Will Narcissists on the Left Sink Obama?

A friend recently broadcast the fact that he was, yet again, voting for Nader. When I asked if he and his ilk hadn't already done enough damage to the nation, he said he was 'voting his conscience'.

What shocks me about this "voting my conscience" routine is its incredible narcissism. In essence, those who adopt this stance are saying, "It's more important to me to be able to boast to my friends about my ideological purity than to keep the nation out of the toilet."

I have a message for them: your ideological purity is of interest to no one but yourself -- just a form of political masturbation.

The reason given for his choice was, of course, Obama's tactical move to the center as he competes with McCain for swing votes. I'm not crazy about this tactic, and I'm not even certain it's the best one. But given the nation's racism and conservatism, the Republican media, and the yahoo bias created by the Electoral College, I can acknowledge that it might be necessary. The important thing, after all, is that we don't put another right-wing loony in the White House and that the Supreme Court doesn't sink any further into the Dark Ages.

It amazes me that so many people only care about what comes out of a candidate's mouth. Yes, Nader talks a good game, so does Kucinich. Who cares? Neither one of them is ever going to make a dent in the right-wing stranglehold on America. Obama spoke out against the war in Iraq. McCain voted for it and still supports it. Nader wasn't, isn't, and never will be in a position to vote for or against anything.

Politics is about doing, not talking.

Unfortunately the Nader impulse has even deeper roots. I think most Nader-lovers are people who really want to lose. They seem much more comfortable when right-wingers are running the country. What they're best at is groaning about the latest new atrocity perpetrated by 'Them'. But if anyone actually makes a move toward achieving a progressive goal, he or she suddenly becomes one of 'Them' -- a Compromiser, a 'Sellout'. It's obviously frightening to narcissistic leftists to think they might one day be called upon to do something constructive themselves -- something besides marching.

At heart, these folks are deeply passive and deeply authoritarian. They dream of an uncompromising leftist dictator who would take over the country and force everybody to accept a radical agenda. But of course, if they got their wish, the dictator would quickly become 'Them', because Nader-lovers can never really be happy without 'Them'.

Comments

[WorkingClass]

There is a tiny faction of lefties in the Democratic party. The Kucinich people. The "net roots" talks progressive but they are partisans after all. The Republican party does not have to contend with the left because the Democratic party has its boot on our throat. Ideological purity means purifying the party of lefties. The Democrats are the new Republicans. This will become clear next year when the old Republicans are gone.

Solidarity

[Gma11]

Right on!!

Philosopher Ken Wilber has written quite extensively about "Bommerism" and the '60's. By far, most of the demonstrators of that day were pre-rationalists, not post-rationalists. That's why I see with the narcissists you write about.

[joebhed]

Pre-bommer, here, Professor.

Hey, you used "pre-rational narcissists" in your comment on the other post.
I think it was something about the Clintonites.
I have to look that up.

Sooooo, get original.

This is a message from my Dad, as he was trying to give me some guidance to keep me moving forward between the lines of acceptable behavior, which, of course, I still refuse to do.

Judge people not by who or what they become, nor what they achieve, but what they seek to achieve, and who they seek to become.

I don't think Ralph expects to win the race. His message is very much akin to Dennis the K.
Being vilified by the corporatistas of both parties is a badge of honor that Mr. Nader has earned over the many years.

His voice and his conviction have won him many supporters.
Every one of us that will vote for Ralph Nader KNOW that there are ten-thousand others out there who wish they could, but feel the need to preserve the Supreme Court in order to protect a basic right for half the population.

We will both vote our conscience.

Ralph Nader is seeking a much needed revolution in this country.
As am I.

The other nine-thousand, nine-hundred and ninety-nine of you know who you are.
And I wish you good luck.

Nader/Gonzalez '08.

[zjr909]

The Democratic power structure never learns. They're so quick to throw anyone under the bus who deviates so much as a single thought from the Official Party Line. Talk about narcissists - it's the pundits who relegate anyone who criticizes their nominee to the ideological dung heap who are the real narcissists. Don't you see what's happening here? The Democrats have resorted to PLAYING THE FEAR CARD. Oh my God, the world will end tomorrow if McCain is elected. Oh you don't dare even think about not voting for Obama or else - it's just too horrible to contemplate. You know what? Don't give a mess of reasons not to vote for McCain (who I'm not going to vote for anyway): give me some reasons to vote for Obama - reasons OTHER than how horrible my life will be if I don't. I didn't succumb to the fear card when Bush played it; I don't plan on succumbing to it now. So just keep your insults to yourselves, Democratic fear mongers. I'll make up my mind based, not on what the Democrats say (because what they say can no longer be trusted), but on what they do. And they haven't done much to win my confidence. Sorry, but Nader really does happen to look like a pretty good choice. Insulting me isn't going to convince me otherwise; but the sight of Democrats taking their pretty words to Congress and fighting - really, truly fighting - for progressive legislation would.

[WorkingClass]

Hear Hear. Well said.

[XME]

A vote for Nader (or Barr) is essentially a choice NOT to vote. We know that the next president will be either Obama or (God help us) McCain. Anyone voting for Nader is no different from someone who does a write-in vote for Bozo the Clown.

[DutchOven]

Before you deride Nader as a perennial spoiler, please consider that over 200,000 REGISTERED Democratic voters voted for W in Florids in 2000. That drawfs any votes the Nader could have pulled away. Also, if these people were going to vote for the Socialist Party USA before Nader came along, are they really 'pulling' from the mainstream Democrats. Nader won't be as successful as he was in 2000, but it seemed that then he had pulled in a lot of new voters that Gore was not engaging.

I wil be voting for all Democrats up and down my local ticket, and then Nader at the top. I just can't stand Obama's dishonesty and backhandedness in general. Doesn't really matter on the Presidential line though, as my state is +17 for McCain and the electoral votes are winner take all.

[joebhed]

Re the 200,000 REGISTERED Democratic voters who voted for Bush - hey, small potatoes.

What about the MILLIONS of registered Democrats in Florida who stayed home?
Who, fore some reason, just didn't vote for Gore.

A lot of folks didn't know these millions were taking orders from one Mr. Nader.

That's what really cost the Democrats their lost opportunity - it wasn't Ralph's few ideologues, who did vote.

Every one of those Naderites could have stayed home, and the result would have been EXACTLY the same.

It's not the people who voted for Ralph that made the difference.
It's the people who didn't vote for Liebermann as VP.
And the Dems ain't over it yet.

[XME]

Every single person who goes into politics has some questionable issues. Your opinion and your choice, but I certainly trust Obama far more than http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jun/25/nader-critical-of-obama-for-trying-to-talk-white/. You can bet after that interview he lost quite a few votes, and they were already a drop in the bucket!

[WorkingClass]

Obama is doing a credible job driving the left away from his candidacy. But I'm sure he is grateful for your help. Or did you think bashing Nader and especially his supporters, would some how win votes for the Democratic ticket?

[LiberalDemIda]

Obama is doing whatever it takes to wrestle power from the stranglehold of the fascist republicans infesting our White House for far too long. If that's driving the delusional left from his candidacy, so be it.

Good thing the majority of Naderites, after only 4 disastrous Bush years, have finally come to see that you can have your ideology of a political Utopia all you want, but when it comes to reality in this sorely dumbed-down, misinformed country, voting for the lesser of two evils - the Democratic candidate - is far better than allowing a republican't win another term.

Those left behind indeed seem narcissistic, and grasp tightly to the dreams of Utopia even as the world comes crashing down around them. Those are no different than the delusional ultra-rightwingers and/or Christian "conservatives" and "evangelicals". No different whatsoever.

[nippersdad]

Is it too much to ask that the Vice Presidential nominee not conflate the Taliban and Al Qaeda? Is it too much to ask that the Democratic Party not reenforce the false notion of a global war on a tactic; a theme perfected by Republicans? (That's not change, that's more of the same!).

Is it too much to ask the foreign policy wonk not to further annoy the bear? Clearly our pushing NATO into their faces, putting missile systems in Poland and assuring Saakashvili that he was covered should he choose to invade S. Ossetia had nothing to do with this tragedy in Georgia. But he is the one to hold Russia accountable for its overreach! I thought it was Neocons who had the wet dream of a new cold war (That's not change, that's more of the same!).

Perhaps whilst watching those lights from the train it might have occurred to him that part of the problems those families are having would have something to do with the usurious interest rates and fees charged by credit card companies whose policies he has represented in Congress for thirty years. Or, the debts that they cannot now free themselves from due to his bankruptcy bill? Or the bills that their great grandchildren will still be paying so that billionaire bankers could get off scott free after having looted the Federal Treasury with their most recent bailout? This is not change...But WE are the ones who are delusional and narcissistic....

[joebhed]

Geez, Phil

What ARE you doing?

Here we were cruising along at a nice quiet and peaceful altitude, with those miniscule, few Naderites out there trying to get their hero's name in the blogosphere, and, what do you do?

You call them out.
YO ! Naderites.
You narcissistic ilk !
(I'll be right back while I look that up).
Hmmmmmm. No synonyms.

That kind of talk ain't going to win over any of those, you know, working class Americans that Obama is going to so desperately need.

Jeezum, look at all these comments coming in here.

Sure, a lot of them say, yeah, let's hate Nader, again.

But, you're just reminding everyone that Ralph Nader is out there, and that he is running for President.
And, Phil, you’re reminding everyone that he is anchoring a certain diehard group of leftists who want a transformation from the two-party, monied corporatocracy, knowing we are not going to get that with Obama.

Jeezum, why did you have to bring up Nader?
Look at all these comments about Nader that could have been put to good use saying something positive about Obama's quest for grandeur.

An Obama victory is what we’re owed for being the righteous, having been denied by this Nader guy somehow, in the past.

I have to wonder, Phil. Was it your friend who threw the Nader thing in your face?
Or, did you ask him how he was going to vote?

Nader/Gonzalez 08.
The ilk.

[joebiz]

Ladies and gentlemen, Dr. Phil, sociologist. . .

The right to vote does not belong to Obama, Nader, McCain, Bush or anyone else. In choosing to vote for a particular candidate is either done as a conscious choice in favor of some or all of the policies or a vote can be a rejection of the opposition. And, not voting is in essence a vote.

With registered Democrats numbering 73 million, Republicans 55 Million, and Independents about 27 million; what's wrong to preaching to the converted? Not too confident of the Left and it's choices?

One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring.

In this case it's become authoritarian. Either you vote Obama or you're a narcissist.

As a Generation Xer , I have seen the Baby Boomers become asthmatic with pride, gasping for air one last chance, one more shot at getting it right. It's now pathtic seeing the 60s generation seeks to impose the same tactics it grew to rebel against and detest.

Sounds like the same screed Bush and Gang uses to rally the troops: Either you're with us or against us.

[nippersdad]

As a Boomer, I couldn't agree more. Loved the bovine reference, but think it more aptly used as regards the centrists.

[PaxMundis]

So let me get this straight - PUMAs are threatening to tear the dems apart, and all you can talk about is Nader? If Obama loses, it sure won't be Nader's fault.

[mosh]

I have never voted for Nader so I probably don't count as what you call a 'narcissitic leftist' but I still found that term and the overall thrust of your criticism offensive.
And I disagree with you. Naderites don't want to lose. And if everybody marched for their beliefs this country would be a lot better off.

The citizenry is complacent and lulled into even more complacency by the msm and the so-called two party system. Congress is a joke. There is no effective opposition party and hasn't been for the past seven years.

And Dennis Kucinich does vote - remember - he is a congressman - and his is a true voice for change. I voted for Kucinich in the primary and would have voted for him in the general if I had the chance. I will vote for Obama but that doesn't mean I think Obama is putting forth real change in terms of foreign policy (shifting troops to afghanistan is not a change in policy it is a change in tactics - we should be having a real debate about what an effective foreign policy that truly protects our nation might look like) or with his flaccid approach to reforming the health care system (negotiating with insurance companies is a waste). But I will vote for Obama because any democrat would be better than any republican.

This sham of a two party system will be the death of America unless - as Kucinich implored yesterday - America

[PaxMundis]

So the PUMAs can basically hold the Dems hostage and throw the country over to McCain, and somehow... if Obama loses it's all Nader's fault?

Give me a break. I voted for Nader in 2000 and have never heard the end of it. But Nader's campaigns have had increasingly diminished returns with each presidential election. I'm proudly voting for Obama, but if he loses, there's plenty of people to ladle out the blame until you get to Nader.

[mhaven]

Lock your friend in a closet until after the elections.

[areaman03]

Wow. This is one of the best peices I've read on this site. I couldn't agree more with this statement:

"What shocks me about this "voting my conscience" routine is its incredible narcissism. In essence, those who adopt this stance are saying, "It's more important to me to be able to boast to my friends about my ideological purity than to keep the nation out of the toilet."

Your "conscience" may be "correct," but how are you going to deliver on it? How do you defend against the anti-intellectual onslaught of the right-wing spinners? How do you convert people who may, in their hearts, agree with you, but in their minds have been conditioned to HATE all things "Lib'ral"? How do you explain a complex, nuanced position to someone who only consumes soundbytes and hyperbole?

People who refuse to trade on their principles might very well be "principled," but without any realistic strategy or framework for your message, a "principled stand" might very well be counterproductive in the long-run.

[EthylRosenberg]

Bravo Sir!
You have given form & voice to my disgust with the "too pure for this tainted world" liberals who spit out candidates who run to win, then carp & moan for the four years of sheer hell we descend into when their defection from Democratic ranks elects another base, callow fascist like Bush or McCain.

Anyone not familiar with the type can hear this tired refrain being delivered with venom & vigor right now by talker Mike Malloy (on NOVA-M radio which also carries Randi Rhodes). Ever since Obama has fudged on FISA, gun control, etc. to avoid walking into a Rove-planted electoral buzz saw, Old Mike has been clogging the airwaves night after night with his beautiful, perfected, cynical & politically suicidal blather about "you Democrats" who "defend" and plan to vote for Obama.

Give me a break! Saint Dennis Kucinich sucked it up last night & marched on for what we CAN achieve. Liberals purists who won't sully their ballot with a practical vote are Republitard ENABLERS.


Give me a break! Saint Dennis Kucinich sucked it up last night & marched on for what we CAN achieve. Librerals purists who won't sully their ballot with a practical vote are Republitard ENABLERS.

[rayo]

I guess I'm a loser

[mosh]

No, and you probably aren't a narcisstic leftist either. Maybe you are a concerned citizen who is sickened that our democracy has been hijacked by corporate interests that control both parties in this so called two party system.

This name calling serves no good purpose. I hope all Naderites vote for Obama because a McCain administration would definitely run this country into the ground and take the world with it - with Obama there is hope but he is up against decades of corruption and illegality.

I invite Naderites to join in supporting Obama simply because four more years of a republican in the white house, any republican, would be unbearable. Vote Obama and push like hell for all the changes he says he believes in and then some.

[nippersdad]

I saw an analogy last year of politics to sport: that there are players, cheerleaders, fans and analysts. My analysis of this column leads me to believe that we are reading the effusions of a fan. Cheerleading or painting oneself blue and gold and screaming in the stands can be a lot of fun, but is of little import to the outcome of the game itself. For that, one must play the game not follow the leader.

The game for the last few decades has been to stripmine the electorate for the private gain of the few. When majorities on both sides of the scrimmage are heavily invested in the outcome of this particular game it leads to charges that the game is rigged. Naysaying hasn't the same cachet for some as rah rahhing, but it is, nevertheless, nice to know that not all of the players are reading from the same play book.

Not all of us are interested in winning this particular game for our oligarchy. It should not be a sign of narcissim to point this out athough it is undoubtedly a sign of narcissim to not recognize that without opposing teams there is no game to cheerlead. Only a true fan cannot recognize the value of actual competition.

[EthylRosenberg]

What the HUH?
You have given me a headache behind my eye with those bizarre abstractions.

[mosh]

Very well said.