For anyone who STILL has remnants of illusions about Ralph Nader

[lapsedmodernist]

Ralph Nader, Suicide Bomber

"Later I was introduced to Nader's closest adviser, his handsome, piercingly intelligent 30-year-old nephew, Tarek Milleron. Although Milleron argued that environmentalists and other activists would find fundraising easier under Bush, he acknowledged that a Bush presidency would be worse for poor and working-class people, for blacks, for most Americans. As Moore had, he claimed that Nader's campaign would encourage Web-based vote-swapping between progressives in safe and contested states. But when I suggested that Nader could gain substantial influence in a Democratic administration by focusing his campaign on the 40 safe states and encouraging his supporters elsewhere to vote Gore, Milleron leaned coolly toward me with extra steel in his voice and body. He did not disagree. He simply said, "We're not going to do that."

"Why not?" I said.

With just a flicker of smile, he answered, "Because we want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them."

There was a long silence and the conversation was over. "

Milleron's words are so remarkable they bear repeating: Ralph Nader ran so he could hurt, wound, and punish the Democrats. His primary goal was not raising issues, much less building the Green Party. He actively wanted Gore to lose. Where did this passion to punish come from?

***

Nader's swing-state strategy was the crux of his anti-Gore game plan. If Nader had been truly committed to getting the Greens their 5 percent, he would have taken the safe-state route mapped out by many party advisers. In Stupid White Men, Michael Moore says he rejected Nader's invitation to join him in the battleground states as the election neared. Instead, Moore chose to work only "in those states where Ralph could get a lot of votes without being responsible for Bush winning the election." Places like New York, California, Massachusetts, and such liberal enclaves as Bush's own Austin, Texas, as Chait puts it, "offered the richest harvest of potential votes." This is what Reform Party candidate Patrick Buchanan did. Nader took precisely the opposite tack. He spent the last days of the campaign in swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and, especially, Florida, which according to Sellers he visited five times all told. Pennsylvania and Michigan went Democratic, but Nader forced Gore to expend time and resources on states he should have had in his pocket. And in Florida, though Nader's poll numbers dipped from 6 percent to 4 to his final 1.6, HIS 97,488 VOTERS TIPPED THE ELECTION.


And for all of you insisting that Nader didn't throw the 2000 election, I suggest revisiting an Algebra I textbook. For all of you who still believe Nader's "tweedledee and tweedledumb" self-serving assessment of the two-parties, I hope you are prepared to enjoy PNAC's New Wars: The Sequel(s). Do you really think we would have invaded Iraq if Gore had been confirmed as President? You can wank all you want about the undifferentiated evil of the Big Capitalist Machine and how real change is impossible without a major structural overhaul, but I'm guessing that means jack-shit to all the Iraqi civilians murdered by the US bombing campaigns, or tortured to death while in US captivity.

Comments

[warpsmith.livejournal.com]

Well, you know who I'm endorsing.

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

Yes! Judge Roy Moore for Republican Nominee! Woot!

[warpsmith.livejournal.com]

No, The Constitution Party (http://www.constitutionparty.com), the third party of choice for the fundamentalist, Christian Reconstructionist conservative nutjob!

In other words, at least a third of Bush's voter base.

[tomorrow-devil.livejournal.com]

We need massive structural change, but now is not the time. That's it, right? I agree that the Dems are due for a whipping, and I do support Darth Nader. But I won't be voting for him here in CA.

The Bay's lib-, er, progressives are just as lame as VA's conservatives. The Bay folks seem willing to endure another four years of a White House that absolutely despises many of their lifestyles, for no other reason than their dedication to one of the local fav parties. Chewing-regurgitating-chewing their political cud. Digestion won't even happen until Bush gets re-elected and starts bombing the petrobucks out of Venezuela. My friend in Texas - and we know what's going to happen in Texas - wanted to vote for Nader there, but it looks like our boy can't even get on the ballot in Bush country.

My Texan read your journal and asked that I point out that, cults of personality and all aside, Nader's platform is the best.

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

We need massive structural change, but now is not the time. That's it, right?

That's it.

As for Nader's program being the best, I can't agree. On certain points unique to him I am definitely with him, mostly having to do with energy alternatives and firing Alan Greenspan. On some good points he is not alone: single-payer universal health care, and the environment--I have no doubt that we would have had all sorts of wonderful environmental initiatives had Gore been confirmed president. As far as I can tell, though, Nader has NO plan WHATSOVER for foreign policy, other than withdrawing from the WTO, rather than radically reforming it is a terrible idea for both the US and the global economy. Basically, certain aspects of his platform are appealing, although most of them are not unique to him; I don't think he would not be capable of running the country and personally I find it hard to separate his platform from his character, which is rotten to the core. Hell, some aspects of the Bush platform would sound good if you took them at face value, without reading the small print down by the 666 footnote. Nader is corrupt, and considering that he is a one-man operation (with lots of exploited worker ants to do the menial labor) I have a hard time separating his platform from him; he does not represent the values of some larger movement, he is the movement. The best thing he had going for him was his critique of the two-party system, but he took that from a constructive message to something vengeful and vile and did his part in completely screwing this country and the world to prove a point that turned out completely wrong anyway--the tweedle-dee and tweedle-dumb myth. He is an opportunistic narcissist with nothing unique or ethical about him, who once upon a time launched some progressive messages because it suited him at the time.

[hadaly.livejournal.com]

I have never been a Nader supporter, but I think to say that he threw the 2000 election is a bit of a simplification. For one thing, in four states that Gore won, Buchanan got more votes Gore's winning margin. If any one of those states had gone to Bush, Florida would have been irrelevant. Furthermore, if the states' electoral college representatives practiced a more equitable method of granting votes, splitting them proportionally to ballot votes (as 2 states already do), the electoral college figures would better represent the popular vote. Finally, I think it is wrong to assume that every Nader would otherwise have been a Gore voter.

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

"[Nader] spent the last days of the campaign in swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and, especially, Florida, which according to Sellers he visited five times all told. Pennsylvania and Michigan went Democratic, but Nader forced Gore to expend time and resources on states he should have had in his pocket. And in Florida, though Nader's poll numbers dipped from 6 percent to 4 to his final 1.6, his 97,488 voters tipped the election."

While you are right, it's impossible to know that every vote cast for Nader would have gone to Gore, since statistically the support for Nader or any Green Party candidate usually comes from the left, I think it's safe to say that many of those 97,488 votes would have gone to Gore. Sure, some probably wouldn't have voted at all, and maybe, just maybe some would have voted for Buchanan, but considering how small the actual margin ended up being (with corruption and all the other factors that doomed Gore), I think if Nader was not a factor, Florida would have gone to Gore. This is, of course, a presumption, but a statistically substantiated one.
I am not saying Nader alone ruined the election. But I am not talking about Buchanan and what if Bush had won those states. I'm talking about Nader's specific part, apparently intentional and malicious in spoiling Florida. Hell, I'm sure he'd happily admit that he threw the 2000 election, why shouldn't we?

[(Anonymous)]

has nader gotten on the ballot anywhere yet? any news on what the status is?

-mjm

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

I think the ballots aren't due for a while (if memory serves, from the whole belated RNC contraversy, in a lot of states it's the last day of August), so no one is actually on any ballots yet, but he knows he can get onto ballots in some places, like Oregon and Colorado, and he is in a lawsuit in Texas not because they didn't let him on the ballot, but because the demands for 3rd party candidates are different than the ones for independent candidates (which he is running as this year since the Greens aren't running him, thank God). Basically Texan law requires that independent candidates get more signatures in less time than Third Party candidates and Nader is trying to get that ruled unconstitutional.

[mendaciloquent.livejournal.com]

Well, I've heard this argument before and I even believed it for a while, but I don't really think it has much of a shelf-life in principle -- that is, that people should be chastised for voting for Nader in the 2000 election. The part about Nader being a jackass seems pretty self-evident. But Gore wasn't entitled to anyone's votes and he never "had" any of the states Nader went to attack him in. Democratic elections don't work that way. Let Nader run. Let people vote for him. I personally think it's a stupid waste of time -- probably worse than a waste of time -- to vote for him, but at the same time I don't think anyone should feel like they owe John Kerry anything, much less their vote. That being said, there are plenty of good reasons for voting for Kerry -- not the least of which would be avoiding new wars and a new draft. But if Kerry's campaign decides to ignore the issues, it's his election to lose, and I honestly don't see where it became the job of the voter to coddle the DNC and hope for the best while ignoring better candidates.

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

Okay, first of all, I am with you in being completely despaired over Kerry's incapacity to incite anything or build up any public presence or momentum. The stakes are higher in this election that ever before, and we're shit out of luck with the candidate. Having said that, I maintain that this is a state of emergency, it's an exception; people do owe Kerry their vote because we all owe it to ourselves and each other to get Bush the hell out of office. It's not a question of bad/Republican vs. better/Democrat, it's a question of apocalyptically insane versus not. See, I actually, really believe, without metaphor or hyperbole that the next four years of Bush might bring about the end of the world, or at least a nuclear blast or two. So for me voting for Kerry, who makes me despair with his wooden demeanor when he should be on fire, and demanding that everyone sucks it up and votes for him and hopes that Diebold machines won't make it into every county is a question of actual survival. It is the job of the voter this time around, not if we want our kids to grow up in a better world, but if we simply want our kids to grow up, period.

The other problem is, I think a lot of Nader voters are asses in the same way he is, delighting in "punishing" the hapless democrats by purposefully refusing to vote-swap and voting for him in borderline states. To me that's like some self-righteous prick deciding to prove, PSA-style that driving drunk is bad, and handing drunk people car keys. Driving drunk is bad, but it doesn't mean those people deserve to die, and I certainly object to the scenario if I am along for the ride in the car, whether I want to be there or not. It's kind of an over-the-top metaphor, but desperate times call for desperate metaphors...

[mendaciloquent.livejournal.com]

Okay, well, I agree with you in your basic assessment of Bush and I don't think a cataclysmic outcome is all that improbable with him in office. I believe pretty firmly that he and the men closest to him are -- very literally -- insane. This is mainly why I'm content to support Kerry, although it's important for me to add that this is partially for circumstantial reasons, too, because I'm not sure if going with Kerry is necessarily the best way to avoid catastrophe. Here I'm considering two points:

1) More radical and direct forms of opposition are more and not less likely to succeed in crisis situations, generally speaking. We naturally think here of Vietnam and the very small minority of vocal people who helped to turn the political perception of the war around. Crises provide (or rather, force) opportunities for societies to confront their problems in very direct and visible ways. No one cares about safeguarding the legal system or having presidential accountability when the prez is a nice guy and the national crisis du jour is violent videogames and school shootings. The only time to confront these issues directly and radically is when a sufficiently large portion of the population becomes conscious of the fact that they will have to live with the consequences. I'm not sure if that's a moment of awareness that we can afford to spend wholeheartedly on John fucking Kerry. Vote for the guy, sure, I know I will, but he isn't the answer.

2) Moderation in the face of crisis is one of the basic operating principles which allows fascism to flourish. Control is not restored but is eroded when that part of the population which knows better is willing to settle for half-measures in the face of something dangerous, namely because the crisis might not end. A permanent state of emergency not only seems possible but likely, in which case retarding the goals of the current quasi-theocracy will become increasingly difficult to do, especially if those who see the dangers of the current agenda for what it is decide that it's better to take the path of least resistance.

But, back to Ralph Nader. I'm not disagreeing with you that a vote for Ralph Nader is a vote that's wasted. We do have to deal with the two-party system. And people who vote for Nader because they want to reject that system are idiots. But my original point is that although getting Bush out of office is crucial, there is and needs to be a larger body of political activity to consider, and if people look at Ralph Nader's platform and genuinely think he's a better candidate, then it is their right to vote for him and it's sort of pointless to criticize people for doing that (even though we might criticize their reasons for doing it). Ultimately Ralph Nader is a byproduct of pollsters and DNC analysts who've decided that if you wriggle to the right enough times, you'll eventually get an "electable" candidate. That's their mistake, not the mistake of the voters.

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

More radical and direct forms of opposition are more and not less likely to succeed in crisis situations, generally speaking.
Moderation in the face of crisis is one of the basic operating principles which allows fascism to flourish. Control is not restored but is eroded when that part of the population which knows better is willing to settle for half-measures in the face of something dangerous, namely because the crisis might not end.

I guess it boils down to a difference of opinions. I don't think the statement above is necessarily true, and both you and I could find historical examples that substantiated our points of view, and, of course, any grand narrative of history is selective and biased.

I don't think that this country is capable of massive reform this instant. I don't think any attempts to incite the American public to awareness will succeed on any mass scale beyond a feeling that will lead them to vote for Kerry, rather than Bush. I think anything else will make them think that they are forced to choose between Crazy Anarchists and Tough Bush, and they will choose the latter. Which is why I am pissed off when sectarian lefties do stupid shit that gives populist press material for demonization of the Left en masse (like the Columbia U anthropology professor who called for "a thousand Mogadishus in Iraq).
I think that this is not the year to gamble on massive reform. I don't think it's likely and it's insane to take that route on principle. We have less than 7 months before the election. American politics aren't going to get reformed in those 7 months. Focusing on getting Kerry elected isn't "the path of least resistance"--it's a realistic approach in face of a timeline that ticks like a timebomb. As for your other point, I think BushCo got us into such a mess that no matter who the president is, we, as society will be forced to confront our problems in direct and visible ways for many years to come. However, all attempts at critique and reform will have that much more chance of succeeding with Bush out of the office, because critique will be worth shit once everyone in the world is literally dead.