June 24, 2004
Nader Justifies
Notes on the Atrocities has a review of Nader's justification of running, and how it starts to sound convincing after a while. He has two points - that we have more than two choices, and that a Kerry presidency may not be better in the long run.I have a different reaction to those two points. The first one is easy, of course I agree that we "do" have more than two choices. It's in quotes because it really means "should have". But Nader's one of those types that believes we should pretend that something is true if we think it should be true. I would love to make an honest decision between Nader and Kerry. But it comes down to the voting system. The voting system does not allow it. If we're going to use a voting system, we have to submit to the voting system. We can't express our principles by accepting a system that doesn't have room for them. If we do, it's ultimately an unprincipled action.
His rebuttal to that point is the same justification as what's behind the second point - that without his presence, there isn't motivation to change. That we're not going to have change without fucking things up first. I really think that there is something about this belief that is central to Nader as a person. This pattern of causing damage in order to highlight the damage in order to create motivation to fixing the damage. Yes, I believe there are problems with democracy independent of Nader. But he's saying the only way to fix it is to follow his approach. I reject that wholeheartedly.
I would argue that weblogs and the internet have done a lot more for democracy than Nader did in 2000. I believe that this stronger press community can help fix democracy, and I don't believe that we need Nader to increase the odds of a Bush re-election in order to help us save it.
I wholeheartedly agree with Nader's central theses (at least, as I have attributed them), but that doesn't mean Nader's the solution. We do need radical change. I hope people will elect Kerry and then demand that change, not handcuff him to the impotent "moderate" policies of Clinton.
Posted by: Jeff at June 24, 2004 11:15 AMYeah, you can't argue with either thesis. But his points as stated fall short.
Technically we can choose from one of several parties. In an ideal world, each of them would a significant presence in a well-rounded national discourse. And yet we live in a world where dueling soundbytes pass for hard debate.
Nader's second point is just false on its face. Unless he can prove Kerry is a party to as many corporate scams as the neocons or has as few scruples, Nader is on shaky ground.
Curt, I think you hit the nail on the head and you're in good company. Noted writer/activist Andrew Vachss has often written him off as a narcissist. And Nader keeps living up to that image. He believes his own press, that only he can make democracy work, and his stated policies keep boiling down to, "Hey...it's me!"
That's a great argument if you're a Corellian smuggler. But here in the real world, we need a solid plan.
Posted by: Joe Medina at June 24, 2004 12:41 PMVoting for Ralph Nader is the political equivalent of masturbation.
Posted by: Jack Bog at June 24, 2004 05:01 PMThere are two reasons for Greens to vote Kerry. First, by voting for Kerry this year we become more relevant in presidential politics. We become swing voters. Swing voters matter to politicians seeking elected office. Often called moderate voters, swing voters are actually not middle voters but voters on the margins. Marginal voters who will move will be courted. While I see no panacea for the Left from a Kerry victory, I do see benefits in asserting the relevance of the Left - especially this year.
Dean's rise was a victory for the Left. Gore's series of speeches on civil liberties and the brazen lies of the Bush administration were remarkable. Kerry meeting with Nader was better than the Democratic shunning of Greens since 2000. These changes do not count as a transformation of society, but given how little power the Left has we are best realistic about how much of role we have at this time. Let’s be swing voters this year and so that others will know that we can help Democrats lose (as in 2000) and we can help Democrats win (as in this year).
But the swing voter argument is not the best reason for Greens vote Kerry. More important relates to why we usually vote Green or independent, which is to send a message about what really matters to us. I voted third party in all of the past presidential elections to send a message to the Democrats. Now I want to send a message to the Republicans.
The message is simple: Go too far and you will lose.
There are limits to how far either party can go. Bush went way beyond these limits. Defeating Bush matters because all politicians need to know that even the radical Left will back a Democrat if things go too far. Bush's radical agenda goes beyond anything any recent president has done. Not Nixon, not Ford, not Carter, not Reagan, not Bush's dad, and not Clinton come close to the hugely radical abuse of power and threat to the Republic of this president. That's why this president must be defeated and why it makes sense for Greens to help do it.
Bush invaded a sovereign state in a war of aggression without even pretense of following international law. Bush lied to the Congress and the American people to take our nation to war. Bush used the September 11th tragedy to restrict civil liberties and to massively expand police powers. Bush used fear of foreigners to push forward a radical domestic agenda. Bush was caught leading a government that tortures and ignores human rights with impunity. Bush suspended habeas corpus, locked citizens in secret jails and challenged the basic tenets on which civil society is based. Bush engaged in massive propaganda, abused the power of the Executive, challenged our Constitutional system, violated international law and pushed an unprecedented militaristic and corporate radical agenda.
Sure, other presidents have engaged in other acts that approach those of Bush - but none have been so bold and brazen as has been Bush. He is dangerous to our Republic and to the world. And we, the far Left, must join with moderates and liberals to send a message to radicals of the radical-Right. We will not tolerate anything that approaches Bush, not now and not ever - even if this means that we'll pause from building our own Green Party. Join me in sending this message because the right to vote matters and this year we can employ our right to make a real difference for America and for the world.