Ralph Nader: Super Hero or Uber Spoiler?
Click to Listen to the Show (24 MB MP3)
[Thanks to Luigino Valentin for suggesting this show]
On Janury 22, 1968, a young Ralph Nader, clad in a suit of armor, starred as Newsweek’s cover boy. The headline read: Consumer Crusader, Ralph Nader.
And this was only one notch, among many, in his beltway legacy. By the mid 70’s Nader was an American icon: famous for saving millions of lives, famous as a public interest lawyer for having such a long, legislative record.
Imagine if you got into a car and the airbags said ‘Ralph Nader,’ or if the seatbelts said ‘Nader,’ or if you look up at the clean air and it says ‘Nader.’ If people could see that on a day-to-day basis, they would understand the effect that this guy has had on their daily lives.
James Musselman, Former Nader Raider, An Unreasonable Man, 2005
Hero or spoiler?
[snowball / Flickr]
But in 2000, when Nader tossed his hat into the presidentail ring, nearly all that he had accomplished during his 40-year-career was forgotten. Having been marked as the man who handed George W. Bush the key to the White House, Nader was no longer America’s knight in shining armor — he came to solely represent the nadir of our political process. From President Jimmy Carter to Michael Moore, practically every liberal in America sent Ralph packing for the dog house.
Thank you Ralph for the Iraq war. Thank you Ralph for the tax cuts. Thank you Ralph for the destruction of the environment. Thank you Ralph for the destruction of the constitution…The man needs to go away. I think he needs to live in a different country. He’s done enough damage to this one, let him go and damage someone else’s.
Eric Alterman of The Nation, An Unreasonable Man, 2005
We jumped at the chance to have Ralph Nader, one the most influential and polarizing figures in America, on Open Source.
For those of you who want full Nader immersion, he has a new book out, The Seventeen Traditions, which is a personal history of the values and idealism that he was suffused with as a young boy growing up in Winsted, Connecticut. There is also an excellent documentary on DVD, An Unreasonable Man, which offers a non-partisan look at Nader’s life and enduring career.
What is your take on Nader? Are you more in sync with Nader’s Raiders or Nader haters? As the 2008 election heats up do you miss his presence on the campaign trail? Or his absence in the presidential debates? Do you see Nader as a selfless activist or as an opportunistic megalomaniac? What questions do you have for a man who has so firmly made his mark on our country?
We had a long conversation this morning about this show. Although we will touch on the 2000 election we’ve decided that it will be more interesting to focus on Ralph Nader the man. Ralph Nader, the local boy from small-city Winsted, Connecticut, the small-d Jeffersonian democrat, and the child of purposeful immigrant parents who told him that “character” was “destiny.” We’ll also be reminded that Ralph Nader is a man with a sense of humor.
- Extra Credit Reading
-
Ralph Nader, Let the People Make the Laws, CommonDreams.org, May 8, 2007: “Don’t expect Mike Gravel to show up in the money-raising sweepstakes. For he really believes in a government of, by and for the People. This proposal is not exactly a magnet for Fat cat money. No candidate for President from the two major parties has ever demonstrated such a detailed position regarding the sovereign power of People to amend the Constitution and make laws.”
Ralph Nader, Faith, Accountability and Protest in Utah:
Cheney and the BYU 25, This Divided State, May 1, 2007: “Could anyone have imagined that the major commencement protest at a University graduation thus far occurred April 26 at Brigham Young University (BYU)? Probably not.”Seth Gitell, Ralph Nader Pays Tribute To David Halberstam, Dispatches from Seth Gitell, June 15, 2007: “I’ve always been struck by the coincidence that Ralph Nader attended elementary school with David Halberstam in Winsted, Connecticut. They also were at Harvard together. These two individuals, one the initiator of public advocacy non-profits, the other a journalist of titanic proportions, provided more scrutiny over American institutions during the latter half of the 20th Century than whole armies of others.”
aaraujo, Dems don’t let Dems vote Green Party, Daily Kos, June 18, 2007: “My fear is that a potential 2008 Democratic ticket will bring back the Green Party Nader voters. I see the turmoil on these message boards and I see the very real fear that liberals will once again spoil the 2008 race.”
David Kucinskas, A Gift From Ralph Nader?, Daily Northwestern, May 24, 2007: “Did Nader have an ulterior motive for giving me a book that obviously has an agenda? Probably, but that in and of itself didn’t appear that threatening to me. I can deal with people telling me what to believe politically.”
Ralph Nader’s “The Seventeen Traditions”, Cover to Cover, May 28, 2007: “As a Canadian, it was interesting learn about his early connection with cousins living in Ontario. This book made me think about my own family’s traditions. It could be a great conversation starter for any family interested in exploring its roots and shared values.”
Dana Milbank, Unsolicited Advice From the Far Left, The Washington Post, June 27, 2004: “The advice continues to flow to Moore from candidate Nader. ‘I’ve been at him for years, saying “you’ve got to lose weight,”‘ Nader said in the phone interview. ‘Now, he’s doubled. Private exhortations aren’t working. It’s extremely serious. He’s over 300 pounds. He’s like a giant beach ball.’”
Brett McKay, Frugal Tips From Ralph Nader, The Frugal Law Student, May 26, 2007: “You might not agree with his politics, but you have to agree that Ralph Nader is one frugal guy. While Nader has assets in the millions, he still lives like he’s a starving law student. Here are a few tips we can learn from Mr. Nader’s life.”
June 15th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
I like Nader. He brings his own ideas to the table. America needs more non democrats and more non republicans. Eric Alterman is a totalitarian.
June 15th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
While I wasn’t a fan of him running for POTUS, his long career before hand still holds up and worth learning about.
The real problem I see is that in the minds of America, there are two Naders. One is alive and blamed in part for Bush and his faults or complaints. The other is a dead and buried Nader that did all the good.
Unfortunately one is talked about, the other is forgotten so some can have an easy target.
June 15th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
It’s 2000 and there are four candidates: George W. Bush, Al Gore, Pat Buchanan, and Ralph Nader. Which one of these four men has done the most for the American people over the course of his career? More to the point, which one has done far more for the American people than the other three combined?
And this person is the one who should _not_ be running for president? How exactly does that make sense? I live in a country that once elected Thomas Jefferson as its president. Am I really supposed to settle for the least offensive empty suit, as Eric Alterman and Todd Gitlin insist that I must?
June 15th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
It isn’t Ralph Nader’s fault that George Bush is a opportunistic megalomaniac who is destroying our nation if not the entire planet. It is not Ralph Nader’s Fault that a Supream Court that was nominated by George Bush’s Dad stopped the Florida vote count in George Bush’s favor. It was the Supream Court that handed Goeoge Bush the White House not Ralph Nader.
June 16th, 2007 at 12:01 am
I have a high regard for all of Ralph Nader’s accomplishments. I voted for him in 2000. I did this as a protest vote against a two-party system. I live in Massachusetts where that vote was not going to swing the balance towards GWB at all. (If only we didn’t have the electorate system!)
Still, I’m not sure Nader would be a good president. Mostly because he is used to fighting, not negotiating. His ethics are impeccable - though, his ego may be problematic - but he is a fierce defender. And that’s a great thing for the work that he’s done and that I hope he continues. And I hope he trains an equally fierce protegé to follow in his footsteps. In a President, though, I seek someone who offers me a grand vision of where we need to go and who can reach out and inspire everyone to work towards that vision. I heard Nader speak during his campaign. I donated to his campaign. I was not convinced by listening to him that he had the dynamism of light that it takes to lift us out of the muck. It felt as though he’s been wrestling darkness for so long, he may have pinned himself to the mat a little bit more with each victory. I was saddened to feel how hardened and stark he seemed.
That said, I think I’d take him over any of the people I see running so far. I do trust his integrity and his willingness to push for radical change against all odds. He’s an archetypal Advocate. I don’t think he’d compromise anything while in service to others. Give me a better candidate and we can talk. Until then, we only epitomize our need for his kind when we vilify him.
June 16th, 2007 at 12:04 am
I should add, that while I’m sure he has an inflated ego, I can’t think of anyone who runs for public office, particularly President, that doesn’t. You’d have to have one to think that you deserve to run the world! So, I’m not sure how calling him an egomaniac differentiates him from any of the other candidates he ran against. At least he puts his ego into a life of relentless service.
June 16th, 2007 at 3:04 am
Nader’s non-partisan integrity is still exactly what this country needs, ego or not. The slurs against Nader by acknowledged apologists for Israeli policies at The Nation was the straw that knocked them off my bookshelf, after a decade-long subscription. Blame the
June 16th, 2007 at 6:41 am
I can’t forgive Nader for running in Florida in 2000 where, if he had thrown his support to Gore, he would have prevented Bush from winning. I Nader has something to do with where we are now.
I am with Dora.
In 2000 we did not have the room to make statements in such a close race. You had to pick one major candidate or another or by your “statement vote” aid one or the other.
Support for Nader in any state simply encouraged him. He had NO chance of becoming President.
I don’t believe “statement votes” helped at all. What did it accomplish beyond shooting ourselves in the foot?
I suppose to some bought Nadar’s cry that a vote for Bush or Gore made no difference.
What has Nader accomplished???
June 16th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Blaming Nader for all that has gone wrong in the last 6 years is just a sign of the establishment unable to come to terms with their failure. Someone threatens to peel off some of the voters with a better platform and message and the pundits start whining.
If Gore had done a better job, the election would not have been so close. The economy was great and he had everything going his way. Also, who is to say that the Democrats wouldn’t have led the US into some kind of war. They have before and they didn’t put up much resistance to Bush, and have not moved in any serious way to end the Iraq war. The US war machine is bigger than any one political party, sad to say. Also, from an outsider’s point of view, those parties appear as only slightly different shades of right.
Of course the US needs more than just independent candidates; it needs a legitimate third or fourth party that could properly represent more of that political diversity that now seeks shelter under those two big tents. At the very least, a different voice at election time adds some spice to the campaign, and with the merciless hours involved in the preamble, the big show and the post analysis, we desperately need this.
Let’s hope for more Naders.
June 16th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Sorry Sidewalker but peeling off some voters when all the polls showed a very close race makes Nader culpable. It was clear which voters he was going to peel off. If a Republican spoiler ran as well it might have been a more palatable situation.
It’s very clear that Gore would not have lead us into Iraq. REgarding “if”’s, perhaps Gore would have done something with regard to the genocide in Darfur. Perhaps ( or certainly) his leadership would have been more multilateral-less unilateral. Certainly we would not have the Supreme Court that we have today.
One person makes all the difference in the world and here. One irresponsible candidacy in such a close race made all the difference.
I agree many independent voices are a good thing. The time for those voices are during the primary and nominating processes. And third and fourth parties need to start from the ground up and build themselves that way NOT by spoiling elections and garnering bad feeling, splitting us further apart.
June 16th, 2007 at 10:59 am
i am am fan, the man is for real in a world of stage sets…
even so, i will never quite forgive him for his role in helping our glorious leader..whatever the reason.
June 16th, 2007 at 11:42 am
This all sounds like seventy-something baseball fans discussing the 1969 World Series. It may be interesting to them, but the world has moved beyond them. Much as ‘would-have, could-have, should-have can provide some fascinating alternative presents, there’s a much more pressing need: to imagine alternative FUTURES, given the cards that have been dealt us. Perhaps lessons from Nader’s presidential run can be extracted from the past. The lessons need to be applied now, since we have escaped from the past (we’re all here, right?) but we are all condemned to live in the future, barring death.
June 16th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
The Potter argument is so tiresome!
I ran for Congress on the Green Party ticket in 2002 for Congress. Both the Dem and Repub were for bombing the shit out of Iraq. I was for more inspections. I received 3.5% of the vote. Then the Dems and Repubs bombed the shit out of Iraq. That’s the “state of the nation.” Whatever’s good for business and Israel is good for the rest of us. Spoilers need not apply. Get in line and shut the fuck up!
Potter’s ignorance and complicity is overwhelming but sadly comports with typical Democrat excuse-making.
Florida 2000 was indeed a tragedy, but Nader was a minor sidebar, if one is serious about the factual history. Frame it any way you like, but the Dems of the last 40 years have been a disgrace - and I believe each of us is partly to blame for that fact.
Next question, please?
June 16th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
potter is no ignoramous..nice language too candidate “b”!
right or wrong..can we be civil please?
June 16th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Not to mention it was the liberal florida supreme court that disregarded the Florida state laws in an attempt to steal the election and give it to Gore. Something my liberal friends always seem to conveniently forget in their attempts to lay the blame on Nader.
June 16th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
bushiswmd: I also disagree with Potter on this score, but on the evidence she’s anything but ignorant, and likely complicit in nothing more nefarious than a different opinion. Check out her posts and see for yourself. 3.5% sounds about right so far.
June 16th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
In spite of Ralph Nader Al Gore DID win the 2000 election. Why weren’t the American People in the streets demanding that all of the votes be counted? Why did the democrats so spinelessly refuse to stand up against Bush’s coup? Nader became the democrat’s sacrificial goat as if that could make up for their own culpability.
June 16th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
I strongly hope the bushiswmd comment will be deleted shortly.
Even putting aside the ad hominem attack, I agree with Potter here. Nobody’s saying Nader didn’t have a right to run, or that Gore should have campaigned better on his own, or that Nader voters did something evil. But the fact is that 75000 Floridians voted for Nader. Even if those voters had otherwise split only 51/49 for Gore, Gore would have won the election with ease, and our country would be in a much, much different place today. People have a right to vote for whom they wish, but the argument that one bears no responsibility for looking at how the system actually works and acting accordingly — however objectionable that system is — holds no water for me. I respect the old Nader, but the Nader of 2000 helped to send our nation on a disastrous course. He may have been acting in accord with his conscience, but the effect he had is the effect he had.
June 16th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Good point, Peggy Sue. Doesn’t change Nader’s culpability from my point of view, because it wouldn’t have been an issue if Nader hadn’t run the way he had run, but Gore did win notwithstanding Nader.
June 16th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
While I disagree with Potter on this particular issue I agree the bushiswmd post is out of bounds when it comes to civil discourse.
June 16th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Sutter: Unpack this, please:
“Doesn’t change Nader’s culpability from my point of view, because it wouldn’t have been an issue if Nader hadn’t run the way he had run, but Gore did win notwithstanding Nader.”
“Gore did win nothwithstanding Nader.” Yet you’re blaming Nader for Gore’s loss? And what do you find objectionable in the way Nader ran?
June 16th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Hurley,
Nader consistently misrepresented the distinctions between Bush and Gore, and campaigned hard in swing states that wound up mattering. If he were running to win, of course he would do this. But Nader knew he wasn’t going to win. He was going to send a message by earning popular votes. I would have strongly preferred that he rack up those votes in places like Massachusetts and Texas, where he would know he wasn’t going to change the outcome. He ran in a spiteful manner designed to make himself a spoiler. And he succeeded.
Of course, one might reply that he sent the best message he could have sent precisely by running hard in swing states and demonstrating that the concerns he represented need to be addressed if Democrats want to win. And he did send that message. For me, though (and for Potter, I suspect), the price was far too high, and a man as smart as Nader could and should have found a better way to make that point.
June 16th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
BTW, for what it’s worth, I emphatically reject the notion that we live in a world with single causes for specific events. Almost everything that happens happens because a variety of factors conspire, making each a “but for” cause. So, to say I blame Nader for the fact that Gore didn’t assume office is not to say that I don’t blame Bush, and Baker, and Gore. It’s just to say that had Nader not run, Gore would have assumed office, notwithstanding all the rest. And this would have been true even if 90% or more of all Nader voters had stayed home.
June 16th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Nader is one of the most important influences for change the country has ever known. Unfortunately our world today is one of sound bites and disdain for intelligence.
The problem in America, be it in the year 2000 or the year 2007 is not Ralph Nader… the problem is America.
June 16th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Sutter: Thanks for the clarification, though I’d be pleased to know how Nader misrepresented the distinctions between Bush and Gore. By the way, as you know, I’ve been conducting a campaign of sorts of my own here to advance the cause of Bush’s impeachment, so presumably I needn’t establish my anti-Bush bona-fides. As for Gore, at the time he blurred what should have been an important and prophetic distinction between Bush and himself when he refused Nader entry to his campaign event in Boston. Never mind principle, never mind that Nader had bought a ticket. What do you make of that? I made something different. Question for Nader: Did you ever get your money back? My bet is that Gore owes Nader at least the price of admission. Your objection to your version of his campaign strategy seems to me entirely to his credit: “He was going to send a message by winning popular votes.” What’s wrong with that? As opposed to what? What’s wrong with popular votes? Better the tragedy of the Electoral College? You’ll recall that Gore won that apparently miserable thing called the popular vote. Furthermore, why must people be compelled to vote for x as opposed to y at the point of liberal opprobrium? I don’t remember the Democrats rising up on their principled hind-legs when Ross Perot split the Republican vote and ushered Clinton into the White House. People cast their votes for varied and often complex reasons, and who is anyone to tell them how they should? As for Nader, he offered what might have been the last best chance for a better America. Nader didn’t fail his country, his country failed itself in not recognizing what he’s done and and what he might yet have accomplished.
I’m probably running over the guidelines, so leave it there for now. Best.
June 16th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Sutter: Something else: If you say, as you do, that Gore won, how can you fault Nader for Gore having lost? And why would you deprive those 75,000 Floridians the right to vote for the candidate of their choice? The notion that Nader cost Gore Florida a canard he’ll be only too happy to dispel, however wearily, with exit-poll data, footnotes, and all. In the so-called final analysis, Gore lost the election via the corrupt decision of the Supreme Court, a decision he signally, and to his everlasting shame, failed to contest.
June 16th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Hurley to bushiswmd 3.5% sounds about right so far.
So how has Nader benefited the Green Party cause, much of which I support?
bushiswmd asks “Next question please?”
How about this: How does a candidate like you bushiswmd benefit the image of the party if I might ask?
here’s another:
What am I and others to think of a party that fields a candidate that does not know how to have a civil conversation?
Sutter- indeed the price to pay was way WAY too high to send the message that Nader supposedly wanted to send.
In 2000 what message did he send?
From Wikipedia:
“The Atlantic Monthly[DEcember 2006], in its list of the 100 most influential Americans, ranked Nader number 96: “He made the cars we drive safer; thirty years later, he made George W. Bush the president.”
Public Citizen, the organization Nader founded has had to run away from it’s association with him. They have suffered from a considerable loss of support. I feel sorry for Jill Claybrook- she’s terrific.
Here is a Press release from Public Citizen- basically saying ” we are not connected with Ralph Nader’s campaign” ( 2004).
I am reminded by this that Nader took money from right wingers in 2004 to undermine John Kerry: More than 75 Nader Associates Release Letter Urging Voters to Oppose Nader
June 16th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Hurley — A few responses.
1. I never said anything about denying anyone their votes. All of those Nader voters were entitled to vote for Nader. And I am entitled to believe that to the extent they voted in certain swing states, they helped cost Gore the presidency. I suspect that most (though not all) of them would have preferred Gore over Bush, so I can too fault them for acting symbolically when the price of doing so was a practical defeat.
2. For the above reason, Perot and Nader are far apart. Perot and his voters were “Mad as Hell” (to steal the title of a book on the 92 election), and all too happy to see GHW Bush lose. In fact, during the Democratic convention in 92, when Perot bowed out (only to re-enter), he all but endorsed Clinton. Here, it’s different. Most (though again not all) of Nader’s voters would have preferred Gore over Bush. So I fault them for acting the way they acted, though I do not at all deny them their right to have acted that way.
3. I never said there was anything wrong with sending a message having to do with the popular vote. What I said was that, given this was Nader’s strategy, he could have pursued it in states where the electoral vote wasn’t going to be affected by it.
I don’t imagine we’re going to reach agreement here, but here’s my position: I hate gravity. Really hate it. It sucks (literally). But when I’m holding someone else’s baby, I act consistent with my knowledge that gravity in fact exists. If I want to change gravity, I might find ways to do so, but I realize that dropping babies isn’t the best way to do it. To me, Nader voters who would have preferred Gore (and I’ll say again for good measure that THAT DOESN’T DESCRIBE ALL NADER VOTERS) and who voted in Florida or another swing state to send some sort of message were in effect dropping babies for the sake of protesting gravity.
June 16th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Hurley: Nader received 97,421 votes in Florida. The margin between Bush and Gore was 537 votes. Surely, had Nader not muddied the waters by giving those folks the right to a protest vote, or one that “sends a message” - a message that he stirred up in that critical venue knowing full well what was at stake- the supreme court would not have been able to do what it did. SCOTUS would not have entered the picture. I say that because even the most concervative estimate would have thrown enough votes to Gore from Nader’s liberal leaning voters.
But for sure Gore should not have given up. It seemed to me he did not have the stomach for the kind of mean fight that the Republicans were mounting under the leadership of James Baker… especially not after a long hard campaign.
Another thing I don’t understand is why the Greens did not support Gore. Gore in 2000 was already very much awakened to climate change as was well known. On environmental issues he was the far far better choice.
June 16th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Well said Sutter.
June 16th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Hurley: In the so-called final analysis, Gore lost the election via the corrupt decision of the Supreme Court, a decision he signally, and to his everlasting shame, failed to contest.
How could he have contested a SCOTUS decision?
Gore’s mistake was not asking for a complete recount of Florida. He asked for a recount of only those districts that he felt he should have won.
(I know how to spell conservative- sorry for the typo.)
June 16th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Re ..”Furthermore, why must people be compelled to vote for x as opposed to y at the point of liberal opprobrium?”
Thanks, Hurley. Before anyone blames Nader for Gore’s alleged loss of Florida, how about blaming the people who didn’t vote?.. and the people who rigged it so that other legitimate voters weren’t allowed to vote?.. and the people who voted for Bush? How does the volume of those 3 demographics stand up in numbers to the wacky iconoclasts who voted for Nader, as if AN ELECTION MATTERED IN PRINCIPLE- and Not because statisticians had the “poop sheet” to “predict” what was going to happen? I’m in agreement with bicyclemark… we have a nation that “wants what it doesn’t want.” Shall we begin putting people to death for pointing out our national imperfections? (I guess condemning them to infamy will suffice…)
Re: From Wikipedia:
“The Atlantic Monthly[DEcember 2006], in its list of the 100 most influential Americans, ranked Nader number 96: “He made the cars we drive safer; thirty years later, he made George W. Bush the president.â€
Thanks, Potter. Is that some of your work? ^..^
June 16th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
no!
June 16th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Re: “Before anyone blames Nader for Gore’s alleged loss of Florida, how about blaming the people who didn’t vote?”
There may have been as many Republicans as Democrats that did not vote. What we do know is that many who might very well have voted Democratic voted for Nader.
Please note-what is being said, or at least what I am saying is that Nader is culpable, meaning Nader had something to do with Gore not winning Florida by enough of a margin that there was not a question about who won.
Of course we could focus on all those folks who were prevented from voting as well or those whose votes were misread or not counted because of ballot anomalies. Enough people voted. In fact a good question is why the whole state was not recounted. Why did the Supreme Court interfere in such a partisan way?/
June 16th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
God, I knew this would become a bloodbath.
Like Alison, I live in MA and voted for Nader in 2000. It wasn’t a “message” vote. I thought it was the right time and place to cast a vote for a third party candidate.
It was 2000. I’d never heard of Al Q’aeda. The notion of either Bush or Gore mounting a major ground invasion of anyplace was ludicrous. Gore was part of an administration that had blown (no pun intended) all it’s political capital on NACA and the Lewinsky scandal, dropped the ball on healthcare reform, signed a punitive welfare reform bill, and hadn’t managed to get the Kyoto treaty ratified (or even close). In short, the Democratic Party’s policies were just to the right of those of the Nixon Administration in the early 1970s. The stakes in MA were low and I thought it a good time to throw some support behind new, more progressive parties and candidates. Sue me.
If I’d been living in Florida, I would have voted for Gore to keep abortion safe and legal, to shore up SS and to not totally destroy the environment. But I understand people who voted differently.
I DON’T understand people who pin the war in Iraq, the tax cuts, the destruction of civil liberties, etc… on Nader. Seems to me that all belongs squarely to Al Q’aeda, Bush, Cheney, and the neo-cons. And oh yeah, the 50 million or so Americans who voted for Bush… twice. Funny how they always get left out of the conversation.
At the end of the day, I don’t think I get to say “This person gets to run. This person doesn’t.” Candidates run. People vote. My guy doesn’t always win. (In my case, make that NEVER wins.) That’s democracy.
June 16th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Potter, I am wondering if you are judging Nader by the wrong standard. Is it fair to expect him to behave like a citizen activist fighting for some greater cause when he enters the world of politics? Did he not do what anyone running for election from a different party would have done: challenge the other contestants and go after their weaknesses?
Sure, Sutter, Nader had a role in the outcome, but if Gore and the Dems were so vulnerable, did they deserve the office? Their support of the Iraq war in the beginning and their support for the Iraqi oil law now is enough evidence to show that they are not really fit to rule such a powerful nation with any moral authority. Unfortunately, the alternative is no alternative.
This is not to say I was or am against Gore. I hope he gets into the race this time as he is much fitter (though not in a physical sense) and his experience is needed to address all the problems created or swept aside during the past six years of repugnant un-exceptionalism on both sides of the aisle.
I agree with tbrucia, focus on what the next America adminisrtation needs to do to come back into the league of nations and uphold its international and, I should add, constitutional obligations.
How about Gore with Nader as a running mate? This would symbolize that a time a bridge mending has begun.
June 16th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
bushiswmd, we don’t accept that kind of post on this site. We come here to engage ideas and not attack the person.
June 16th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Allison wrote: You’d have to have one [inflated ego] to think that you deserve to run the world!.
Was this an intended overstatement?
June 16th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Sidewalker says: “Sure, Sutter, Nader had a role in the outcome, but if Gore and the Dems were so vulnerable, did they deserve the office?”
This actually gets right to the heart of my frustration about the 2000 and 2004 elections generally. Presidential elections are not about what the candidates deserve. They are about what we the people deserve. It shouldn’t matter that Gore came across as an automaton and woefully misjudged the politics of Monica. It shouldn’t matter that Kerry came off as cold and arrogant to many. This is not about rewarding the candidate with victory. It’s about getting the best President for the American people. So, for me anyway, Gore’s weaknesses as a candidate were irrelevant, because they didn’t speak to the kind of president he would be.
If the best defense of Nader is “why don’t you blame X instead?,” it doesn’t move me. Of course I blame those who didn’t vote, or those who voted for Bush, etc. The problem is that those people don’t share my views, whereas Nader and his voters mostly do and did. As someone who shares many of their views (and I realize that by “they” I am referring to many of you), I was extraordinarily frustrated and heartbroken by what I saw as short-sighted symbolic behavior that came with very real, concrete costs.
This is not to say I deny Nader’s right to run or your right to vote for him. But I do believe that one’s vote should be cast with a realistic appreciation for how it is likely to impact the outcome. To the extent you are thinking “no, I should just vote for the best person,” ask yourself this question: Did you write in Chris Lydon for President in 2004? And if not, why not?
June 16th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Alison’s point, by the way, is worthy of a show of its own: Has our political system evolved to a point where the only people willing to endure the Presidential campaign are by definition so deeply narcissistic that they are in fact unfit for the office?
June 16th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Sidewalker: “the alternative is no alternative”
Perhaps you and Paul Masseri are judging Gore by the wrong standards here.
Masseri gets into the blood bath because he has to justify his vote by claiming he knew naught of Al Qaeda, and by branding Gore with Clinton’s decisions actions which, Lewinsky aside, were not so bad actually. (Does Masseri mean NAFTA- what is NACA?) Clinton and Gore presided over a long period of economic growth don’t forget. Clinton himself made a strong push to end the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, political capital well spent. That just one. I won’t go on about Clinton, not that he was perfect by any means. But I’d take the Lewinsky affair in place of the carnage in Iraq anyday. Don’t forget who made a federal case over it ending in impeachment.
Gore was not impeached. Lewinsky was not Gore’s affair.
Gore’s weakness as a campaigner did not tell us about his worthiness as a candidate either. Gore had, by 2000, a very distinguished career in fact and was concerned about our role in climate change having written the book “Earth in the Balance”. In 1992 Gore said in his book “We must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization.”
It was not too hard to look deeper into the candidates. It was all out there, Bush’s military service, business failures, record in Texas- and how could one miss his appalling performances in the debates?
But here Gore is being judged and remembered by his campaign persona as if that is all that mattered.
None of this is the issue however- the issue is Nader. Nader had no chance of winning in 2000. Either Bush or Gore was going to be the next President and, most importantly, it was a very close race. We knew this in advance. But this did not seem to concern Nader nor his voters. We did not need to know about Al Qaeda (Paul Masseri) for this decision.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:41 am
Sutter wrote: Presidential elections are not about what the candidates deserve. They are about what we the people deserve.
Isn’t that what I said? “Did they deserve the office?” meant did they deserve the vote of the people to be their representative party? Obviously not enough people felt that way, or you wouldn’t have to point a finger at Nader.
Sutter wrote: It shouldn’t matter that Gore came across as an automaton and woefully misjudged the politics of Monica. It shouldn’t matter that Kerry came off as cold and arrogant to many. This is not about rewarding the candidate with victory. It’s about getting the best President for the American people.
It shouldn’t matter, but obviously it does, otherwise how could someone like Bush, obviously challenged analytically, come close enough to Gore to allow other forces room for play.
You and Potter are suggesting that how the candidate comes across should not be factored in if the person is experienced and best for the nation (whose standards?), but then is this to say that the election process should be replaced by a panel of the wise and trusted who will not be persuaded by rhetoric or political ad campaigns? If this was the case, perhaps Nader would have been chosen.
June 17th, 2007 at 2:06 am
Potter wrote: But here Gore is being judged and remembered by his campaign persona as if that is all that mattered.
Of course it is all that mattered in terms of that race. It is a competition and he didn’t do enough to overcome the opposition–Bush, the religious right, Nader, the Supreme Court, voting machines, Clinton’s affair, etc. Maybe the playing field was sloped against him (though it is easy to argue the opposite). Probably the whole election process in the US needs an overhaul. But he chose to run knowing the game well. Yes, the world and especially the Iraqi’s have suffered the results. The Republican voters aside, Gore, his advisers and the Dems should be held responsible, not Nader.
Now he has a chance for a do-over and I hope he takes it and shows the electorate that they make a mistake for not “looking deeper”. But he still must overcome all opposition and present himself well in the campaign. There is no way around this.
June 17th, 2007 at 8:09 am
Sidewalker- thanks though I disagree strongly about Nader not being responsible. Maybe I should quit about Nader- obviously I am a broken record and still quite angry about 2000 compounded by 2004 (unbelievable - taking right wing money against Kerry) and Nader’s own, I suspect, and his supporters’ here, to this day, continuing defenses. So angry I am I may not listen to the show. I should get over it.
If some here are asking for Gore again… let’s bring in Allison’s question, a better discussion I agree, whether anyone of worth would put themself through this process ( Gore being a person of worth). A favorite columnist of late, Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post wrote this about Gore and about the presidency in a recent column:An Egghead for the Oval Office.
Robinson: Leave aside the question of whether Gore is even thinking about another presidential run, or how he would stack up against the other candidates. I’m making a more general point: One thing that should be clear to anyone who’s been paying attention these past few years is that we need to go out and get ourselves the smartest president we can find. We need a brainiac president, a regular Mister or Miss Smarty-Pants. We need to elect the kid you hated in high school, the teacher’s pet with perfect grades.
Well Hillary is just such a candidate too- yet I would rather not have to vote for her. I would vote for her over Nader or McCain or Romney or Guiliani. I am dreading all of my choices already.)
If Gore runs, or indeed is running, ( I think we need him) he may be onto something: say you are not running but thinking about it ( probably true). Do this for as long as possible avoiding all the garbage and the drain, coming in at the last moment. We know Gore well enough. The real question is how much of the electorate knows what is best for this country.
About narcissism- or egoism, it depends on how it manifests. I don’t think it disqualifies a candidate and it may to some degree be necessary to lead. Nader has it for instance. I agree it’s not a quality that people admire in excess. There are many other qualities that are more important to focus on when we vote. We can begin with honesty and integrity as well as an expansiveness ( that Clinton had in spades) to govern for all.
Frank Rich says today in the NYTimes “in Washington lying no longer registers as an offense agains the rule of law”. Astonishing. This comes from the top down.
There was a time when we could elect a very different kind of president, one that made all the difference to us and the rest of the world. These discussions usually boil down to campaign finance (special interests- which is corruption) and the mass media.
June 17th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Does anyone have specific questions for Nader that we can ask him during the broadcast?
June 17th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Ah! Hell hath no fury like a disapointed Democrat!
The rap on Nader rests on at least one unprovable assumption, namely that Gore would have made a better president than Bush and therebye have spared the world the ongoing nightmare of this Administration. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Not necessarily. Gore was a mediocre Vice President at best, and there’s no reason to assume he would have proved any better in the Oval Office, especially with the egregious Joseph Liberman down the hall (Gore’s first proto-presidential decision). He was also a disastrous candidate: cynical (Lieberman); thuggish (Nader); cowardly (Florida). Gore was not only thuggish in his posture toward Nader, but stupid, too: Rather than attempt to make common cause, he gave him the bum’s rush in Boston and saw to it — as I recall: correct me if I’m wrong — that Nader was excluded from the debates. Had he tried to engage with him he might well have had an ally. Instead, he treated him with a disdain bordering on contempt simply because Nader had the temerity to contest what Gore assumed to be his own cosmic rendezvous in the White House. Rude, cunning, cynical, vengeful, incompetent, self-pitying: This is the man people shed tears for? Not me.
Of a piece with the martyrology of Gore is of course the subsequent demonization of Nader in the wake of Gore’s Florida debacle. Nut-case, whacko, egomaniac, spoiler, “fucking Arab” (I quote). You might ask him, Chris, if he received any death-threats after 2000. I wouldn’t be surprised if he had
Without going into detail, Sutter and Potter’s arguments again boil down to lamenting all those feckless citizens who voted for the candidate of their choice. Let’s be clear: No one owes their vote to anyone, unless they’ve sold it, in which case it’s no longer a vote in any meaningful sense, but an illegal commodity. The assumption seems to be that Nader was somehow obliged to cede his bloc to the Democratic contender. This not only denies the rightful independence and autonomy of the voters themselves, but further assumes Nader to have been some sort of old school party boss, a Chicago-style power-broker capable of swinging an election on a whim. It also misunderstands an essential goal of his campaign, which was to challenge the ruling two-party oligarchy. Nader was running as his own man, not as an outrider to the DNC, as should have been clear to anyone who took the time to listen to him. And there’s no law against that — yet.
Enough for now. Best.
June 17th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Does he still believe, after the disastrous past 6 years that the Dems and Reps are still much the same?
Given what transpired, does he now wish he had not had taken votes away from Gore in Florida?
Which Democratic candidate, announced or in the wings, does he think will be best suited to address the problems the US now faces?
What are his immediate and long-term goals?
Why did he decide to run for President when he has been so successful as a citizen activist?
What consumer issues now pose the greatest concern and deserve our attention?
What advice does he have for would-be activists?
What do his sources tell him about what is going on in Palestine?
How’s that Chelsea?
June 17th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Great, as always Sidewalker.
Thanks!
June 17th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Hurley-No question Gore made mistakes in his campaign. Why not have a go at Bush’s campaign 2000? Compare what Gore did to Nader against the bag of dirty tricks Bush used against McCain. Look at the long list of Bush’s false promises, promises unfulfilled in 8 years.
Your case against Gore is- again- about his campaign What it all boils down to-again- is making a choice in 2000. I would bet serious money that Gore would have been better than Bush- even with Lieberman around his neck (chosen to distance Gore from the Lewinsky affair).
VP’s have not really been able to do anything much beyond the ceremonial. Gore was much more than that. On the other hand Cheney was chosen to guide Bush who was really not distinguished enough to be president, but attractive and popular, a favorite of the religious right.
A question for Nader: What do you think you have accomplished ( for this country) in your presidential runs?
June 17th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Agreed Sidewalker’s questions are great. I would also like to know if Nader has made peace with Gore or Kerry.
June 17th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Hurley, with due respect, I’ve said over and over again that you are entitled to vote for the candidate of your choice. I am entitled to believe that that vote played a role in the horrors of the last seven years.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Post hoc…
June 17th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
…And with all due respect to you, too, Sutter, Potter, and everyone else. Strong opinions, but no hard feelings.
June 17th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Chelsea, Forgive me my ineptitude, but how does one write you or any other of the ROS staff directly?
June 17th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Hurley- I love you. and Sutter. ( I don’t say these things lightly.)
June 17th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
June 17th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Good post Hurley. May I add that if Gore was such a great canidate Nader would not have been able to secure as many votes as he did.
June 17th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
if you criticise Naders right to participate - you criticise democracy
3rd party
3rd party
3rd party
3rd party
3rd party
3rd party
3rd party
3rd party
June 17th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Who’s criticizing Nader’s right to participate? Not me, and not Potter.
June 17th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
BTW, I really hope the show has nothing to do with 2000. It’s old news, and it’s never enlightening to have someone repeat answers to questions that have been posed to him 1000 times before. I really hope you’ll focus on where things stand for the causes Nader cares about, and what can be done to further those causes.
June 17th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
We haven’t had a chance to discuss this show in the office but I don’t think Chris or Nader would want to dwell on 2000.
Some of the questions that Sidewlker has posted offer a good direction for the conversation:
Which Democratic candidate, announced or in the wings, does he think will be best suited to address the problems the US now faces?
What are his immediate and long-term goals?
Why did he decide to run for President when he has been so successful as a citizen activist?
What consumer issues now pose the greatest concern and deserve our attention?
June 18th, 2007 at 2:28 am
My thanks to chilton1 for the post above. If Nader’s candidacy had resulted in the “3rd party treatment” that Ross Perot received (which couldn’t happen, I suppose, because Nader didn’t have Perot’s bankroll- isn’t $$-driven politics wonderful?), we might have seen a 3- or 4-party reality in this country. I don’t know about other “local” races, but, without Nader’s candidacy in my home state (Wa), we would quite possibly not have a Dem Senator (Cantwell) in DC today. Were there other races around the country where Nader’s candidacy inspired a larger-than-usual turnout of ‘progressive’ voters?
I’d like to ask Ralph what he thinks of the movement for public funding for campaigns (oh, never mind… why give those wild-eyed idealists any free press?.. especially if it amounts to the “Kiss of Death” among the nader-haters). So ask him if he’d consider the second spot on a ticket with a woman running for president.
(from Sutter) ..” I’ve said over and over again that you are entitled to vote for the candidate of your choice. I am entitled to believe that that vote played a role in the horrors of the last seven years..”-
Sure did- just like EVERY OTHER vote did- and sometimes the zealous idealists really blow it (eg the neocon plans for Iraq). People who are neophytes at “Politics”, despite their intelligence and native sensibilities, may be inspired (or conned) into making really bad choices. When women got the vote (1920) the next “big thing” that happened was Prohibition- a truly lousy (albeit idealistic) concept. Shall we blame the social mayhem of that decision on women voters? Well, there were probably a fair number of men who voted for it, too… and an even bigger number who just didn’t bother. Whose vote was ‘critical’ beyond the others?
Also, I want to say this, just once: I don’t know if the Iraq War has resulted in more Iraqi deaths than the U.S.-sponsored, UN sanctions did… but, as much as I despise this war, there’s something instructive to the American people (that a great deal of the world already recognized) in the naked aggression pursued, in our name, by the current administration, as contrasted with the passive-aggressive mayhem that our government has routinely promulgated for decades, in the various “causes” that mostly have boiled down to pursuit of socio-economic domination. After 100 years we’ve finally come down to “Why SHOULD we speak softly, when the Stick is THIS BIG?” ^..^
June 18th, 2007 at 6:09 am
Well thanks, Potter. Makes my day.
June 18th, 2007 at 6:41 am
So, Chilton 1 (and Herbert Browne)- My question is how has Nadar advanced a third party or the desire for a third party in this country?
Where is this third party and what are they doing when we are not having elections?
Chelsea- It would be a disapointment if the subject of 2000 was avoided, the elephant in the room.
What made him run in 2004? Was it because he felt he was successful in 2000? If so, how so?
June 18th, 2007 at 6:49 am
Dwell on it, no- but I think you need to get it out of the way before people like me can begin to listen to him on anything else.
June 18th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Potter said: “Where is this third party and what are they doing when we are not having elections?”
I don’t know about all the other “third” parties but the Green Party continues to bring environmental issues up and works to put green policies in place starting at the local level. Many Greens feel that building a solid base in the grass roots, getting on the school boards, solid waste committees, the cemetary district ect. is our strength. The Green Party here in San Juan County meets once a month and has an active agenda.
June 18th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
The Green Party of the United States
http://www.gp.org/
June 18th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
This thread sounds like a couple facing divorce arguing about who was to blame, who said what, ‘what you meant was…’, etc. A good marriage counselor would say, ‘Are you two planning to keep live together in the same house, or is one of you planning to leave?’ If they both refuse to give up the house, the counselor would (hopefully) say, ‘Let’s make an agreement. Everyone stops bringing up the past, and you both decide how you can cooperate on joint goals in the future. Ok?’ And then… it is in the hands … of the couple … whether they will heed the counselor … or continue … interminably … to fight … and fight … and fight … and to fight … until all the neighbors shut their windows to avoid hearing the unpleasant racket… and the couple lives on in mutual recrimination til death do them part….
June 18th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Re ..”Where is this third party and what are they doing when we are not having elections?”
I don’t know about the rest of the country, but locally the Green Party has an actual presence (public meetings, a website, info booth appearances at our Saturday market & local Summer fest, fundraiser activities, candidates speaking at public forums) that really acquired its momentum as a result of the 2000 election season. Sure, it’s an idealistic fringe party, still… but it has more influence, by its existence, to affect politics here, than its members would, separately, if they were simply “folded in” among the (dominant) local Democrats- who are also quite active. That influence comes primarily in the form of having its issues co-opted by the dominant party, here… and I imagine that to be the case with most “reform” movements.
Re ..”What made him run in 2004? Was it because he felt he was successful in 2000?..”
How could Nader feel that the 2000 campaign was particularly “successful”, Potter? It seems to me that you’re simply asking Ralph to apologize for running for office, so that whatever else he may have to say can acquire some “relevance” in your mind. As long as he’s “guilty”, in your eyes, of spoiling the 2000 election, that apology is what’s needed to justify your righteous wrath, I’m guessing… Must righteousness always be such a serious investment? Won’t somebody, please, “send in the clowns”? ^..^
June 18th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Herbert Browne wrote: Must righteousness always be such a serious investment? Won’t somebody, please, “send in the clowns�
I’m curious just what you mean here. Would you mind elaborating?
Many thanks!
June 18th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
At the Green nominating convention before the 2000 election Jello Biafra was also a contender. He was an appealing candidate to me because he had forgivness of all student loan debt in his platform.
June 18th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
tbrucia and herbert browne-
Some were serious about dividing the country at the time so many were upset by the election of 2000. There is plenty of blame to go around. We are focusing on Nader now.
The divisions in this country seem at times to me insuperable. However I think it is possible to have a leader that will bring us together. To be honest I don’t know if Gore would have brought us together or been able to bring us together. Republicans would not have allowed another Democratic president any peace. But I know that he hardly could have been worse than GWBush- probably the most partisan divisive president we have ever had, and we have had some since Nixon.
The analogy might apply if we actually did have a president cum marriage counselor a real “unite-er not a dividerâ€. Nader divided us further in my view. Could Nader have lead this country? united this country?
I would like to hear some contrition.You can call me righteous, but I don’t feel righteous- just upset about what has happened to this country in the last 7 years. I think we deserve an admission that if he had not run, Gore most probably, if not definitely, would have been president. We never would have invaded Iraq. It’s very clear we never would have invaded Iraq. Is there any doubt ? Is there any doubt that this decision will have repercussions for a long long time? That many have died because of it?
This is not to mention the further rise of corporatism ( Nader’s peeve), the SCOTUS we have today (notice please the decisions that are coming down) all the time wasted denying climate change and on and on.
I have never been to marriage counselor but I have had mighty arguments and in the end each side must see the other’s point of view. My questions relate to trying to understand how we are better off now from Nader’s presidential runs. I am trying to understand. I have not heard anything persuasive other than he had a right to run and those who voted for him had a right to vote for him. Whether it was the responsible thing at that moment to take through to the end no defender is admitting.
It’s legitimate, considering what we have been suffering, to want to understand what we gained by his candidacy.
June 18th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Thank you Peggy Sue- To tell you the truth I agree with and appreciate a lot of what Nader and the Green Party are saying and trying to do. I would, if I had the chance locally consider voting Green- most definitley. I think the party has to start from the grass roots as it has and is. I don’t think that fielding spoilers ( esp of such noteriety) in a close presidential race, one where the stakes are so high, does the cause or the party any good. (I don’t think running yahoos for Congress like the one on this thread does the party any good.)
June 18th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Here’s my admittedly loaded question for Nader: In an era in which we are very closely divided, and many elections could go either way, how should an individual balance the value of using her vote as a tool of political expression (i.e., to make a statement) as opposed to the value of using her vote to exert political power?
I ask, of course, because there will be future Naders out there, and for me, the fact that so many people used their vote principally as a means of expression rather than as a tool for achieving (or maintaining) power is very frustrating. I don’t dismiss the value of the expression, but for those who have died in Iraq, and those children who are going to bed hungry, and those who are debilitated and could have benefitted from federal support for stem-cell research, the symbolic Nader vote had a very real, and very deleterious, effect, even after one recognizes its value as expression.
June 18th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Bearding Nader with Bush’s failings not only illogical (post hoc, ergo promter hoc all over again) but grossly unfair. Sutter’s emotive attempt to link a vote for Nader to all the miseries that followed from his defeat puts us through the looking-glass yet again. Nader would not have gone to war, and he would doubtless have done a better job with the other issues Sutter mentions. Perhaps the question to ask of everyone who still resents Nader for Bush would be, Wouldn’t you have preferred Nader? Then why didn’t you vote for him?
June 18th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Because I knew he would not win. And you did too.
As Potter has said, I knew the candidates who might win were Al Gore and George Bush. And given those choices, I did not vote for Nader — or for Chris Lydon or my high-school history teacher or any of the literally hundreds of people I believe would have been better presidents than either Bush or Gore. I used my vote to exercise power rather than to make a statement. And if more people had, Gore would have won (or won more convincingly, depriving SCOTUS the opportunity to steal the election away from him).
June 18th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Oh dear. I really did not mean to reopen this. Our positions are clear, and I really only meant to pose the (admittedly loaded) question about votes as expression vs. votes as exercises of power. Hurley, I will let you respond, as only seems right, and then I won’t reply — I’ll give you last licks here, because I didn’t mean to reopen the discussion on this front.
June 18th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Were not Nader’s election bids of 2000/4 not the logical outcome of America’s and the Democrats sway well to the right (by most of the world’s standards) over the past 20 years? Again, go to the source Sutter and Potter.
June 18th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Isn’t this why we had a primary in 2000 (in which the more liberal candidate lost)?
June 18th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
By the way, I supported Bradley, and would support him again if he ran today.
June 18th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Sutter says:
“Hurley, I will let you respond”
By your leave, Esteemed Knight of the Party of Lesser Evils, I shall, if only to reaffirm my good faith in your good faith. I could bang on about this all night with a smile on my face. The question you pose deserves a show of its own. In the meantime, you write:
“Because I knew he would not win. And you did too.”
That assumes more than you know, at least about me, but I’m grateful for the compliment. (precognition, etc.) I thought the strong early support for Nader might catch Gore’s ear and persuade him to listen, but no such luck. Had he listened, had he enlisted Nader’s support, he might have been president, and we might have been discussing better things.
By the way, this allegedly heated discussion seems to me to have been friendly and fun. Many thanks all.
June 18th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Friendly to be sure. And of course I wasn’t purporting to give you permission to respond — I was just promising to let it end there! (Which means I can’t respond on the Lesser of Evils remark, though I will join you in saying that this is certainly true. Politics is the art of the possible….)
June 18th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Politics is, indeed, “the art of the possible”… and, had Nader gotten enough 5% vote totals in enough states that Matter (in your “art”, some states don’t matter), then those votes would have been (& I will maintain WERE) votes for “power”- not merely for “expression of feelings”.
Re “send in the clowns”- we’re really flogging a dead horse, here… mostly for pent-up feelings, over issues about which we can only look back upon (& maybe sigh, &/or smile about, some day). Put the past back in its box and try to enjoy the spectacle of the present moment- even if that involves looking in the mirror, speaking the words “Ralph Nader” aloud, and then rolling ones eyes while trying to catch a glimpse of one’s own physiognomy… & then laughing at the effort… ^..^
June 18th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
I think Nader was the perfect guy to have thrown in the mix. If he won: great - we have a fair compassionate leader. If he caused Bush to win: great - things get screwed up to the point that people finally learn what evils we need to uproot in our leadership. No pain, no gain.
June 18th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Our friendly internet behemoth notwithstanding, “yahoo” is still pejorative when used to refer to an individual person, I think.
June 18th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
yahoo:
1. capitalized : a member of a race of brutes in Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels who have the form and all the vices of humans
2. [influenced by 2yahoo] : a boorish, crass, or stupid person
June 18th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
manwithface: “No pain, no gain”
I remember a radical black activist saying before Ronald Reagan was elected that he wanted Reagan to win because then the revolution would come sooner. I appreciated his optomism at the time but as we know with hindsight Reagan just allowed all the evil haunting us now to be set in place. Meanwhile some of us are still waiting for the revolution.
June 18th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Manwithface, what I was trying to suggest above (with due respect, of course), is that the “let things get really bad so they get better later” approach is a luxury enjoyed only by those who can afford the bad times (financially or otherwise). I have a really tough time countenancing the losses suffered by those I cited above — the war dead, the hungry children, the disabled, etc. — as a sacrifice to a hypothetical better tomorrow. For me (and I realize I only can speak for myself), politics is just too serious to be treated this way.
June 18th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Despite our concentration on The Great Man (Leader), the election of a President is a single-person winner-takes-all contest. If a group wishes to exert control over the political process and has zero chance of being the winner, there IS an ALTERNATIVE. In a Congress divided almost evenly between DemoPlicans and RepubloCrats, a minor party would only need to win three or four seats in the Senate, and 10-12 in the House to have the power to lean either way and to control the outcome of most legislation. Third party candidates are fools to try to win the Presidency. Their most effective strategy (only possible one) would be to find a handful of really powerful candidates, funnel the resources of their supporters nationwide behind them, and win in a handful of districts. Greens (or any other minor party, sufficiently motivated) could — if determined and sufficiently fanatical — move it’s hundreds of thousands of supporters into a sparsely populated area (remember the Rajneeshis and Antelope Valley, Oregon?) and overwhelm the RepubloCrats and DemoPlicans. Sure it won’t happen in modern-day America. But in the chaos following a few dirty bombs in a major metropolitan area, or after a successful terrorist attack on Capitol Hill while the Congress is in session, who can tell what might happen. Many forget that Ross Perot — until he temporarily dropped out of the race — “at one point in June, … led the polls with 39% (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton).” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot The United States, in crisis, is no more stable than any other nation. A properly organized and positioned political party with a smart strategy could pull the same rabbit out the hat that Adolf Hitler did in 1933. (And with luck no even having to ’stage’ a burning of America’s eqivalent of the Reichstag). Yeah, it’s all hypothetical, but most things that happen seem unbelievable before the fact… it’s only after the fact that everyone says, ‘Oh, yeah, it’s clear how it was inevitable…’ Nader and his Party are probably not ‘the chosen ones’ but someone will come along. If not him, someone else.
June 18th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
I had stronger words in mind for manwithface’s comment, but will let Sutter’s more tempered response stand for what I would like to say.
Yesterday on NPR news I heard of the killing of 7 more children in Afghanistan from some targeted missile attack and the explanation that it occurred because the Taliban were acting cowardly. I just can’t see any difference in a road-side bomb, flying a plane into a building or this kind of attack. Innocent people are killed for the sake of some other group’s desire to hold onto or gain power. Politics is always about the here and now with life and death consequences and the cost is always too high to look at it in some abstract or dispassionate way.
So I harbour the same despair as others here for what transpired from Republican victories. I only differ on where to attribute responsibility and perhaps have less faith that the Democrats would have done much different (though probably not an Iraq invasion and more on the environment) to reign in US imperialism.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:57 am
sutter, sidewalker: i didnt mean to trivialize all the disasters at home and abroad that have resulted from the last couple elections. and it is easy for me to say what i said because i have so far been relatively safe from direct harm by the bush government.
personally, i do believe that the unfortunate political consequences of the world can give an impetus for positive growth. but this doesnt mean i endorse passivity in letting the bad things happen. i voted for nader knowing he probably wouldnt win but i sincerely believed i was doing the best thing. i couldnt NOT vote for the guy who i thought would do the best job if he WAS president. and i hope that somehow my action contributes towards the creation of a more honest democratic system. and i hope, well i firmly believe, that the short-term negative consequences of nader’s actions will be ultimately overshadowed by the positive consequences. although maybe well after my lifetime…
June 19th, 2007 at 2:11 am
Hey, sidewalker, my “run the world” phrase was a purposeful hyperbole. The heads of our State see the US as the last superpower standing. They do seem to think they run the world. And, economically, we have for the past few decades. China and India might creep up on us and knock us down, though.
for the record, I raise another voice against the uncivil comment of bushiswmd. Shouldn’t be allowed to stand.
Potter, you read very emotional about Nader. I’m sorry. That’s a lot of pent up anger at a guy, whom I believe, has really devoted his life to making things better for other people. I actually think it’s shameful that his organization dis-owned because it was politically efficacious. I also believe that it was Al Gore who blew it, not Nader. I ABSOLUTELY expected Gore to reach out to Nader, incorporate some of Nader’s agenda and seek his support. I was stunned at what he did in Boston and he lost my support as a political candidate altogether during that campaign. I think he’s doing fantastic stuff now and he seems to be a lot happier with his current work. I hope he stays there and does not run for office. My anger about 2000 rests with him. I can move on, though. If he did run, I’d watch him again and see if he seems to have had some epiphanies that instruct to behave with more personal integrity and commitment to fighting for what is right, not just maintaining his money support.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:18 am
Chelsea - my questions for Nader:
What does he think he can do, other than running for office, to help wake Americans up to the need for a systemic overhaul of our campaign system?
Does he have his eye on the environmental/social/economic impacts of the patenting of biological entities?
Has his consumer advocacy work included the monitoring and/or testing of any potentially negative impacts of GMOs?
Does the imminent dangers of global warming impact the focus of his advocacy work?
With so many of the products we consume being made outside of the country now, how does a consumer advocate effectively fight for consumer protection?
Has he been working to build political or advocacy ties outside the US?
June 19th, 2007 at 3:25 am
Thanks for the explanation manwithface. I, too, hope at least something good comes out of all the fear-mongering, rights trampling and waring, such as a more reticent and reflective politics in the US, but it won’t make up for the damage done.
We can only hope for someone like Nader in the Whitehouse one day. For now, we resign ourselves to the better among two lesser choices.
June 19th, 2007 at 3:28 am
allison, I should have guessed that
Great questions!
June 19th, 2007 at 5:45 am
On the eve of the last presidential election I sat in the first row of Cooper Union’s auditorium. A colourful group from the fringes of society filtered in. On stage there was simply a podium which I couldn’t help thinking looked like something Abraham Lincoln might have stood behind. I sketched it on the back of a post card while waiting.
Soon Patty Smith stepped on stage with a guitar player and sang a pop song,”..and you are beautiful in each and every way..words won’t bring you down..” Ralph Nader stepped out to emotional applause. He gave a speech I can only describe as masterful. I knew little about this man and did not agree with every opinion but in the midst of his speech I got the distinct feeling I was seeing a drama, less of a polititian than of a great man. I wondered if Lincoln’s audience, were he alive today, would consist of this same small group of unwashed and somewhat slightly dazed. Just then Nader interrupted his speech to note the podium he stood at was, indeed, the one from which Lincoln gave his Cooper Union address.
Chris, some months back I sent in a suggestion for a show on who is Ralph Nader. Tonight, late at night, I listen to the radio show as I’m painting a picture here in a garage in Mountain View,CA and it’s announced you’re doing this show! Okay, maybe not from my suggestion but, how cool is that!?
June 19th, 2007 at 7:27 am
What a shame that the man described in the above post cannot be heard any longer.
Al Gore’s fault?
Allison, you believe Gore blew it by not reaching out. I believe that Nader blew it when he had all that power in his hands but it went to his head- he refused to use it effectively. He did not know when to quit.
I don’t know what happened in Boston perhaps you can remind me if it was so seminal for you but it seems to me that it was Nader who should have mounted his argument to Gore. Oh how much better we all would have been for it. Andwe would have had Nader too. I can’t imagine why Gore would not have been responsive. Again- particularly in Florida- even at the last moment- had Nader thrown his support to Gore I might not be so angry about where we are today.
I see the election (or selection) of GWBush as the seminal moment.
All the justifying from Nader voters… add my anger (why are Sutter and I so alone here?) More importantly despite producer David’s imploring last night -why can’t we hardly talk about anything else on this thread?
A couple of quotes from John Nichols article November 13, 2000 ( when we had no decision yet on the election)
For the first time in decades, the term “tactical voting” is being given its proper place in the language of the American left. Progressive voters are actually checking poll figures, not to figure out which of the evils is ahead, but rather to determine whether they can safely cast a ballot for the good. These are people who would not risk handing the White House to Bush, but who hope to be able to cast a Green vote as a warning to Gore and Democratic Party leaders that there is indeed a constituency that stands to the left of the Democratic Leadership Council.
The point at which any particular progressive voter decides to embrace or abandon the lesser evil is not the point. What matters is that the Nader candidacy has opened dialogues–both internal and external–about the wisdom and potential for tactical voting. This, as they say in China and at Billy Bragg concerts, is a great leap forward.
And this from the same piece:
Sen. Paul Wellstone, the Minnesota Democrat who backs Gore but eschews criticism of Nader, knows better than perhaps anyone else on the American left the challenge and the potential of a more engaged and tactically savvy left politics. Not long ago, I sat with Wellstone in a room full of progressives who agreed on every issue, but who were almost evenly divided on the Nader-versus-Gore question. The dialogue between Wellstone and his friends was thrilling–filled with the intensity, mutual respect and hope that is so often missing from activist discussions.
“I really do believe it’s important that Gore beat Bush,” Wellstone said to me as we were walking out of the room. “But I want to tell you something: It’s just as important that we capture the energy of this dialogue that we’ve got going on the left and turn it into something. November 7 is important because it’s Election Day, but November 8 may be even more important for progressives. On November 8, no matter what happens, we’ve got to take all these questions and arguments, all this energy that’s being poured into beating Bush with Gore and into building an alternative with Nader, and turn it into something.”
Wellstone is right to see reason for hope in the electoral turbulence that has gripped the left this fall. Ralph Nader has stirred the pot. He has forced progressives to begin to come to grips with the question of how they will engage with the electoral process. And, no matter how they answer that question, the nature of their engagement will be more sophisticated, more nuanced and more significant than it has been since the days when no one questioned whether there was a left in America.
So how do these notions look today?
June 19th, 2007 at 8:54 am
I should have emphasized this from John Nichols Nov 2000 post election piece:
“On November 8, no matter what happens, we’ve got to take all these questions and arguments, all this energy that’s being poured into beating Bush with Gore and into building an alternative with Nader, and turn it into something.â€
Perhaps Allison you are speaking of the business about Nader being locked out of the debates. I don’t know what role Gore played in that. The rules were that candidates that did not have a certain level of support were not allowed. We can argue the rules and whether it would have been better to have Nader in the mix. Don’t forget the reaction it produced when Nader was going around the country saying that there was no difference between Gore and Bush. I think what Nader meant and should have siad was that the system is very bad. But by characterizing it the way he did and elevating himself above his message, Nader shot himself and his message, a message ( among many other important things he had to say) that might very well have resonated far more widely.
I disagree with those who think we should not talk about this that this is all water over the dam ( or under the bridge). There is much to learn here.
June 19th, 2007 at 8:56 am
Sorry - that quote was Paul Wellstone speaking.
June 19th, 2007 at 9:54 am
The question I would like most to hear asked of Mr. Nader is whether there is any way for liberal and progressive ideas to even coexist in the realm of moneyed politics. If so, how?
It might also be instructive to find out what the most pressing issues of the United States, circa 2015, might be, given how prescient the prevailing issues of his previous campaigns (corporate responsibility, environmental issues, social justice) have proven to be. Is it possible that he is simply a man too far ahead of his time? After all, we now live in an era when oil companies and auto manufacturers are marketing themselves in the same way that crunchy granola candidates were ten years ago.
Finally, where does he see the next generation of possible leaders coming from?
June 19th, 2007 at 10:03 am
How in the world did our democracy get to the point where we accept and pull the lever for people who do not stand for the principles we have and refuse to support those who reflect our principles because the media says they are “spoilers?” Being a citizen, to me, means that we either put ourselves forward as candidates for office and let people know what we stand for, or support and vote for people who are willing to do so whose views reflect our own. Ralph Nader reflected my views and the major party candidates did not, so I voted FOR him in the last three presidential elections, even though he was on the ballot in Massachus