Stop Blaming Ralph

The Democrats like to cast blame for why they continually lose elections. Karl Rove's dream of a permanent Republican majority, while eventually thwarted because of Bush fatigue, was only possible because the Democrats failed to form a compelling ideology for a globalized economy.

Definition through negation works in some preliminary stump speeches, but eventually voters want answers. It's not enough to be Not-Republicans. How, exactly, are Democrats different than Republicans? Spouting tired rhetoric about the New Deal and social welfare worked for a country teetering on the brink of Socialism during FDR's reign, but what now? How are the Fat Cats in the Democratic party different than the Fat Cats in the Republican wing?

And Universal health care hardly seems like revolutionary thinking when the very insurance companies who have been exploiting sick Americans are invited to the negotiation table. Well, to be fair, they paid for their seats at the table, since they have donated millions to the presidential candidates.

The fact that it is 2008 and we're still debating if all people should be given health care, fair trials, shelter (even if they accepted outrageous mortgage loans from predatory banks,) and if we should or shouldn't parade around the globe like some kind of colonizing juggernaut should alert readers to the state of the union.

Democrats are in trouble. They're so in trouble that the Democratic party -- the liberal voice of reason -- would be unrecognizable to the lefties of yesterday. Why are issues of nuclear disarmament, alternative sources of fuel, a department of peace, immediate Iraqi troop withdrawal, and media diversification constantly forced into the margins of debate?

Instead, politicians wade through a swamp of semantics, where they bicker over 30 or 60 or 90 day moratoriums on home foreclosures, negotiating with the banks instead of defending the American citizens. They talk about building permanent military bases in Iraq and a gradual withdrawal of troops, as if our continued presence in that land will bring anything expect death and destruction for more Iraqis and U.S. troops -- as if a multilateral peace-keeping mission could be worse than the corruption and ineptitude that has already leveled the country.

Yet, many are quick to crucify Ralph Nader when he speaks for real change. Many Americans blame him for Al Gore's defeat in 2000. Though, curiously, no Republican ever accuses Pat Buchanan of stealing votes from Bush in Florida, though Pat did take many votes from the then Governor. Pat even took some of Bush's votes in Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon, and Wisconsin, but because Bush squeaked ahead in the polls, individuals fail to reflect upon that.

Bush won (historically, not technically,) and so the Republicans don't obsessively analyze Florida's hanging chads like Democrats do. Democrats see themselves as a repressed minority, and so they wander around the political landscape like poor Midwesterners after a tornado tears through their trailer park. They just keep looking around, going, "What HAPPENED?!"

We live in a Democracy, which operates under the theory that ANYONE can run for president. Unfortunately, that usually means anyone who is rich, but if a candidate can raise enough cash, then he or she can join the party. Otherwise, if we don't have competition in politics, if we attach exceptions to the rule of democracy, then we might as well live under a monarchy, plutocracy, or totalitarian system of government.

Thankfully, this is America, and we like diversity in politics rather than an endless cycle of Anglo-Saxon descendants of wealthy plantation owners. Anyone can run for president, even the most unpredictable beast of the animal kingdom -- an environmentalist.

It's easy to blame Ralph because, well, he possesses the stubbornness of the last sane man in a world of screaming lunatics. He has spent his life working to protect the repressed and exploited, even though they never thank him. In fact, they frequently mock him like dumb bullies do to the smart kid in the class, who always raises his hand when he knows the answer instead of remaining mute so people will like him.

It's harder to blame Al Gore for Al Gore's defeat. It's difficult to examine the party as a whole and realize the Democrat's have yet to offer the American people a compelling argument for the next decade, and maybe that's why Al couldn't sway more independents to his side and lower the hammer in Florida.

The election wouldn't have come down to a few hundred votes if Al had blown through the rest of the states with a compelling mission statement, if he had wowed voters with exciting ideologies to carry us into a world with a globalized marketplace. Or perhaps a shiny new business model for how the United States can compete with a country supporting itself on slave labor, like China. Better yet, what of a humanitarian coalition of the willing, where all countries are asked to pay fair wages, not just out of altruistic duty for our fellow human beings, but so that Americans can play on a level market field so that their jobs aren't shipped overseas?

Al didn't deal with specifics. He simply bet that voters could see that he was smarter and more experienced than Bush. Well, we know how that worked out.

None of this is Ralph's fault. He's always had specific plans, and his vision never falters. People hate Ralph because, much like that asshole teacher in eighth grade who wouldn't let you skate by, he challenges us. He pushes the country left when the pendulum forever presses right. In a world of free trade and winner-take-all attitudes, Ralph fights for the environment, workers, and victims everywhere.

And yes, he will get votes, but he steals nothing from politicians who don't willingly surrender their campaigns to mediocrity, or voters who cast ballots true to their consciences. A truly compelling Democratic nominee will win blue votes, and some reds and independents. However, if the Democratic nominee offers Americans more of the same centrist-right rhetoric brought to us during the Clinton years, if they cater to Big Business and Wall Street, then we may see a repeat of the 2000 election.

And it won't be Ralph's fault. It will be our own.

Comments

[Phaedrusnyc]

I sincerely wish more of the so-called "Liberals" here at HuffPo would force themselves to sit down and read Greg Palast's books. Though he barely even mentions Nader by name, he is very clear. Gore lost the election in 2000 for two reasons: Republican dirty tricks and NAFTA. None of the votes Nader managed to accumulate come even close to the number that were stolen in the rigged election. To those people who say, "Yeah, but he helped," I ask you- do you seriously believe that the votes Nader "stole" would have gone to Gore had Nader not run? Or do you not think that maybe the Republicans would have found ways to invalidate even that small number?

I an many other voters voted for Nader in 2000 not because of the man, but because we wanted to build a party. And, to a certain extent, it worked (Greens managed to stay on the ballots for a few years and even get elected locally due to the efforts of Nader's voters.) Maybe the Democrats should focus on building THEIR party before they get out the pitchforks and torches.

[chombo]

I'm just amazed that the author managed to flog that old pinhead chestnut, "Department of Peace". Shame on the serious candidates for overlooking such an important proposal.

[Dadoftwins]

Beautifully said.

[BMBTHC]

Come on people. Democrats need to figure out how to deal with Nader. It's pathetic how you all rant about him as a spoiler. He is, hands down, the most appealing candidate on the issues. All Obama or Clinton need to do is engage him and his issues. They need to explain why they favor universal private insurance over universal medicare. They need to explain why they like ethanol. They need to explain why NAFTA is bad or good or a mixture of both. Nader is where we want to be. He may be totally unable to get us there, but the dems need to explain why they aren't headed in that direction, or if they are headed in that direction, why they choose to take such a circuitous route. We aren't babies .... on second thought maybe we are.

This is also an excellent test for these so-called uniters and negotiators. If you can run the gauntlet of Nader, then perhaps you can actually get something done with congress.

[unitron]

"How, exactly, are Democrats different than Republicans?"

They aren't.

They are, however, different *from* Republicans, although not nearly enough so.

[Phaedrusnyc]

It's funny. I am a proofreader/editor. I received a perfect Verbal score on my SATs way-back-when. I am one of the biggest "grammar fascists" one could hope to find. Yet, even I find the above comment pedantic and obnoxious. Like I said, "it's funny."

[realityrules]

The only saving grace for Ralph 2000 is that lots of people get to share the blame along with him. Just because it wasn't entirely, totally, completely his fault, doesn't mean he's not guilty of letting it happen. What's more, he's about ready to do it again. What else do you need to know about this guy.

[WilliePilgrim]

So I guess you, me and everyone is equally guilty for not trying a little harder to get our family and neighbors to vote democratic...or vote at all for that matter. With only half the eligible voters actually going voting, I suspect that there is where the fault lies...that, and the chosen candidates inability to reach them and inspire them. Ralph inspired people who'd given up any hope that their vote would mean anything.

[pizzmoe]

Since only either a Democrat or Republican can win this election, regarding Nader, "voting your conscience" means voting for 4 more years of Bush. Live with that !

[appleknocker]

No. Voting your conscience is damaging ONLY if you live in a swing state. For most of us, it's a no-cost way to indicate that we're fed up with Republicrats.

[Hoelder]

I do not know what sickens me more: tally that Nader did not prevent Gore from being President or trying to disprove the perception that Gore did not pay enough attention to Florida. Either way, it is the same. Perception is reality. If a majority of people perceive that earth is neon pink, then so it is. You are as much on the defensive as Gore lost Florida. A conscience is nice thing to waste. Trying to white wash and defend the 2000 disaster is not going to help. You sound like a Republican who tries to desperately deny he did not have sex in a toilet stall with a male prostitute in the next. "les faits sont accompli": Can you live with the reality that Republicans are celebrating and we had one of the worst presidencies in the history of this country. You cannot change numbers - nice try - If you were so environmentally conscience did you achieve your objective, because in the end it does not matter what you think, but what the voice say in public. Congratulation, who is paying you off: Republicans?

[UppityNegress]

I defend Ralph Nader until as of yesterday. A run for presidency only heightens the framework to position his legacy as a curse instead of a cure.

Whereas we need populist campaigns, we don't necessary need a populist campaign for a general populace that can't understand what the severe need is. The culture is not that educated to know they have choices and some of the choices they are offered are hard and lonely. At this point, even those that support Nader will be waging a fruitless campaign because what instead needs to be done is to have a movement educate and empower the people instead of Nader still using centralized authority to supposedly represent the people who are lazy and uneducated of such strenous change.

I won't be supporting Mr. Nader this time because he is not appealing to the people need in first building a viable movement to educate them. He is destroying his legacy that I admire and wished I could boast that I could follow but he does not make in easy for common people to understand how to get there and make it translate in worth.

I think he deserves to practice his fundamental democratic rights. This way however is not what would fortify his legacy and produce effective disciples if people can quite understand why he is so important. Nader has to sacrifice to get what he needs and we need of him.

[Filinbills615]

I'm with you Allison. If Greens and Progressives are so goddamn important to the Democratic party, they should govern as if that were the case once in a while.

[mrcontinental]

Former President Theodore Roosevelt opposed the renomination of Taft by the Republican party, but the party professionals were solidly behind Taft. As a result, Roosevelt left the party to form his own, which he called "the Progressive" or "Bull-Moose Party".

The election was one of the most lively in United States history. Roosevelt was relentless campaigning and speaking everywhere. Only a bullet slowed him down. On October 14th Roosevelt was shot on the way to a campaign rally. He insisted on keeping his appointment despite being shot in the chest. After removing a blood soaked speech from his pocket he stated " It is nothing. I am not hurt badly. I have a message to deliver and deliver it as long as there is life in my body". For an hour and half he spoke and then was rushed to the hospital after he had finished. The other candidates suspended campaigning while he was recuperating.


Roosevelt ran on a platform of Progressivism, Wilson on a similar but slightly different one of liberalism. Taft was the only conservative running, but even he believed that days of unbridled capitalism without regulation was over. With the Republican vote divided between Roosevelt and Taft, Wilson was all but assured the victory that he obtained.

That was the election of 1912.

And Wilson turned out to be pure poison for this country giving us the FED and dumping us into WWI to save the profits of the Wall Street Bankers who would have been soaked if the allies had lost. The bankers wanted Wilson and USED Roosevelt to get him. This country has a history with "third party politics" and the winners have always been the wealthy and Wall Street. You can add the elections of 2000 and 2004 as well. Don't allow them to do it again in 2008 or the country as we know it will implode from within in short order with four more years of the GOP.

Ralph's negative place in history is already assured with 2000 and 2004 but adding 2008 will ensure that is name will live on forever in infamy. Anyone who does not acknowledge the "Nader Affect" is lying to themselves. He knows exactly what he's doing and has done this intentionally to help the GOP.

[FearlessFreep]

"And Wilson turned out to be pure poison for this country giving us the FED and dumping us into WWI to save the profits of the Wall Street Bankers who would have been soaked if the allies had lost."

You sound like a Ron Paul supporter.

[mrcontinental]

Nope, I sound like a historian. It's all available for those who wish to look.

Of course you probably believe Saddam was behind 9/11 and had WMD's too.

[messy]

Nader is, and the movie states, an "unreasonable man. He is an all or nothing type, and demands a superhuman purity of all in government.

He hasn't done anything good in years and years.

[ntmessage]

For all these years Nader has been the true voice of the people and the grass roots. I too was not happy with the 2000 election but he has every right to campaign and run if he chooses to.

[alkamm]

I don't blame Ralph, I blame those who voted for him. What kind of sophistication does it require to realize there is a huge difference between the Democrats and Republicans?

Ralph insisted the differences were not significant, but on the environment we have seen so much good work undone that proves Ralph's arguments were absolutist nonsense.

Nader is not the true voice of the people. He is living in a fantasyland these days, and those who support his right to run should be required to fund his efforts. But wait, the Republicans do that for them, don't they?

All the Nader voters who waited until Gore's victory was announced to vote for Ralph betrayed their strange sophistication. Their absolutist mentality allowed Bush to waste the environment every chance he got, and the blame does not lie with Gore, but with Ralph's supporters who could have elected an imperfect, but environmentally sensitive candidate and chose to register their superiority instead. They should vote Republican.

Nader is not the kind of unreasonable man that makes change inevitable. Instead, he blocks healthy change with his narcissism, egotism, idealism, legalism, and perfectionism. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

[ntmessage]

Yeah I may have felt all that and may have said all that after 2000 as well.
But, he has been the populist before it was in vogue.

[jcar]

Beside the point.

Nader simply wants attention for his issues. I probably even agree with much of what he has to say; but he runs for president knowing that he can't possibly win, just to get that attention. The American presidency is far to important for the race to be distorted in this way by someone who is just using it as a platform.

The American political system is rigged for the two parties controlling it... Ralph is right about that. So he should devote some time to getting that changed, and a lot of us would get behind him on that.

Ralph's candidacy in 2000 was undeniably an important factor in giving us the disastrous presidency we are now enduring.

[fullkelly]

If Clinton is NOT the democratic nominee I will DEFINATELY vote for NADER in the GENERAL ELECTION. Anything to keep Obama from becoming the next president. I am not ready for anyone who is even remotely tied to the Islamic religion and movement to be president of the USA. Even though Obama says he is a christian he still attends the church whose pastor praises the likes of Louis Farrakhan the self professed head of the so called "Nation Islam". Also Louis Farrakhan on the news this morning praising Baraka Obama.