The Other N-Word

I get it. People are pissed at Ralph Nader. They blame him for "stealing" votes from Gore and consequentially Bush defeating Gore in the 2000 election. They hate Ralph, and his droopy little eye, even though Pat Buchanan also "stole" some votes from Bush in Florida (and Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon, and Wisconsin) and no one blames him for having the nerve to participate in our democracy.

Asking people to vote for Ralph Nader is sort of like asking them to perform self-flagellation. They want to bet on a horse that's going to win, and I have yet to form a compelling argument for how the good guys can win. So I've accepted that I'll just have to pay tribute to Nader, the great humanitarian and environmentalist, in some sort of last-ditch, meaningless gesture. I'll just request my headstone read: I didn't like any of you, respected few of you, and should have voted for Ralph Nader.... Or something ...

After Obama voted for telecom immunity, my inbox exploded with angry diatribes from my Progressives readers, all of who demanded explanations for the Senator's suspicious behavior. First, I explained that I have no access to Obama's thinking. Second, I explained that, while Obama has said some promising things in the past (something about having gay friends in red states,) he never claimed to be THE Progressive candidate. We assigned all our hopes and dreams to a man who seemed Progressive when contrasted against the fiery train wreck sitting in our White House. We all sort of hoped things would work themselves out.

They didn't. Obama has catered to the middle with gun control, telecom immunity, the death penalty, faith-based initiatives, and troop withdrawal landmarks. The only man who can save us now is Ralph Nader. Before you click that little, red "X" in the corner of your browser, let me explain myself. The Progressives should petition that Ralph Nader be allowed access to national, televised debates in a three-way discussion with John McCain and Barack Obama.

Having Ralph Nader participate in a debate is not only the democratically right thing to do, but it will force Obama to think more progressively in his policies. It's easy to look like a liberal standing next to John "I'm Crazy And Will Bring On The Apocalypse" McCain. All you really have to do is stand up straight, say something about Universal Healthcare, and not become giddy over Iranians developing lung cancer. Even if Obama backpedals on promises, like holding telecom companies accountable for spying on Americans, he STILL looks liberal standing next to McCain.

But if Nader is there, scowling at Obama's sweat-soaked profile, suddenly Americans will see their full spectrum of political choices. Obama and Nader don't get along. At all. Apparently, Obama's charm and pretty smile didn't woo battered hardass Nader, who I imagine nearly took off Obama's head the second Obama said something about wanting to compromise on certain Progressive issues. I guess it's hard to smooth-talk a man who was once tailed by a General Motors-hired private spy. If he could withstand attacks from one of the most powerful corporations in the world, Nader could handle Obama's charm. Obama seemed shocked that Nader didn't lap up his pretty promises like a trained dog.

"My sense is that Mr. Nader is somebody who if you're -- don't listen and adopt all of his policies, thinks you're not substantive. He seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work," Obama remarked after meeting with Nader. I'm not sure what that means. Is it the fact that Nader is principled or the fact that he's proud and protective of his decades of work in consumer safety that bothers Obama the most?

Nader's presence would be a welcome change in this election. Millions of voters feel unrepresented by the Democratic and Republican parties. These people would find refuge in voting for Independent candidates. They just don't know it yet because they don't know they have choices. Every four years, they think they must vote for Tweedledee or Tweedledum, which is understandable considering networks refuse to even televise other candidates.

Early this year, Dennis Kucinich was shut out of a televised MSNBC debate, despite the fact that the network originally invited him to participate and America still claims to be a "free society," one with open, fair elections. The debate quickly became homogenized once Kucinich disappeared. Edwards said something...probably about his father working in a mill. Then Edwards fell out and Hillary and Obama became one, indistinguishable blob I call Hillbama as they bickered for months over the trivial differences between their campaigns. Hillary cried. Barack called a reporter "sweetie." Tim Russert died from the strain of it all. The end.

Now, we arrive at another critical juncture in the race toward the White House. Yet again, we find ourselves at the mercy of huge network conglomerates that decide what ideologies the American people will hear. Interestingly, six percent of people polled in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey said they are likely to vote for an alternative candidate. Who is going to represent their voices?

Anyone who shows a reasonable measure of competitiveness should be permitted to debate. And Ralph Nader is definitely competitive. Surely, no one who blames Nader for Gore's defeat in 2000 could argue differently. One can either admit Nader is incredibly influential and cajoled many Democrats to vote for him, or they can argue he's totally insignificant and had no influence in the 2000 election. If they agree that he was influential in 2000, then they must recognize that he's influential enough to participate in the debates.

Or we can be adults and stop casting blame for Gore's mishandled 2000 campaign. We can act like a civilized country and recognize that millions of voters are undecided, unrepresented, and would love to hear what Mr. Nader has to say. One needn't vote for Nader in order to recognize that he has the right to run for president, and as part of that right, he must be heard in debates.

At the moment, Nader needs to bump that 6% up to 10% in order to participate in national debates. Oh, he also needs to jump through thousands of hoops and cut through forests of red tape, and even then, all MSNBC needs to do is say "no," like they did to Dennis Kucinich, in order to silence Nader forever.

If Nader isn't permitted to debate, not only will our democracy suffer, but Obama supporters will suffer as well. Nader's presence will force the dialogue to expand past pointless bickering over lapel pins and ex-wives. Maybe his presence would even force us to examine the big issues differently. Maybe, for once, our nation will discuss issues of peace rather than how long the current war should last. Maybe we'll start to seriously discuss the environment, poverty, human rights...the possibilities are endless.

Only when a man like Ralph Nader can participate in our democracy can we call ourselves -- and our time -- Progressive.

Follow Allison Kilkenny on Twitter: www.twitter.com/allisonkilkenny

Comments

[Freemind42]

Don't fall off the wagon so soon. I too am a progressive, but i also understand what it takes to win and actually govern in our democracy. you can't be too far to either side of the spectrum, most people are somewhere in the middle anyway. we want a president of the people, all people. that means some who aren't so far to the left as the rest of us. sacrifice a little to gain a little. that's what the country is founded on and that's what it takes to work things out everywhere.

[NicholeWebb]

A vote based upon prinicple cannot be a wasted vote.

[Paralogos]

If the purpose of the vote is to feel good about yourself, that may be true. If the purpose of the vote is to bring about a positive change in public policy, then a vote based on principle sure as hell CAN be a wasted vote - and they often are. I cast a few myself, when I was younger. Gave it up when I had to live with the real results.

[greginwva]

No, you dont get it at all.I dont know if a Gore administration would have stopped 9-11 but theres a good chance Clarke and Co. would have caught thoese guys before they killed our people.I do know however that Gore wouldnt in a million years have decided invading Iraq was the way to go.Some people seem to think that Barack Obama had no right to run for President, unless waiting for "his turn" means something else.Id be a hypocrite to say the same thing about Nader, but if he hadnt run,there would be a lot of Iraqis and 4000 plus American service men and women who would not have died in Iraq.That is a fact.I have tunnel vision about this election,our foriegn policy and keeping faith with our troops.These side issues, however important (and they are)arent helping our men and women in harms way.

[faust2001]

Democrats are perfectly capable of losing elections on their own. They are the psychologically abused housewives of the Right. When Democrats go on about Nader helping Bush get elected (a claim which curiously absolves the Supreme Court) it reminds me of conservatives going on about Saddam being linked to al-quaeda. I guess the Left has its own floavor of Kool Aid.
If not Nader, then vote McKinney of the Green Party. She would be BOTH the first woman president AND the first African-American president, and maybe the first president not to compromise her values and those on which this country was founded.

[SanityClaus]

Yes, she WOULD. Excellent use of the subjunctive mood.

It is typically used to express wishes, commands, emotion, possibility, judgment, necessity, or statements that are contrary to fact at present.

[nypoet22]

third parties need to be built from the bottom up, not from the top down. voting for a presidential candidate with no real party backing and nobody else in office, is a recipe for fueling the worst candidates, not opening up the race for the ones who might someday be best. you can pretend you're not throwing away your votes, but until another party is organized from the grassroots to congress, throwing the vote away is exactly what it will be.

[senorplaid]

Exactly, which is why a vote for Nader in 2000 when he was attached to a fledgling party (the Greens) trying to get started was fine, but now that he has no attachment or agenda beyond his personal gain, that does seem to be something of a wasted vote.

[KSH]

Oh please! Liberals are being handed the election on a silver platter and they still remain content on eating out of papers plates!

[zjr909]

My biggest concern as I approach retirement age is Social Security. We know McCain would scrap it in a heartbeat - as any God-fearing Republican would; we know also that he would most likely fail. Obama said we need to "fix" Social Security; we know what it means for politicians to "fix" something - just like they "fixed" FISA. My greatest fear is that Obama would succeed in scrapping Social Security. Why? Because his greatest support comes from the young - who are already half-convinced that Social Security must go. A President Obama seeking to scrap it, egged on by his army of Kool-Aid drinking kids, would just about do it. And we now know that Obama is almost as far from being progressive as McCain, so it's not at all inconceivable for him to go after Social Security with a meat cleaver. Bottom line, McCain is our best bet among the "viable" contenders to save Social Security; but I can't in good conscience vote for him. So I'll vote for Nader (that other "N" word that dare not be spoken in public). SCOTUS, POTUS and all the other "OTUS" arguments aren't quite enough to convince me I'm wasting my vote by casting it for Nader.

[tbone99]

Considering that hedge fund managers and financiers gave heavily to his campaign I think you have good reason to worry .Given that his word (i.e. FISA "I was against it before I was for it) has'nt proven to be worth much we may find that his next found father figure will be corporate CEOs.-and they're dying to force us to gamble, er , invest our retirement funds.

[oneviciouslife]

Can we please stop with the "kool-aid" crap? I have my views, you have your views, and hopefully we've arrived at them through thorough, thoughtful analysis. I'm young, but that doesn't make me stupid. i feel it's very important to keep Social Security alive. but all this "Daddy knows best" crap doesn't help your cause. If you feel that social security is threatened by young people why not talk with some and explain the benefits? Whining about "kids these days" accomplishes nothing, and just makes us "kids" mad.

[Aramingo]

I just scanned these comments, so this may have been pointed out and I missed it. In the next presidential term, at least two Supreme Court justices will retire. Who do you want choosing their replacements? McCain or Obama? Ralph Nader will not win. Period.

Do you think John Roberts would be Chief Justice if Nader hadn't run in 2000?

[joebhed]

Well, really, that depends, doesn't it?

If ALL the Nader voters in Florida had not voted for Nader and just stayed home, the Supreme Court outcome would have been exactly the same.

So, you can criticize Nader's supporters for being good citizens and going out and voting.

On the other hand, there were MILLIONS of registered Democratic Party voters in Florida who just stayed home.

We haven't heard any criticism of those MILLIONS of folks who Mr. Gore could not convince to get up off their arses and do what motivated citizens are supposed to do on election day.

Why was that?
Why could Al Gore NOT convince about 600 of those couple of MILLION registered Democrats that it was worth their while to get out to the polls and support their Democratic Party ticket?

If he had been able to convince 600 of those registered Democrats to support him, then John Roberts would NOT be the Chief of the Supremes.

Do the math.
The math doesn't lie.

But if the crybaby Dems really need a scapegoat for their ineptness and their inability to motivate their own voters, well, then, hell, Ralph Nader is an easy target.

If the Dems want the REAL cause for CJ Roberts being in place, they should just look in the mirror.

Nader-Gonzalez 08.

[realityrules]

Do you think John Roberts would be on the supreme court if Nader had not run in 2000?

[tbone99]

Not sure what I'm doing in NOV.but it is refreshing to hear another point of view .
Thank you for your comment. A democracy is just that - voting for someone one considers offers the best solutions. If the Dems can't offer them and win over enough people - well then, they don't deserve to win - especially considering the headstart they had in this election.! They are still trotting out the same ol' Republican lite ( actually Obama has zipped right over to straight Repug) crap, for Republican caused problems.

Considering that LIEBERMAN was the VP candidate there's absolutely NO guarantee that Roberts or a facsimile wouldn't have been made a Supreme.
And with Hagel ( 96% Bush policy voter) being floated as VP , looks like 2000 all over again..

[AnotherTry]

If Obama's flip-flops haven't shown you the importance of voting for a third party, then you don't really care about our country or our democracy. You are just a cheerleader for some politician.

Cynthia McKinney has my vote. She is a leader with integrity. Obama, not so much.

[SpoxLogic]

So we vote third party...do you think any third party candidate can muster 45-55 million votes this year?

I think not. So a vote for a third party is a wasted vote and we end up with McCain for at least 4 years. This is what happens when people don't take the time out too fully understand that every vote counts. And to waste it on a candidate that cannot win, just so you can "prove a point" is not only pointless, but stupid and selfish.

So what if we have to choose between the lesser of "two evils" this time around. Let's get the one who will do the less damage (Obama) elected, and then take the next few years to build a viable third party. It's stupid to think you could build a viable third party with less than 3 months to go.

[TheIndependenceParty]

I don't think I can bring myself to vote for a woman who punches out a police officer who is paid to protect her in her workplace.

As for Nader, ... He grows more pathetic with every passing day. He NEVER had the qualifications to be president, and anyone who says he did is eating the tripe he has served up for so many years about himself. That one can impact society by saving us from usafe cars and dirty can openers is admirable, ... but does not make him a leader of any consequence.

We do not need a leader who views himself t be the Messiah, ... already have one of those, thanks!

[inthecolour]

Let's see. These are your choices:

1. Vote for crazy McCain

2. Vote Obama-- who will be a progressive president/will move progressive issues forward in one way or another (something you won't be getting with McCain AT ALL)

3. Vote Nader to spite Obama and usher in McCain to the White House

4. Don't vote at all and STILL usher in McCain to the White House with your inaction

Think about it. Democrats don't usually get a good shot at winning. Don't eff it up. Little steps first. Then liberals will be well on their way to real change. This takes time. It won't happen over night.

[senorplaid]

No thanks. I'll go with Option No. 5:

Vote for Cynthia McKinney, a true progressive, help build the Green Party into a viable third party (or at least enough of one to get the Dems to finally stop ignoring their base) and watch as Obama sweeps into the White House anyway.

[inthecolour]

5. Vote Cynthia McKinney and usher in McCain to the White House

Green Party may be progressive enough to suit your desires, but they won't be making it to the White House.

Get a clue. If you want to see ANY progressive issues/causes you care about make it there, you'll do the smart thing and vote Obama. Anything else would be risking a McCain presidency.

[granamica]

All in all I have to admit to liking the Naderites far more than the pumas. Off to be enchanted by Barrr supporters.

[Mujokan]

Well, good luck with that.

By the way, could someone please explain the title of this article to me?

[SanityClaus]

Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney actually represent organized political parties that have established themselves within the American political system.

Both of them would be welcome additions to at least one debate.

Nader is a vanity candidate with no party organization behind him and not worthy of inclusion with O, McC, Barr and McKinney.

[PeaceCzar]

Really now?

Nader has a better organization than the Greens could even imagine. And they were petty beyond words to push Nader away after 2000 and let in-fighting cripple their party.

And the Libertarians, well they're just dweebs, aren't they now?

[TXOBAMAGIRL73]

I wonder, How much it will cost to buy, gas up a spacship and a build station to live on forever? Because, if Nader or McCain are voted in these are things you need to know if either one make it into office.

[knighthowl]

The true odds of Nader being elected are no better than yours or mine. And he would do a worse job.

[SallyLee]

I think it would be useful in a public forum to expose the candidates Obama and McCain (O&M) to the thinking of the likes of Ralph Nader and Ross Perot and then ask O&M to respond. In fact having Nader and Perot as "moderators" at a O&M "debate" would be a blast. Let's think outside of the box.

[PeaceCzar]

Well that's just pithy and condescending, isn't it?

How about Nader participates in the debate since he's a viable candidate. And let Perot utilize his objectivity as a moderator.

THAT's thinking outside the box.

[hlhicks]

Here' s the other other "N" word: NOT!! I am really starting to think that progressives have an aversion to success. Obama's positions for the most part (FISA excluded) have basically remained the same. It seems to me that everyone is imputing their beliefs to him and when he restates his position, it's as if you haven't been listening. And after Nader's comments about Obama "talking white" his credibility is on par with nut-cutter Jesse Jackson. In November you have two choices, Obama or McCain. If you can't see the difference then you're not looking hard enough.

[NTO08]

, it's as if you haven't been listening...


You're regurgitating an Obama line...how original...

Just shows how arrogant he truly is that people are so inept as not to "listen" to him...yeah, we listened...to him kiss the a--es of progressives to get them to vote for him and then he threw them under the bus...why should he care what you think? He doesn't need your stinkin' petty cash!

McKinney 08...say no to LIES from McCain and Obama.

[nomobull]

and you just proved the point

[joebhed]

Actually, here's the thing.
Maybe someday the TWO political parties will be successful in giving voters the exact limited choices that you say we have, as they have done with the more meaningful debates.
But today we actually have other choices.
And some of us will exercise those choices just to make sure they are there in the future.