Nader Runs, Nation Ralphs

I guess even Republicans deserve a bit of good news once in a while, however small:

Ralph Nader said Sunday he will run for president as a third-party candidate, criticizing the top White House contenders as too close to big business and pledging to repeat a bid that will "shift the power from the few to the many."

"Shift the power from the few to the many," huh? Gee... I thought that's what I'd been doing this past half decade or so, along with a few million of my neighbors in the netroots community? Way to give us the finger, Ralph.

No, I guess instead of dedicating our lives to blogging for little or no money, creating new media infrastructure from scratch with zero resources, and struggling to build a new progressive movement that has empowered millions, actually won a few elections, and has started to change the way politics is conducted nationwide... the real way to shift the power from the few to the many is for a single, cranky, dried up, arrogant, old white guy to go on national television and declare that he is running for president. You know... for us. Because apparently, we're too stupid to do it for ourselves.

There was a time, decades ago, when I dreamed of a viable third party that might duplicate the success of the Greens in Europe, but then, there was a time when I once looked up to Ralph Nader, consumer protection crusader, as a genuine American hero. I was young. What the fuck did I know?

Over the years, my understanding of electoral politics matured into a deep appreciation for the nuances of our two party system, long before Nader's tragic 2000 campaign destroyed what little credibility the American Green Party had left. There is a genius to our system, that for the first time in history not only legitimized dissent, but institutionalized it. Yes our system is profoundly conservative at its core in that truly big, abrupt changes are exceedingly difficult to achieve, but this institutional sluggishness is not insurmountable and it has served to maintain the political and economic stability on which past generations have built our nation into the most prosperous and powerful on earth. And when cranks like Nader critique the Democrats and the Republicans as providing little or no choice to voters, they focus solely on the competition between the two parties while ignoring the competition within them.

It took thirty or more years for the forces of the far right to firmly seize the reins of the Republican Party and the institutions that support it, and it will take at least another decade or two for our "people powered" progressive movement to do the same with our party. That Nader can't see the slow motion political revolution unfolding before his eyes reveals him to be as much a part of the ossified political establishment as the politicians he reviles... his third, futile campaign a last gasp of the status quo fighting to retain its own relevance. The old crusader appearing before the old media, challenging the declining power of the old guard; it is a scene that would be comic if it weren't so tragic: Nader cast as Lear, railing against a storm of political change that threatens to sweep both him and his foes into the dustbin of history.

David Goldstein blogs on WA state politics at HorsesAss.org

Comments

[HAP]

Great post--darn that you anticipated some of the best points of my posting right behind yours.....

[Jimmyboyo]

Well said

An old ocified white dude trying to tell us he knows how to lead a revolution against old ocified white guys when the revolution has been going on already for quite some time.

Nader is so out

[StephenSmoliar]

The "genius" of "our system" has nothing to do with either the legitimization or the institutio­nalization of dissent. It has to do with the legitimized SUPPRESSION of a dissent that had been legitimized by constitutional law. Our "system" is sustained by a variety of components that allow dissent a voice and then insure that the voice will have no impact. Thus a Ralph Nader or a Dennis Kucinich can try to talk seriously about crucial issues and then watch his words get sucked into the black hole of media oblivion. When was the last time we had an election that involved a choice between two significantly dissenting viewpoints? The "system" churns out two candidates who are almost indistinguishable except where certain "hot-button" issues (like abortion) are concerned, even though those issues have absolutely nothing to do with the "mission statement" laid out in the Preamble to the Constitution.

[MagisterLudi]

Nader runs, Nation yawns.

Why did Ralph Nader cross the road?

To push Democratic donkey off the cliff.

[CitizenE]

I don't for a moment think Ralph Nader's entrance in the 2000 election effected its ultimate outcome, and I would be abjectly surprised if he gets enough votes to be more than an asterisk, like all the other 3rd and 4th party candidates, so I am not in the least against him railing against corporations, and making other foreign policy points; he's kind of like Paul but on the left. If those of us in netroots are afraid of a message we by and large agree with, even to the extent of our own critique of the Democratic Party establishment, how will Obama really be motivated once elected to in fact do what he claims he will do--change the way politics is done in DC?

[JGatsby]

"If those of us in netroots are afraid of a message we by and large agree with..."

I don't think Mr. Goldstein is afraid of Nader's message and I know I'm not and no one that I know who shares my political beliefs is either. The problem with Nader and the few people who still take him seriously is the inability to translate between good intentions and actual accomplishments. What does Nader running and even worse voting for Nader actually accomplish? I think it is quite possible that Gore would have lost if Nader hadn't run but it is just possible he would have won. Can anyone seriously claim that the world wouldn't be a better place if that had happened? Were the benefits of Nader's campaign in 2000 (can someone tell me what they were) worth even a 10% chance that Gore might have won if Nader hadn't run? One last point that I haven't seen mentioned is that Nader has in the past taken money from Republican organizations to help his presidential campaign. So I guess we know what they think about his impact.

[DemandTruth]

Well, where the hell has Nader been during the last 20 presidential debates, then? Where was he during his REAL chance to effect the conversation and address issues? We had Kucinich and we had Gravel out there talking about progressive issues. And they were rejected. And Nader's been throroughly trounced and rejected during his last two runs. No, he can't accomplish ANYTHING now. He won't be driving ANY messages now! It's too freakin' late! He was absent when he COULD have made any difference as far as issues go. The only difference he can make now is to hand McCain the presidency on a silver platter.

I can't believe the naivete and ignorance of people in America! We truly DO deserve the government we get. I'm renewing my passport for sure, now.

[MagisterLudi]

I don't for a moment think Ralph Nader's entrance in the 2000 election effected its ultimate outcome.

The President of "People Against Arithmetic" Club

[CitizenE]

Let's do the arithmetic. Al Gore ran a lousy campaign. He wasn't the straight from the hip, pro environment Al, but someone who was being advised about being an alpha male. He lost Tennessee--don't tell me that was Nader; he lost Arkansas. These were the home states of the Vice President and President during a booming economy and a high approval rating despite impeachment precedings. He had a campaign crew that let itself get outfoxed by Karl Rove. Even blandola George HW Bush was able to outcampain a far more reasonable Governor than George Bush. Gore allowed himself to be painted as some sort of buffoon. None of this had to do with Ralph Nader. If it was close enough so that Nader's two bit candidacy could make a difference, the blame must fall squarely on the Democratic Party, Al Gore, lord love him, his campaign staff, and those who were supporters but didn't work hard enough to combat the Rovian get out the vote strategy.

But the big thing I don't get is why is he such a bogey man. What, you don't think Obama or Clinton can't trounce John Mc Cain. If they can't, then believe me Ralph Nader won't be the cause. And maybe, just maybe, just as Kucinich and Edwards moved those candidates a bit to the left to be in touch with the American people--have you perhaps noted the Congressional approval ratings lately--not good, his voice in the discussion will be salutary. Gore could have easily made use of Nader; instead, he tried to force him out; it was stupid politics.

[JimR]

You like arithmetic? Here's some more.

There were 8 alternative presidential candidates on the ballot in Florida in 2000. Every single one of them receieved more than the 537 votes that separated Bush and Gore.

12% of registered Democrats in Florida voted for Bush.

About half of registered Democrats in Florida thought Gore was so gosh darn wonderful, they couldn't even be bothered to go out and vote.

Blaming Ralph Nader is the hobgoblin of little minds.

[MKWrites2]

I agree, and my absentee ballot was thrown out during the Florida recount. .

I voted for Obama but the more I get to know him, and the more I see who is contributing to his campaign, it does make me wonder like this poster how he will go about bringing the necessary changes to Washington. To me, when you say you don't take money from PAC's but then you have major corporations figuring out how to donate big chunks of money to your campaign legally and lobbyists circumventing the system so it doesn't look like PAC money, it's just shifting the power in Washington from one evil to another. I know hard-core Kool-aid drinking Obamites swear that is not happening, but the information is out there from unbiased sources if you really want to know the truth.

Corporations pay many of our salaries, but I think we all agree that corporate greed has gotten out of control, and corporations have figured out loopholes of getting through our broken regulatory processes. Obama has raised more money than any other candidate I can remember. He's outspent any other candidate, and I think it sets a dangerous precedent in American politics. We all hope he's the guy we think he is -- I think the media adoration has gotten in the way of us really finding out - as demonstrated in that SNL skit, as has Obama's charisma and his slick corporate-style marketing campaign. Come on! Most Obama voters don't even care he's not using his own words. I think that's the real "silly season" in politics..­. and we're the ones being silly. All this may change when we get into the GE, but I don't mind having someone like Nader in the mix to keep Obama on his toes. If nothing else, he will force the corporate-owned media to be a little less biased and ask the right types of questions, and if Obama can answer them, then he truly deserves our votes come November and I don't think he'll have the same problem that Al Gore did as someone who worked directly with the Clinton Administration.

In short, I don't ever think we can lose as Americans when we get too much (factual) information before we cast our votes.

[eddiestardust]

I say it's time to show Ralph the door!

[MagisterLudi]

Or show him the window, head first, from the second floor.

[haiku1]

We have every right to blame Nader for his ego-centric assumption that we are too stupid to understand without his expert guidance that corporations are buying political influence (since he's not going to be elected dogcatcher his only motive can be to inform us). Yet he's remarkably silent between elections. Maybe those who will vote for him would otherwise vote for no one, but the fact is that even if one person votes for him who would otherwise vote for the Democrat that is too many. Nader may like to blame the Democrats for Bush's "success" in 2000, but I will always blame him for helping out. That is a heavy historical burden for someone who fancies himself a rescuer. He should get off his high horse and look at himself and his motives more honestly.

[mmerose]

A major reason why we are now smart enough to understand that corporations are buying political influence is the expert guidance of ralph Nader.

[k8k9]

puleeze

[JGatsby]

Yes, I agree. Nader was a great guy once and he has accomplished a lot. So why is he now doing what the Republicans want?

[starboymikey]

Nader's claim, in 2000, that there was no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush, was believed by nearly 100,000 people in Florida who voted for Nader.

The result has been what we've seen for the past seven plus years. Anyone who still seriously believes anything Ralph Nader says is even more delusional than he is.

You want to vote for Ralph Nader why? To teach the Democrats some sort of lesson ... which in the end will only make them move even further to the right?

And what lesson will you be teaching to the thousands more of our soldiers who will die in Iraq when McCain is president? And what lesson will you be teaching to the disenfranchised, the poor, the uninsured or underinsured who still can't get the health care they need. And what lesson will you be teaching to the hundreds of thousands more Americans who lose decent jobs because of outsourcing, or the people forced to work in sweat shop conditions overseas. And what about all the innocent Iranians who will die if President McCain decides to bomb them?

Oh, and let's not forget Mike Huckabee, McCain's likely running mate, who would be presiding over the Senate and may even become President of the old guy's heart gives out. Are you ready to have creationism taught in all our public schools, ready for Roe/Wade to be overturned. Are you ready for more cutbacks in needed public services, for continued decay in our infrastructure? And are you ready for more tax breaks for the wealthy, unlimited oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, continued inaction on global warming. Let's see, what else have I forgotten? Feel free to remind me, anyone.

If all of this stuff appeals to you, and if you really agree with Ralph Nader that there is no diffrence between McCain and Obama/Clinton, then by all means vote for Ralph Nader and teach the Democrats a lesson they'll never forget ... at least until 2012, when a then 77 year-old, bloviating ego man, Ralph Nader will give you another chance to vote for him and give the neo cons yet another four years.

[mmerose]

It's worth remembering that George Bush was soft-selling himself as the "Compassionate Conservative" at the time, while Al Gore had been associated with the many compromises and sellouts of the Clinton presidency: I'm not sure the "Tweedle dum-dee" argument was that off-the-wall back then.

[dannyo152]

Those 100,000 Floridians thought Nader was a better choice for President. Ralph Nader thought he would have been a better President than the two who ran. That's what's supposed to happen, people run and voters make a choice. It is certainly not Nader's fault if a constituency was and is being ignored by the party leaders.

As for running in 2008, he's entitled. He may speak some cold truths in the run; I agree with him on many matters. Still I'm saddened to see him stand up, in late February, having suddenly discovered that the choice will again be between Corporate-dum and Corporate-dee in November. How William Jennings Bryant. How Harold Stassen. How nine months too late.

[mmerose]

Why shouldn't the old war horse try to drag along that slow motion revolution an extra step?

One reason "mainstream" Democrats are so enraged with Ralph Nader is that he is effective at educating citizens about the stranglehold that corporate money has on American politics, and that shows up the Democratic entanglement.

In fact, Clinton brainchild the DLC was set up to streamline the relationship between corporate money and the Democrats, on the theory that being just like the Repubs would help to beat the Repubs. But, of course, the Dems end up being more and more like the Repubs.

I think Barack Obama has earned the benefit of the doubt that he has genuine instincts for positive change, and I will vote for him. But I am thrilled Ralph Nader is back, so I will have somebody who is running to vote for if the Democratic Party loses its mind and somehow nominates Hillary Clinton.

[JesusHChrist]

Verily, with that pusillanimous putz Nader running again, all I can do is shout My own name out loud.

JESUS H CHRIST!

[DemandTruth]

I'm wichoo Jesus!

[desmirl]

Nader's third run at the presidency will end the same way as his previous two. He has no chance to do anything other than skew the results. Oh, well, just don't vote for him.

[jmpurser]

If Nader can take enough votes from the Democrats to cost them the election then SHAME ON THE DEMOCRATS! Their plan has been to run GOP lite candidates because "Where are the liberals going to go?" Well Ralph has an answer. Don't blame Nader if a lot of people are tired of voting "none of the above".

[mmerose]

Or "Just slightly the lesser of two evils, I hope!"

I'll tell ya what makes me wanna ralph: the word "centrist!"

[k8k9]

Some people would vote for Mr. Ed if he were on the ballot. That doesn't make it Dems' fault if they lose those votes. And Nader has no message at all if there is no way to be elected.

[Sprinkle]

Thank you for one of the most spot on posts i have read in a long time.
The Republicams and Republican lite(i.e Democrats) have been sucking up to the same special intersts groups, and sitting in the pockets of the same lobbyists for far too long.

[rbenjamin]

Best title ever!