The Dems, as a group, hate Nader. He was a convenient whipping boy for the failure of the atrocious campaign they waged in 2004. The loss couldn't possibly have anything to do with their lack -- it had to be the .3% of the votes that Nader "took" from them. Yeah -- right. Despite voter fraud and massive duplicitous politics, the Dems should have stomped in 2004, and they didn't -- because they didn't stand up for the majority of Americans, plain and simple.
I used to agree with the Demublicrats that Nader was bent and needed to shut up -- I bought the hype about him being an psychotic egomaniac who wouldn't face reality. But when I watched how universal the story was, and how content the two-party folks were with it -- and I began to question. I figure that whatever the Demublicrats agree on, publicly and vocally, bears close examination.
I forced myself to watch An Unreasonable Man, the Nader documentary. This not only reminded me of the inhuman amounts of change he has singlehandedly championed in the United States (which would not excuse him whatsoever from his sins should he be an intentional "spoiler" in the 2204 election), but gave me a peek into the guy's head. That peek gave me a new perspective on his former and future presidential "aspirations."
He's proven himself to be a bull-headed idealist who relentlessly fights for the little guy, and against the congregation of power in the hands of the few. He's a true democrat, and actually, truly believes in freedom -- not just giving it lip service like all of our current Demublicrat politicians.
So why is he running? I won't speak for him -- I'll just present my view. To my mind, he fits in the place that Kucinich and Ron Paul filled during the primaries -- someone pushing the real world on the candidates. Someone forcing the real issues into the limelight as much as possible. I'm positive this affects the national "conversation," which in truth is just what the Demublicrats and the Media have co-engineered it to be. They set the parameters, and they set the "no fly zones." Many (most?) of the "no touchie" subjects are the foundation of the Nader platform.
Here is Nader's platform in his own words:
Adopt single payer national health insurance
Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget
No to nuclear power, solar energy first
Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime
and corporate welfare
Open up the Presidential debates
Adopt a carbon pollution tax
Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East
Impeach Bush/Cheney
Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law
Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax
Put an end to ballot access obstructionism
Work to end corporate personhood
Is he going to be elected president? HELL no he isn't. Is he going to contribute to the conversation and possibly reduce or put a dent in the incredibly well-orchestrated spin during the election cycle? Hell yes he is. I see this as a vital function, and well worth a fund-raising effort. His presence forces the issue of two-party politics, and makes clear that they protect their own and have more similarities than differences.
And, I completely agree with him on this point as well:
"If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up."
If you have strong feelings against Nader, I ask you to respond with specifics and not just emotion -- because once I looked at the facts (an interesting study presented in the documentary comes to mind concerning his campaign efforts and what they mean), my emotions changed about him and his intentions. I know most folks are pissed at him, but currently I see that as evidence that the two-party cabal has protected itself effectively. I'm completely open to folks presenting evidence that he intends to be a spoiler candidate, I invite it.
Enjoy someone willing to go up against the powers that be, despite the hell it's created for him,
Bp
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
I voted for him. not ashamed to admit it. Although many people frown on me when I say that out loud. Yes I am a fan. I would say it on a billboard 5 feet wide and luminous. ;)
If he's the spoiler for the 2204 election he is WAY cooler than any of you are giving him credit for, ya bastards!
Enjoy your passionate husbands unintentional typos,
The Wife
I also voted for him in 2000, granted I wouldn't have if I lived anywhere it was going to be close (thanks electoral college for my meaningless vote)
In 2000 I supported him as a green party candidate with the hope of him securing 5% of the Oregon vote and establishing the green party as a force within the state. (from my understanding they would have received additional funding if that had happened) I liked his relationship with the green party at the time.
As far as his running now, I appreciated it in 2000 because of the green party support he had, now it just seems too egotistic. He's not a 3rd party candidate he's a rogue trying to force his issues onto the stage. I appreciate that but I think he could be so much more successful at it.
At the same time that I admire his ability to stay independent I can't help but think he could be so much more of an influence if he worked his abilities and traction with the progressive left within a viable candidacy. One thing the liberals could learn from the conservatives is it's much easier to pull a party to the extreme end of the spectrum from within than it is rallying from the outside.
Honestly I am conflicted but at this point I just don't think that he's doing that much of a service to the progressive cause. Probably not a disservice either really.
I *totally* agree with BPaul about the negligible effect that Nader had on the 2000 elections. The Dems put up a cigar store Indian for a candidate. Gore has grown a lot since then: he has an issue he is passioante about, and has learned to speak without instantly stunning his audience to sleep, but in 2000 he was less than compelling. The Dems have to have something more to offer than "we're not the Repbulicans", especially given how weakly differentiated the two aprties are overall.
There are a number of very convenient myths that go around at election time; these myths work to support the status quo of two party dominance:
(1) the myth of electibility. The most elecable candidate is the one that offends the fewest people, which means that they will have a lowest-common-denominator, status-quo platform. (2) Third party candidates are spoilers. This one is true in a strange way: they threaten to spoil the stranglehold that the Demublicraticans have on power.
THE ONLY WAY TO EFFECT TRUE CHANGE IS TO VOTE FOR CANDIDATES WHO HAVE CONVICITION AND ARE WILLING TO TAKE POSITIONS OUTSIDE THE STATUS QUO.
I ahve not studied nader's current positions in depth, so I don't know if he's the guy for me. But I do know I'm going to give him careful consideration.
(BTW, do any of you *REALLY* think that Obama is the candidate of change?)
I'm all riled up now. so I'm back.
Look. Bush is not up for reelection, so that's not the factor it was in 2004 (when the Dems put up another dud because he was (in theory) the "most electable" candidate.
How many of you really want Hillary Clinton in the White House? Ignore the gender thing for a moment, becuase that's not really about Hillary. Do you think her convicitons are what the country needs?
Is Obama any better? Sure, he's more charismatic, but what does he really stand for?
THE BEST WAY FOR PROGRESSIVES TO MAKE THEIR VOTES COUNT IS TO VOTE FOR POSITIONS IN WHICH THEY BELIEVE!
Stop accepting the pablum the Demopublicraticans serve up. It doesn't have to be Nader. Just go vote for someone REAL, with real positions that, if implemented, would represent the cahnge you seek.
DO NOT BE SHEEP!!!!!!!!!!
(whew, I feel better now)
Too tired for full on rant, and generally uninformed -- I was/am an emotional, reactionist Nader-hater.
If you're not going to vote for him, how do you support his goals? And what does a vote for Obama mean if your heart lies w/ Ralphie?
the american government is a body; the republicans are the right side, the democrats the left, but make no mistake, they both serve the same sociopathic mind - if you want real change, you're gonna have to kill the f'ing beast - cut off it's head!!
corporatocracy means there is a revolving door between govt and corporations - funded by public (taxpayer) monies awarded crony-style.
these globalised parasites are EMBEDDED pod-peoples that deserve the massive backlash that will eventually overthrow them.
I'm 3/4's of the way through Naomi Klein's brilliant "The Shock Doctrine" - I recommend reading it before the elections - deffy a guide to the present state of the world's governments, this one included.
elections are a reality-show circus presented by the same folk that own the "news" - think about it - how much news time does this take up, and where do the "other" stories happening in the world go? there is all kinds of shit going down right now while folk debate whether voting for billary is a vote for "women", or is barack really a muslim. . . of course it would be "better" to have anyone but bushcheney in the white house, just don't think anything will really change any time soon. . .
oops! forgot to say "great post" B - and I welcome Nader, Kucinich, Paul, and anyone else that can grab a bit of attention away from the mainstream.
Right on, Babs!
Diversity is the enemy of the plutocracy. Bring on the so-called wackos -- and support them!
Wow, great string of comments folks. Thanks.
I'm going to grab this as it's addressed directly to me,
"If you're not going to vote for him, how do you support his goals? And what does a vote for Obama mean if your heart lies w/ Ralphie?"
I support the goal of getting some anti-spin talk into the public dialog during election season. Even when he's shut out and put down, he still gets press. He still gets to push on things that the grand majority of Americans care about and want to see at the very least discussed. Subjects the Demublicrats ARE NOT IN THE LEAST BIT addressing.
Check that list I posted about Nader's platform, the thing I edited out of it was "not on the table" checked off for every other candidate on every single issue listed.
What a vote for Obama means is: I want Obama over the other two viable candidates. Period. Does it play into the system? Yeah -- do I want either of the other two candidates to be president? No.
Do I really want Obama? -- well he's taken the least onerous money of all the campaigns, has the most donors (thus small folks) of any president in recent memory. Maybe if we hold his feet to the fire we can get some action -- I don't know.
Nader is not a viable candidate, he is a slight, downplayed, kicked-to-the-curb voice of reason in a storm of horse shit. I appreciate him greatly for that, and may even throw money toward his campaign to make sure he makes as much noise as he can.
This year (as with Msherm) I see no reason to vote for him.
There's a sad logic to it, I hope I was able to convey it.
I'm right there with everyone on the corporate influence of american politics being entirely out of hand. I too have read some great books on the negligible difference between the dems and republicans, mostly economic issues.
However to say they are the same is ignoring some very important issues. Just to list off a few; the supreme court and civil rights, executive power, state's rights (ie continued racism, homophobia and hatred via legislation)
All of these things in my opinion are equal to the economic BS that our national government has become.
I don't want to discredit anything that babs and stu said here but to have that particular issue (however far reaching it might be) be the only thing I look at is just not something I can live with right now.
Stevens (the most progressive justice on the court) is 81 he will not in all likelihood see the end of this next presidential term. Would you rather have another Scalia, thomas, aalito or Roberts on the court or vote for Nader?
Is Obama the best thing going? no way, but he can be a firewall against the rising absurdity of american conservatism.
This election is so important for one reason only to me, that balance of power on the supreme court is tenuous and if another radical conservative got appointed it would be crippling to ANY AND ALL progressive causes for the next 30 years.
That is why this is the most important election of our lifetime.
The progressive movement needs to realize that change can be effected from within, starting locally and working up. Elect progressives to local positions, get statehouses to start passing progressive legislation, start to change things. That's how the nutjob conservatives moved into power and that's the best way to take the power back.
Correction Stevens is 87.
A few wonderful books to go with the Naomi klein suggestion
Two books from Thomas Frank-
What's a matter with Kansas which really gets into the rise of the right in places where it makes no sense (yes Kansas)
Also Frank's One market under god, which talks about the cult of corporate worship in America in the 90s and how that enabled the corporations to take over in that era.
The third is really fantastic. It's written by Stephen Marshall; Wolves in Sheep's clothing. This book takes on so many great topics but in the end it's about the death of liberalism in American politics. He also really intelligently counters the supposedly liberal intelligencia (thanks Nader for that one) such as Thomas Friedman who wrote a really terribly influential book The World is Flat.
A generally useful book is Rise to Globalism by Stephen Ambrose which is a nice synopsis of our foreign policy decisions from WW2 through Clinton. Just a good basic, but thoughtful look at it.
That's all I can think of right now related to this. Enjoy them if you decide to pick any up.
Msherm,
If change can be effected from within, where are the results?
the system we have is broken, broken, broken. Bringing diversity to the ballot is one way to effect change "from within". I would define change brought from the outside as involving revolution, not Ralph Nader.
the "who sits on the supreme court" is just another argument reinforcing the status quo. If you look at the legislative records of the two parties, it is clear that the differences are very slight. Democrats lined up beind Bush on Iraq. Both parties are spouting the racist drivel of so-called immigration reform. Hillary's health care reform is imbued with the same free-market thinking that shaped Mitt Romeny's in Massachussetts. Bill Clinton, a Democrat, brought us the nuddge nudge, wink wink of "don't ask, don't tell".
If progressives do not start to vote their convicitons instead of their fears, change will not occur. As far as I can tell, the only thing that happens from within is dry rot.
If you're looking for good examples of changes from within in the system do a google search of "more and better democrats". This is a net roots movement where liberal candidates run in primaries against against cooperate democrats. This years shining example is Donna Edwards defeating Al Whyn.
On a presidential level, you only have to look at the effects ,on policy discussion, the Edwards, Kucinic, and Dodd campaigns had. Edwards was the first of the major candidates to introduce a health care plan. Dodd's filibuster threat was supported by Obama (and maybe Clinton, I don't know). The long and short of it is, you run in the primaries to influence the narrative. Even if you don't win, you push other candidates to more populist positions.
I'll keep it brief.
I like Nader and I suspect that if you were to put together a list of his accomplishments and a list of Obama or Clinton's accomplishments that there wouldn't be much comparison.
I hate the 'now is not the time' argument but I really do fear for the future if another republican is elected this cycle.
How a president would run the agencies, conduct foreign policy, appoint to the courts (most focus on the Supreme, but don't forget that the President appoints all judicial nominees--Federal District Courts and Courts of Appeal for each District, and how they use veto is what is nost important. After all, it is the job of the legislature to pass the laws.
In these tings I think there are important diffeerences between dems and repubs that will have very lasting real world consequences.
Well I just don't agree that there hasn't been change from within. It just happens to be change brought on by conservatives in a vast majority of the south and midwest, it's been a change away from progressive liberal values and towards values that I find to be hateful and shortsighted. That is not the "system" being broken though it is the ignorance of the voters (or it's their preoccupation with religious ideology but that's basically the same thing) It's not change I like but local people in these states have taken over and changed the priorities of these state governments, as well as local municipalities. They started by electing city council members, sheriffs, city comptrollers etc etc and moved up.
As far as the supreme court issue being an argument for the status quo, I don't follow. It has nothing to do with the legislative inadequacies of the democratic party which I agree 100% with you about. You didn't elaborate on how being concerned with the rights of minorities and the possibility of progressive legislation not being tied up and shut down in the courts for the next 30 years is just an argument for the status quo. Since you put it at the beginning of a paragraph about the legislative failures of the last few years I'm going to assume you forgot to hit enter and chose not to elaborate on that statement.
If there is any hope of progressive causes moving forward it's not going to be with the vote for someone on a national ticket every 4 years, it's going to be on the backs of local elections building their way up to larger areas of influence. If we don't start with a cohesive strategy and stop depending on a symbolic vote and waving a sign or two on a street corner every time we get riled up about something nothing will change.
It's time to stop depending on meaningless national elections to propel a non existent political movement and start facing the realities of the world around us. Start with what is in front of you, don't wish it was different make it different.
I'm guilty of not doing everything I can to. I'm too busy, it won't really matter and every other reason to focus on my own life rather than the world we live in. I do however know one thing, the system is fine, amazing things have happened by using it. Civil rights legislation, the new deal, and an innumerable number of court decisions protecting the few from the many. The system is being played by the right, the left (not the dems the real left) has decided to sit out. That's my fault as much as anyones and it's something I'm not as willing to sit idly by and watch occur as much lately.
I guess that means I'll have to find a campaign around town to work on this summer and fall. Thanks for the motivation.
Enjoyed our chat today mate. BTW, unlike the large crew of professional liberal victims, I never held RN accountable for the losses by Gore or Kerry. Gore couldn't carry his home state and was afraid to use Clinton where he could have had a positive effect. Kerry was yet another boring dolt from Mass. who was Bush cannon fodder on day one. I like much of what Ralph says, but sheesh... I am sick of hearing him say it.
JHB.
Again, awesome comments all.
Jim, good to meet you too sir. Bloggers exist apparently, in the flesh. Amazing.
I voted for Nadar in 2000, of course the state I live in it didn't matter electorally. Still, I would do it again. If Gore had the public balls he has now he might have gotten my vote though,
I voted for Nader 2000 and 2004 and don't have a single regret.
I loved reading BP's post and all the commentary afterward. Not too much to add--ya'll are awesome.
~Crystal
Flattery gets you everywhere, m'lady.
:-)
Post a Comment