Edwards), I’d still like to hear them. I heard it from Ceci Connolly, Margaret Carlson, and Chris Matthews, but let’s just say their claims don’t really hold up to scrutiny.

I have always found the moaning and gnashing of teeth amongst Democrats when Greenies are mentioned quite annoying. It stems from the idea that the vote of anyone to the left of John McCain is the guaranteed birth right of the Democratic party. It isn’t.

Democrats have to face simple reality. Green partisans aren’t wayward Dems who don’t know any better. They are political rivals. In 2000, they chose to vote for someone else in what was predicted (rightly) to be the closest election in history. And they did this why? To “transform [The Green Party], as most of the non-Democratic Party left would have flooded in, and so would, at local and regional levels, some of the Dem left.”

Even in 2004, Greens who vote Democratic are only doing so for narrow tactical reasons. It would be the height of stupidity to think that all is forgiven and we are one big happy family. Even if we win this year, Greens would be back in 2004 running a candidate against John Edwards.

So what to do? Treat them like what they are: the only party in America that can defeat the Democrats while winning less than 5% of the vote; in short, our most dangerous enemy. Sure, smile and spew kind words about “solidarity” for now. But at the same time, sure up a large enough part of the centre and work to undermine the Greens any way you can. “Caucusing” with a group that will threaten to elect a Republican every time it doesn’t get its way is not a sane path to power. So keep Greens close ’till the day you no longer need them. Work feverently to make that day come. And when it does, destroy them. It’s the only way.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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”.

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.

bq. 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.