Saturday, March 1, 2008

NADER AND THE DEMOCRATIC LIBERALS

SAM SMITH - The rampant hostility towards Ralph Nader among liberal Democrats raises some uncomfortable questions about that wing of the party. Here's a guy who - unlike any recent Democratic presidential candidate - represents everything a liberal Democrat used to stand for and he is treated as an egotistical pariah.

In fact, his ego is no worse than that of a favored Democratic candidate who believes he deserves to be president despite have done virtually nothing to prove the point.

There are, to be sure, good reasons not to go with Nader but they are tactical in nature and therefore vacant of moral content. Foremost, there is the argument - to which I subscribe - that ending the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush era is more likely to prove beneficial than Nader getting five percent of the vote. But having said that, I also understand those who argue, "I simply can't go and vote for someone who will deny a decent healthcare program and seems indifferent to the collapse of constitutional government and to the ecological crisis."

I do not regard such people as fools, ego-driven or cultish. And I certainly don't think they owe one penny to a Democratic Party that has for decades increasingly betrayed its own heritage. I think of them as good, well-motivated and honest people who are less cynically pragmatic than myself.

It would be nice if liberal Democrats who like to talk so much about choice, freedom and diversity would be more accepting of it in their own politics.

But of even more concern is the fact that to despise Nader you have to dislike what he stands for. Instead of it merely being a choice of tactics, between passing or running, there is something deeper. It would be difficult, for example, to be strongly in favor of single payer and not at least feel some sympathy for Nader. It would be difficult to believe strongly in a democratic system of government and trash Nader's right to run. It would be difficult to recognize all the issues the leading Democrats have ignored and not accept the possibility that there may be some who choose something different.

The hostility towards Nader has echoes of the liberal hostility towards Edwards, a partly class driven antipathy over deeper economic and social issues from which many better educated and better off liberals seem to feel immune.

The irony is that it is the Democrats' refusal to deal directly with many of these issues that opens up the space which the GOP fills with such crowd-pleasing vote getters as gay marriage, abortion and Obama's middle name.

There are good reasons for voting Democratic this year, but they are rooted in the inequities of our political system, pragmatic considerations and the fact that you can't do much with only one or two percent of the voters. These are not, however, moral reasons. So don't brag about them and don't blame Ralph Nader for what happens as a result. Give your vote to someone else but at least show Ralph a little respect. And hope for the day you can vote for someone as good as Nader who can actually win.

7 Comments:

At March 2, 2008 12:18 PM, Blogger Grant said...

I'm not going to vote for Nader because I feel he is now too old. I voted for him in 2000, stayed Green in 2004, but Nader did not.

For 2008, I will most likely vote either Green or some other third party. I vote for the Dems locally, but nationally... let's just say I would have a lot more respect for the Dems if they actually did more than give lip service to the notions of Democracy.

If nothing else, one must admire the single-minded ruthlessness of the GOP. They are cold blooded and brag about it. The Dems can't bring themselves to sign a stern letter of protest to the War Criminals and pirates currently running this country. We could use some left-wing fire and brimstone, but instead we get elevator muzak and puppet shows.

The current front sell-out isn't any better or worse than other sell-out. I see no sense in voting for a sell-out.

One still must give Nader his dues. If he can push, even slightly, some progressive issues into what passes for election coverage, then he's done the country another service. Run, Ralph, run!

 
At March 2, 2008 3:09 PM, Anonymous shit or go blind? said...

I don't see any chance of McKinney winning though she would make a great prez. I was appalled in '04 when Zinn And Choamsky advocated voting for Kerry as the lesser evil. I don't believe a fucking word Obama says, and I don't think he does either. However, if McCain becomes prez (remember Nixon stumbling around drunk in the Whitehouse threatening to nuke Russia?) the planet will be incinerated within thirty days.

 
At March 2, 2008 5:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Very much appreciate the words on Nader, Sam. Was one of his voters in 2000 - and no I did not lose the election for the Dems in that year. Everyone who voted for Bush lost the election for the Dems -with the Court's help of course.

I think I shall die before America moves left enough for me. Perhaps Ralph can get the two candidates to talk honestly on issues other than their small differences in healthcare plans. In fact, while I may not vote for him this year, per the sentiments in your story, I will still send him a check.

 
At March 2, 2008 6:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Right on!

 
At March 2, 2008 10:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Too bad the Dems don't fight Bush and the Republican gang of criminals with the same consistency and vehemence they show toward Nader.
If they did, a Nader run wouuldn't be necessary.

 
At March 3, 2008 7:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That would seem to be true, 7:35, but the Democrats ARE the OTHER Republican Party. Why would they fight themselves?

 
At March 11, 2008 11:56 PM, Blogger robert beal said...

Regarding Nader 2000, 2004, and 2008, many liberals will recognize themselves in the Merriam-Webster definitions below:

groupthink a pattern of thought characterized by self-deception, forced manufacture of consent, and conformity to group values and ethics

scapegoat to assign someone to bear the blame for others; to make someone the object of irrational hostility

bigot [from French, hypocrite] a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance

denial a psychological defense mechanism in which confrontation with a personal problem or with reality is avoided by denying the existence of the problem or reality


Think about it: the ACLU in lockstep with the corporate-statist (K Street) "wing" of the Democratic Party working with state party chairs and executives and Democratic Secretaries of State to deny ballot access to an independent party that is based on the platform of confronting the culture of cronyism, corruption, and crime.

Remember, George H. Bush is a two-term president only because the New Democrats lacked (still lack and always will lack) vision, message, organizing ability, and spine. One need only follow the money to know who and what they are.

And the 1996 Democratic congressional majority including most of the "populist" freshmen: same lack of character, same money trail.

To whom do you think the current candidates are beholden? Check out their (Wall Street) economic advisors.

Liberals' vilification of Nader and their continuing simplistic anybody-but-Bush mindset has overshadowed the dark days of working people voting for George Bush.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home