I saw the Howard Dean-Ralph Nader debates on C-SPAn this weekend. Very compelling, very good debate.
The debate was less about politics and more about whether Nader’s candidacy was a boon or a bane for libeal politics and defeating George W Bush.
To those who will vote against Bush: is Nader’s presence good or bad for your movement?
Anyone, of course, is welcome to respond, but I am curious as to this board’s general opinion of Ralph Nader in 2004.
I love (most of) what Nader does and stands for.
My opinion, however, is that this is not the election for Nader to challenge the system. My opinion is that Bush must be beat, and Kerry is the guy to do it. I fear Nader will stand in the way, again.
Nader is the liberals liberal! Most of what comes out of his mouth has to do with redistribution of wealth and other socialists concepts. I admire his drive, but not his politics.
Personally, I’m glad he is in the race as many people who find Kerry not liberal enough may very well vote for Nader. This will take votes from the only other logical choice in their minds-Kerry.
Did any of the liberals mind when Ross Perot took about 19 million votes vs Bush, Clinton?
I agree with RSU, Nader does stand for some very good ideas. That being said he doesn’t stand a snowballs chance in hell of winning and will just hurt Kerry. He says he does not like Bush even more then he dislikes Kerry, but his campaign will help Bush! If he really wanted to help somewhat he would campaign for Kerry!
Hopefully by now most of the people who voted for him last time realize just how badly they fucked up and are smart enough not to make the same mistake twice.
Sort of related digression –
Unfortunately, it seems that the Nader effect may be at lease partially offset by a defection of Libertarians from the Republican ticket. At least some of them will refrain from voting as they cannot stomach the thought of a Kerry vote:
[Links embedded in original text - follow the link to get that]
/2004/07/the_problem_wit.html
The Problem with Libertarians
Is that they are prepared to vote for - or at least “silently root” for - “a smarmy, elitist, faux-child of the 60s paired with a greasy, blow-dried, trial lawyer” in the forlorn hope that gridlock will be better than GOP control. Let’s remember what happens if they get their way: protectionist trade deals as the rule rather than the exception; pro-abortion pols in the White House nominating judges (and Justices); the war on terror probably gets scaled back to a police action; new political support for what Charles Krauthammer has described as “the most ghoulish and dangerous enterprise in modern scientific history: the creation of nascent cloned human life for the sole purpose of its exploitation and destruction.” And why is this a good thing? (I am setting aside the fact that the libertarian social agenda is essentially indistinguishable from that of the far left of the Democrat party on issues like abortion, cloning, gay marriage, and anything else related to the dignity of human life.)
The pro-Kerry libertarians want us to believe that gridlock will shave a point or two off the rate at which government grows. Right.
The pro-Kerry libertarians overlook the basic fact that gridlock is an inadequate defense against the modern Presidency. There is so much a President can do through executive orders, regulatory rulings, and so on, without any Congressional action. Moreover, the President gets to set the agenda on a whole host of issues (such as treaty negotiations) that leave Congress with few alternatives. Finally, there will be a whole set of issues as to which Gridlock is politically unsustainable - nominations, budgets, etc.
The pro-Kerry libertarians are living in a delusional world. But what else is new? As Russell Kirk well-observed:
"Any good society is endowed with order and justice and freedom. Of these, as Sir Richard Livingstone wrote, order has primacy: for without tolerable order existing, neither justice nor freedom can exist. To try to exalt an abstract "liberty" to a single solitary absolute, as John Stuart Mill attempted, is to undermine order and justice-and, in a short space, to undo freedom itself, the real prescriptive freedom of our civil social order. "License they mean, when they cry liberty," in Milton's phrase." ...
I find it grimly amusing to behold extreme "libertarians," who proclaim that they would abolish taxes, military defense, and all constraints upon impulse, obtaining massive subsidies from people whose own great affluence has been made possible only by the good laws and superior constitutions of these United States-and by our armies and navies that keep in check the enemies of our order and justice and freedom. There is no freedom in anarchy, even if we call anarchism "libertarianism." If one demands unlimited liberty, as in the French Revolution, one ends with unlimited despotism. "Men of intemperate mind never can be free," Burke tells us. "Their passions forge their fetters."
... If the American public is given the impression that these fantastic dogmas represent American conservatism, then everything we have gained over the past three decades may be lost. The American people are not about to submit themselves to the utopianism of a tiny band of chirping sectaries, whose prophet (even though they may not have much direct acquaintance with his works) was Jean Jacques Rousseau.
Granted, Kirk was no friend of neoconservatism, but his critique of the libertarians goes far deeper; for it is the latter who deny that the “permanent things” even exist. It is the latter who rush to deny custom and morality any place in the laws of the land. It is the latter who construct fantasies like the social contract and dream of Objectivist utopias. It is the latter who deny that life has any purpose beyond self-gratification. It is the latter who deny that human dignity is any concern of the government, that liberty should be ordered, or that that order can be based on custom, tradition, and/or faith.
Nader will keep Kerry from ignoring the issues of the left, and just going straight for the center. I think that is useful to some extent. I think Kucinich is also doing the same thing (Kucinich is technically still a candidate- at least he was last time I looked- and he will have a speaking slot at the convention).
I do think Kerry has to differentiate himself from Bush, not just as a way to get votes, but on the issues. I don’t want a Bush Lite, I want a real change in leadership. I think a lot of this will start to firm up after the democratic convention at the end of the month.
Boston,
Good stuff. I read a lot of Burke and Kirk.
As for Nader, I think he keeps the debate lively, but one thing I notice that bothers me:
He always plays the victim card. His spin is always that corporate powers in both parties line up against to keep him out of elections.
The truth is, Nader just can’t make the cut. There will always be thresholds for ballot access or debate access, else every fool who wanted to make a spectacle of himself would show up and claim he is a presidential candidate. Nader’s ideas just don’t generate the kind of mainstream traction to get himself past those thresholds.
So he whines. And he blames nefarious, conspiratorial enemies for his inability to get noticed.
Also, instead of just getting out the message the old-fashioned way - convincing voters of the merits of your platform - Nader insists the US needs a parliamentary system to give voices to people like himself.
I’m wasn’t as impressed with Nader as I thought I would be (I knew about him generally, but never listened to him at length like I did in this most recent debate). He just can’t resign himself to the fact that in the US, he is a fringe candidate. According to Nader, his message is pure and wonderful, but it’s always somebody else’s fault he’s on the outside looking in. Not exactly leadership.
Clearly Nader’s goal is to pull the Democratic party to the Left by holding liberal votes hostage.
Dean, by the way, was very impressive as an advocate of Democratic politics. I know the Dems went with Kerry because they thought he wouldn’t alienate moderates in a general election, and maybe that was the smart move, but I think Dean would have been a truer representation of where Democratic politics are right now and I think he makes the argument better.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Boston,
As for Nader, I think he keeps the debate lively, but one thing I notice that bothers me:
He always plays the victim card. His spin is always that corporate powers in both parties line up against to keep him out of elections.
[/quote]
Was it you who said that the system was built to support only two parties?
RSU,
I didn’t invent the idea - but, yes.
The winner-take-all system in the American system creates a strong duopoly party system. Third parties can find their way in occasionally, but it is very tough.