Hunting The Muse

"Politics is about reconciling passion with what is possible"..awesome quote! Yours?? Mind if I post it on my blog with attribution??

Great post as well!

:-)

sure, go for it. I've probably seen something similar before, but I came up with the phrase myself.

This is the problem I have with the criticism Nader is getting, it runs similar to the other comment posted in his defense. Nader sticks to his principals and manages to raise debate above the mere rhetoric as much as he can, which is apparently nearly impossible with the current mediaopoly, so it is hard for me to criticize these qualities. And that doesn't mean I feel like I have to vote for him. But for this rare display of some sort of sincerity people want him to shut up and sit down because he alone jepordizes the Democrats potential presidency. Is Is the Democratic party that fragile? Nader seems to be a convenient scapegoat. Depending on how you want to manipulate the statistics you can argue Nader didn't have much impact or that Pat Buchanan had the same affect. However, it is no secret now that voting for Nader is a highly charged decision and the media attention this position has attracted has made it all to clear the potential damage to Kerry. But why not criticize these voters that are going to the polls to vote for Nader. Why does Nader get blamed for other people having agency? And this is an election the Democrats should be landsliding. Bush is a candidate who should be worrying about impeachment and not re-election. People are just dying to have some one to root for right now. So don't the democrats then deserve some criticism for their inability to deliver an inspirational agenda/candidate/platform? But no one wants to talk about that, the game is blame Nader. It is important to speak of the impact of a vote in relation to dethroning our president but we can't criticize any candidate for running. It is the people that get to choose (theoreticaly) ...remember?.. not the candidates. Everyone knows what could happen if they vote for Nader. If Bush wins, therefore, it is not Nader's fault but our own. How about some responsibility, particularly in a nation that is in such desperate need. Lets get back on topic... today Bush, tomorrow the rest of the institution. If we want to talk about getting Bush out of office we can mobilize a vote, unite and still include Nader as an insightful point. We are not total morons who can only see black and white. Let's acknowledge that we are going from a cold hearted madman to a less than luke-warm Democrat for expediancy, but simultaneously, through a voice like Nader make it understood the popular issues that we want addressed. Am I just dreaming here or are we all so ignorant that we can't understand issues beyond "good and evil" (or my spelling).

stamp, I like your comment.

I am curious if you would be willing to click through the material I pulled together for my reasoning of why Nader shouldn't run here, and then let me know if any of that affects your thinking?

If you vote for Nader, the objectives you care about become less possible, not more.

It's a truism in American politics that nothing is ever fixed until there's a crisis. The Dems have absolutely no reason to advance more open methods of voting. They share power with the Republicans, and further opening the field to strong independants and Greens means less power for the Democrats and a dilution of their voter base, as people start to ask why the good things these candidates talk about aren't included in the Democratic platform. The two-party system isn't going to reform itself.

But say Ralph 'spoils' the election, again. Wouldn't it then be in the rational interests of the Democrats to push voting reform, to insure that minority wingers don't cost them any more major national elections? You know damned well that this is why Nader has as much of a voice with the Dems as he already does. Because there's a perception that he's diluting the Democratic power-base.

Just one hypothesis.

My main reason for leaning towards voting Nader is exactly this kind of subversive levelling of the field. The Dems aren't going to deal with these issues without being forced to. And until these issues are addressed, I think the best we can hope for is an oscillation between semi-benign Democrats and fucking insane Republicans in the white house, as we've been seeing for the last two decades. We've voted short-term plenty of times now, and the problem, insane republicans, persists. A new strategy needs to develop, some way to widen the national discourse, and put some reael goddamned dialectic back into the political process. Enough of the rhetoric.

A vote for Nader, in this context, is far more powerful than a vote for Kerry, in the sense that my vote doesn't typically mean shit. Christ, I don't think I even have a demographic at this point.

And if you think I'm 'undermining' my beliefs with a vote, I'm sorry. I'll try to remember that the next time I'm petitioning for mental health reform, that everything I'm doing is worthless because I've been conned into voting Nader. Or maybe I'll just get over my one-three-hundred-and-thirty-millionth of the political process and go about enacting some actual change.

It's a truism in American politics that nothing is ever fixed until there's a crisis.

This is such a stupid statement that I am not even sure where to start with it. First of all, the meaning of "fix" implies that there's a problem, so of course 'nothing is fixed until there's a problem' is true in a trivial sense.

But you're using this as a justification to break something. That's completely irresponsible. There are so many judgments you are making here - that just because *you* think something is a problem, means it's a problem; that the only way to demonstrate a problem is to cause damage; that it is impossible to affect positive change without causing the breakage first.

You know what? You're mad, and you're frustrated, and I don't blame you. But it's irresponsible to take those emotions out on the realities of others that may feel differently than you, especially when your actions can lead to the nation not being democratically represented. You're saying that even if it were obvious that the nation preferred Kerry to Nader, and Kerry to Bush, you would willingly take an action that would lead to Bush winning. That's anti-democratic. If you're going to flirt with being a revolutionary and trying to assert a minority will onto others, then grow some balls and join a real revolution rather than fucking around with actions that won't even help *your* objectives. Start advocating your own minority rather than Bush's.

You know, there's one more thing I thought of that shows how counterproductive this is.

The "subversive" argument to vote for Nader is to display to... someone... how broken the system is, evidently to motivate them to fix it.

And yet, this breakage benefits the Republicans. So they won't be motivated to fix the "problem". So the intent is more to motivate the DEMOCRATS to change things.

And yet, the only way that this can be demonstrated as a problem is to break it so that the Democrats lose. To motivate the Dems.

But then the action will result in the Democrats losing. i.e. not having the power to change it.

So you're so mad at the government for not helping you, that you'll convince one side to help you by taking away their power to help you, and convince the other side to ignore you by rewarding them.

Just shows how self-corrupting the whole thought process is. There's a *great* way to affect change.

A friend likened it to a student that refuses to do their homework because they are mad at the teacher.

Well said. As you said months ago in an earlier entry,

"One cannot vote one's principles in an unprincipled system."

This whole situation of folks continuing to suport Nader reminds me of the scenario where a student refuses to do his homework to spite the teacher. "Oh yeah?! I'm going to make a statement against you and 'break' this system and refuse to participate in it the way it works.. and you'll see!"

And the student fails the class and the teacher is at best, annoyed. is that really the way to get your point across?

Can't you already hear Bush chuckling already? If change is truly what you want, you have to first accept the situation for what it is before you can change it at all. Those of you who are insisting that you need to vote for Nader are refusing to accept the situation the way it really is and want to close your mind to the reality that you will be giving Bush more chance and thus, like Curt said, undermining the ability for things to change. You are "refusing to do the homework" in hopes that it will somehow matter.. refusing to understand the way the system works, essentially sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling, "Nyah, Nyah, Nyah, I can't hear you!! I'm voting Nader!!!"

You cannot create change until you are really honest about what the situation is and what is going to happen from your choices of actions. Make smart change, not reactionary change because you're pissed off and want to butt your head against the system. You're only helping Bush. Insist that Nader find other ways to speak out against this system he's so against in a way that doesn't risk another 4 years of Bush. Take a look at Dean, for example.. the way he is creating another alternative for change. He didn't just disappear and wipe his hands clean, saying, 'Well, that's that. I gave it a shot."

The system doesn't respond to your emotions and your passions. It responds to your actions. Passion is not well served by being unrealistic. The best way to serve your passions is to understand what is possible. And so I overlap Curt in saying work to change the Electoral College, the voting system to allow for third party candidates.

I am beggining to think the American public is hopeless. Can nobody see how a third party candidate is useful? Why is it we only fear Nader? Is it 2000 jitters. Do people think Nader wants Bush to win? Do we assume Nader is just stupid? I think folks need to understand the complexity involved in an election when it is not simply A or B choices.. or A and A-ish. If we stop arguing over how Nader is ruining everything and accept responsibility for how we vote then I think we can use Nader as a tool rather than a scape goat. Kerry cannot challenge Bush without jepordizing his moderate position. However, nader has nothing to lose. Can we imagine what would happen if a smart, incisive, and thoughtful candidate like Nader were able to engage Bush either directly or through the media. Bush would look ridiculous and lose credibility. We can listen to Nader without destabilizing Kerry. At the same time Nader can make Kerry aware of the popular issues and let him know anti-Bush is not going to be good enough. If we can stop being scared of Nader and get smart, start a dialogue that is more complex than good/bad "good and evil" then Nader does not have to be a threat. And neither do I blame anyone for voting their conscience. In the end that is what we all do. one conscience says Nader is right, another say Nader is good but Bush is worse and Kerry will do. If we start criticizing voters for voting their conscience then what is left? I cannot and will not tell anyone who to vote for or shun anyone for looking at the candidates and making a choice. That is the point of a democracy. If we force Nader out of the race to limit voter choice than how is that so different from the biased Florida shananigans. Republicans made it difficult for Democrats to vote for their candidate (Gore) for the sake of Bush's victory. How is it Democrats are now in a position where they want to make it difficult for Nader supporters to vote for Nader for the sake of Kerry's victory. I think this is truly hypocritical and rather than mislead one another and criticize Nader we need to begin to take responsibility, address complex issues, and mobilize. Let Nader do his thing and we can do ours... get Bush out.
Do i think Nader should run? Definitely.
Will I vote for him? No way.
But I get to decide and that means something.
It should be clear by now that the means do not justify the ends and it is time to put machiavelli to rest.