Nader speaking
I took some time off from filling out forms to go check out the Don Quixote of American politics, Ralph Nader, at a Nader “rally” held here in Morgantown today. I have no intention of supporting him in the fall, but I had never seen him in person before and am naturally drawn to these sorts of things. At any rate, I left pretty unimpressed with the campaign, but Nader himself was worth the time.
There were approximately 200 people in the theatre, and they shook me down for a five dollar donation in order to enter to hear him, which I thought was rather amusing. Power to the people and all that. Overall, the crowd was young, and there were a bunch of Obama shirts and buttons, so it seems like I was not the only one in the crowd there just to check things out.
Before Nader spoke, he was in a press conference next door, so we had some younger fellow up on stage for about 20 minutes speaking, and it was just abysmal. I will not publish his name in order to protect the fool, but apparently he is an official with the campaign and the state coordinator. He was awful. He had no idea what separated Nader from Mckinney and Barr, he had no idea why Nader was not running on the Green ticket, and everything was a conspiracy by the Democrats.
Fortunately, that came to an end, and Nader came out. He was not as dynamic a speaker as I thought he would be, but he made some fair points about the difficulties third party candidates have in getting ballot access. Additionally, he talked at length about how it makes no sense for him to be excluded from the debates, and I tend to agree. Why not have Barr, McKinney, and Nader at at least one debate with McCain and Obama? The system is rigged against muted groups.
The most surprising thing about the whole rally was how much overt hostility there is directed at the Democrats. The folks, including Nader, seem to just agree without any debate that the Bush/Cheney administration and the Republicans are completely criminal and corrupt, but what really got them riled up was the damned Democrats, who really are what is keeping the Nader wing of the spectrum down. I found that odd.
Worth the time, though, and there was the strong odor of patchouli amongst the crowd.
double-plus-ungood
…but what really got them riled up was the damned Democrats, who really are what is keeping the Nader wing of the spectrum down.
One thing that the left excels at is attacking other elements of the left. And the common enemy, The Judean People’s Front
bvac
Nader 2008 is pretty pathetic. In every appearance I’ve seen, he talks less about issues and in more general terms than he used to. The hostility towards Democrats is well-deserved but a little over the top. They completely destroyed his campaign in 2004 and left him in debt for years, but he’s gotten way to personal about it. He used to be able to formulate a very powerful and reasoned argument against the two party system, now all that comes across is anger.
It’s annoying that most of his criticism is aimed at Obama. In 2004, Nader attacked Bush in ways that Kerry couldn’t or wouldn’t. The criticism was spot-on, and if Kerry adopted some of Nader’s rhetoric maybe he would have won. I know that Obama is imperfect, but he’s the best we’ve got to work with. I want to hear scathing criticism of McCain from Nader, because it sure isn’t coming from Obama. They’re almost even in the polls, and that is scary fucked up because it means most Americans have no idea how extreme McCain is.
If you want to hear a more functional Nader, look for stuff from around 2004-2005. Speeches from the Kennedy School of Government, Riverside Church, a few from anti-war rallies. He also spoke brilliantly at Google earlier this year.
Keith
Even Eddie Vedder isn’t supporting Nader this time around.
Comrade The Moar You Know
Really? Well, on behalf of Democrats, let me first congratulate the Naderites on throwing the 2000 election to George W. Bush, and then let me cordially invite Ralph and each and every one of his hippie douchebag followers to fuck themselves up the ass with a chainsaw, sideways.
PanAmerican
CNN / TIME / ORC
9/21-23/08
West Virginia 694 LV, 3.5%
McCain 50, Obama 46
McCain 49, Obama 44, Nader 5, McKinney 1
PeakVT
Traitors (real or not) tend to piss people off more than enemies. And the whole thesis of the Nader campaign is that the two parties are basically the same when they shouldn’t be.
The quality of the current Democrats aside, I am still flabbergasted that anyone on “the left” doesn’t understand the main lesson of the 2000 election: executive positions (president, governers, and a few other statewide positions) have too much power to toy with. Far more people get hurt when an executive screws up than when a legislator.
Just ask the people in Iraq. Or in New Orleans. Or who are facing forclosure. Etc.
Bobzim
Vedder’s out?!?!? Well, that’s that tears it for me!
Great post title. Is that original?
Patrick
In Japan, they have one party.
In Europe, they have a score of parties who then form two coalitions after the election.
In the U.S., we form our two coalitions before the election. Simple. Can the third party people just grow up?
This makes sense historically. We have always had geographical tension. We fought a Civil War between two halves of the country. Instead of having the Southern Democratic Party and the Midwest Freedom Democratic Alliance, etc. We get the geographical stuff out of the way before election day. Was the last time three parties vied equally for the Presidency the election that precipitated the Civil War?
That is why third parties are excluded. If you can’t agree enough to enter into one of the two coalitions then you really aren’t serious about governing in a representative republic. Any time a 3rd party does gather a significant chunk, their idea(s) are quickly absorbed by one or both coalitions (Clinton balancing the budget which was Perot’s thing, Republicans picking up Wallace supporters).
Denzil
“… but what really got them riled up was the damned Democrats …”
This should be no surprise, IMHO.
Their prospective electorates overlap, so there’s not much to be gained for Nader by slating the Republicans – not likely to be many votes there.
It’s all down to competing for the “Independants.”
Sarcastro
Comrade, you do realize that Al Gore lost his home state right? And if the Dems hadn’t been a party of god damned pussies they might have actually held on to the win they actually achieved in Florida. But that’s what happens when you don’t have the dirty fucking hippies; shithead fatass republicans in Izod shirts outmuscle the fucking Democrats in the streets! 50 years ago those dickheads would have been bleeding in the gutters after the wobblies and the radicals got finished with their trifling asses. 25 years ago unionists, Panthers and SDSers had them so shit-scared they would never have shown their vile mugs in a street clash with the left. But the DLC didn’t need them. Noooooo. WTO protesters were sooo déclassé after all. I mean, nothing could ever go wrong with the ECONOMY!
As a Tennessean, I now really wish I’d voted for Nader rather than that dumb bastard Gore. Maybe a few more of us would have convinced the DLC Party to pack it in before they nominated another fucking centrist loser in 2004. Although, I must say I’d probably vote for this New Improved Al Gore guy that’s running around these days. That motherfucker would have won in 2k.
Comrade Zifnab
Oh please die in a fire. Nader stole the 2000 election only if you decide to ignore the massive voter disenfranchisement, the miscounted ballots and hanging chads, the abysmal SCOTUS decision, and about a dozen other mitigating factors. If Ralph Nader was the only thing standing between Al Gore and the Presidency, then he didn’t deserve to be President.
If the last two years isn’t evidence of exactly why a two-party system blows giant goat testicles, nothing in the world will sell it for you in the future. We absolutely need a Green Party in American Politics. And a Libertarian Party. And a Constitution Party. And an NAACP Party. Whatever will work for the people. Cause neither Democrats nor Republicans have particularly blown me away lately, expect in the speed at which they sell their constituencies out for a quick buck. Decentralizing the power would go a long way towards breaking the strangle-hold corporations have on the political system. And additional political parties would serve to decentralize that power base.
That said, Ralph Nader is a terrible politician who couldn’t seem to get himself elected to dog catcher. He’s not stealing elections from anyone.
Comrade Cris Ivanov
As one of those who voted for Nader in 2000, I’ve noticed that the vitriol runs both ways. (See Comrade Moar’s comment above for an example.) The factions really have very little love for each other, and it’s pretty unproductive. The Dems will never forgive the Naderites for spoiling, so they have turned them into their Goldstein. In return, the Naderites simply turned up their already-existing scorn.
It’s very ugly and far from rational, as is usually the case with family squabbles.
I still consider the Green party’s platform to be the best representation of my ideals among the national parties, but at this point I’m quite content with the coalition-oriented perspective that Patrick states so well.
Comrade Funkhauser
In San Francisco, we call this a weekday.
Hedley Lamarr
I agree about the 3rd party difficulties. Nowhere in the Constitution are political parties mentioned, to say nothing about the need for just two of them.
Scott H
John, who is the Mountain Party behind in this? Oh, I kan haz googl. McKinney.
Hey, maybe Obama can ask McKinney, Barr, and Nader what they’re doing Friday night?
douglasfactors
See, this is just where Nader apologists go wrong.
It doesn’t matter who “deserves” to be President.
What matters is who will be President.
SGEW
Such a shame to see Mr. Nader’s long descent into triviality and bitterness.
I used to be a fan. Voted for him in ’96 and everything. Now I hate him with an unreasonable vigor.
Asshole.
jcricket
I see no evidence that those countries with more than two parties function any more effectively or that those parties move their party effectively in any particular direction. Witness Israel and Italy as two examples of what happens when niche politics turns into a proliferation of parties.
Hint: You do not get a better functioning political system.
I don’t really care whether or not the presence of Nader “cost” Gore the election. As others have said, a less lackluster (i.e. better) campaign from Gore would have won it. Better ballot design in Florida and less voter disenfranchisement would have won it for Gore too. But that’s ancient history now.
To me the lessons are clear – run a good campaign, and vigorously fight the shenanigans of the Republican party when it comes to voter suppression. If there’s one thing I’d love to see Democrats should be doing between elections, it’s working on promoting vote-by-mail with optical scan ballots. Vote by mail Improves turnout, eliminates issues with polling places (including intimidation, long line/turnaway issues, etc.). Optical scan ballots leave a nice paper trail.
The only issues then end up the “challenges” the GOP tries to pull regarding registration/addresses, and “spoilage” (stray marks on the ballots/incorrect erasure, etc.). The former can be fought by electing Democrat secretaries of state, governors and legislatures (that pass laws restricting Republicans abilities to file phony challenges). The latter could be fixed within the vote-by-mail system by allowing people to use a computer to print out a filled-in-ballot (with perfect ovals and what-not) but still requiring a single-use security envelope.
When more people vote, Democrats win. So Democrats should be spending some money on increasing the ease of voting.
Comrade Haldane
I’m at the University of Minnesota, and last week the Naderites were out campaigning on campus. Almost all of their materials were directed at recruiting potential Obama voters to vote for Ralph instead. It’s as though they’re working for McCain.
Which, of course, they aren’t. I suppose.
grumpy realist
Old joke: “look at how wonderful proportional representation is! Look at Japan and how well it operates!”
Retort: “….look at Israel…”
Actually, Patrick up above has the reason why third parties don’t make it in the US: as soon as a third party looks to be gaining traction, one or other of the Big Two will swipe the relevant ideas. And the other side will profess the exact opposite. Which is why the Republicans and the Democrats end up with individually incoherent platforms….
(I’ve always been amused that the most grass-roots party in Japan is the Communists, and the bulk of their support is in the urban areas. The LDP isn’t an actual “party”–it’s a collection of factions all shoving for their turn to have their snouts in the trough. And the JSP (Japanese Socialist Party) has only within living memory decided to stop squabbling whether Marx or Lenin was more correct…..the major reason why the LDP has remained in power has not been that they are so great, but the alternatives are totally hopeless.)
strasmangelo jones
More registered Dems voted for Bush than voted for Nader. Nader didn’t cost Gore the election, and I suspect that deep down Democrats don’t really hate Nader because they honestly believe that – I mean give me a fucking break, we all know the outcome of the 2000 election owes more to Jeb Bush, the Supreme Court, General Electric and Al Gore himself than to the devilishly all-powerful consumer advocate lobby. Democrats hate Nader because he says aloud what they’re thinking all the time – that their party’s leaders suck, and sell them out to corporate swine on a daily basis – and there’s nothing more infuriating than someone you don’t like who happens to be right.
Brett
Keep in mind that all the more pragmatic Naderites (close, but not quite an oxymoron) defected back to the Lesser of Two Evils after seeing the fiasco of Bush in his first term. What you’ve got left are the people who are still in deep denial, who, when pressed, honestly admit that they’d rather hold their principles and lose valiantly than compromise to get some of what they want at the price of corruption.
As for the “well, he didn’t cost the election!” – hey dumbshits, you do realize that he took north of 75,000 voters in Florida, right? Are you telling me that not even 1,000 of those – only 1000 of those left-wing voters – would have voted for Gore if Nader wasn’t there, allowing Gore to claim a clear but narrow victory?
It makes sense, though. They’re virtual pariahs in much of the left spectrum – considering the sheer amount of denial involved in rejecting the choice of the lesser of two evils, it would make sense that they would project their sense of victimization against their nearest relatives.
michael
thought from a pinko communist European (or something): more than two parties makes perfect sense in parliamentary elections. Not so much when electing a president. At least in my home-country, whenever we have a presidential election (every 6 years, mind you, our president doesn’t have much to say/do, that all goes to the chancellor), 4-5 candidates are on the ballot and we vote. And a month later, we have to vote again between the two who had the most votes in the first run. That way, it turns out the same. We kinda have open primaries and then a vote. Or something like that, if you wanted to compare.
fish
So the Democrats have controlled the house and the senate for 2 years, yet we are still in Iraq (and continue to expand funding for it), the party platform is to expand the war in Afghanistan, no impeachment on the table, the Dem candidate endorsed amnesty for telecoms, and you are surprised at the venom Naderites have for Democrats? Sure GWB is extra double-plus bad, but in no way can the Democrats be seen as good. Lesser evil is still evil…