GO AWAY RALPH NADER!
Enter Ralph Nader.
As Edwards bails out, Nader takes another step for a run at the Presidency (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/30/nader-takes-steps-toward...). Since our new community standards are clear about not cussing, I won't. But that doesn't mean I don't want to.
We finally have a chance to get a President who will extract us out of the war, who will deliver health insurance for every American and take on global warming with all the necessary vigor that is required. We don't need Ralph Nader if we ever did. He can say that Hillary and Obama are centrists, but they are certainly more progressive in their policy positions, especially domestic policy and the environment, than any viable candidate since LBJ and JFK. The pendulum from this conservative hegemony that we've been living under for the last 30 years can finally start to swing back.
While Nader is strong on the environment and corporate greed issues, I've always felt he had holes on racism and gender equality issues. He's never been particularly strong on these issues. We now have a chance to have an African American or woman President, breaking one of the last barriers that few people thought they would see in their lifetimes even a few years ago, and now he wants to jeopardize that possibility?
My message to Ralph Nader: Please go back to your advocacy role (you've been fairly absent in recent years from the global warming, corproate scandals, etc.) and stop trying to be the spoiler in Presidential Elections. Your ego should already be well setiated as your role in history is secured. The world would have been a much different place if Al Gore had been elected. Please don't even attempt to screw things up again.
- Stephen Rockwell's blog
- Login or register to post comments
I think you're wrong...
...about Nader as a spoiler, both as regards motivation and effect. But since I've already written at length about that here, I won't go back over the same ground -- even with the provocation of Todd Gitlin's comment being brought up again.
The marginalization of Kucinich and now of Edwards indicates how inhospitable the Democratic Party is toward those who are significantly opposed to corporate power. That's why, Steve, I think there was and is a need for Nader or someone like him to run.
Your appeal to identity politics is fine as far as it goes -- but without making a firm connection between race and gender on the one hand and class on the other, we're left open to the kind of divisive tactics that the Clintons have been indulging in. We may wind up with a shallow version of identity politics playing too much of a role in the outcome, possibly with ill effects. In the present context, I think it would be more of a break-through to have a left-populist anti-corporate president than one who is "only" a black or a woman.
Because of that, I think the Green Party has a legitimate and much-needed mission. If it is to grow, it's forced to run a presidential campaign so that it can gain official party status in many states by meeting the various state standards for percentages of the presidential vote, even if the goal of 5% of the vote that's necessary to get federal matching funds can't be met under current circumstances. If it's done right, with the right candidate, it can help build the party, as Nader did in 2000 and didn't do in 2004.
With that, I hope that the Greens will nominate Cynthia McKinney. The emotional intensity of the scapegoating of Nader makes it counter-productive for him to run. He should be an advocate, not a candidate.
That said, I continut to want the Democrats to win big. That's not because I'm confident they'll do great things. I think it's the required next stage in a hoped-for national recovery from the Reagan Revolution.
can't have it both ways Bill
You can't have it both ways Bill. You can't say on one hand I want the greens to win and pick up 5% and in the same post saying you want the Democrats to win big.
Current polling between McCain and Obama and Clinton indicates that yet again this is going to be a very, very tight race. Its one or the other Bill. We can either be organized for progressive change and support a viable candidate who will get us there or we can fracture and face another 4 years of Republican rule and endless war.
And say what you want about race and gender. I have a legitimate case with Ralph Nader. He's been weak on issues of diversity. You clearly prioritize "anti-corporatism" over the struggles of communities of color and women in our history. The Presidency would be a huge barrier to cross and the hope that they inspire for the younger generations to which I count myself is awe-inspiring. This isn't identity politics (a cheap dismal that we hear from the Right a lot more than progressive folk), this is what it says for our nation that we are finally smashing glass ceilings. Furthermore, I ask you how are the Greens doing in terms of ethnic diversity? Cynthia McKinnney aside...(former Dem. who did not carry herself all that well if I remember). The Democractic Party is much stronger in terms of diversity.
By the way, 3rd parties have a long history of absolutely failing in American history. It might work in a parliamentary system, but it doesn't work here. I see the value of organizing locally, but dreams of a national third party will go unfulfilled. As Doris Kearns Goodwin said, "If Teddy Roosevelt couldn't win as a third party candidate as an extremely popular former President, I don't hold out much hope for third party candidates in our day."
Not both ways, Steve
I didn't say that I was looking for the Greens to pick up 5%. I said that the 5% goal can't be met under current circumstances. Nevertheless, the Greens must run someone because ballot qualification laws in many states require that a party gets a certain percentage of the presidential vote. Otherwise, local and state candidates have onerous petition requirements for each candidate, far beyond what qualified parties have.
Most states races are probably not going to be all that tight. If the Democrats do a good job, the few votes that the Green candidate will get won't be a problem. Remember that a good chunk of those who voted for Nader were independents. In 2000, the largest category of Nader voters in Florida was those who had previously voted for Perot. Voters who are inclined toward the Greens but susceptible to the Democrats' blandishments will, as they have done before, vote for the Democratic candidate. Most of the others would never vote for a Democrat under any circumstance. I think that's unfortunate, but it's true. I've argued on Green and activist listservs for being open-minded about strategic voting. Though most agree with me, there are a few real diehards, some of whom truly believe that the Democrats are worse than the Republicans. Their reason is that they believe that the Dems absorb and then dissipate the energies and hopes of progressives and thus lead us on a steady drift rightwards. (An occasional paranoid sees this as intentional.)
I agree with the critique only in part, as I still think the Republicans are worse. That's the seductive nature of the Democrats' appeal -- this election, like all elections, is The Most Critical One Ever as we need to stop the fast move to the right, whether you call it fascism or the neocons or the Radical Right or imperial over-reaching or just plain conservatism. By definition, stopping all that is progressive. And necessary. But after all the effort is expended, it always seems to work out that there's not much energy left, or vision, for a Progressive Movement. It's all incremental change and repairs.
I do clearly prioritize anti-corporatism since corporatism is the central structural problem in our society. Identity politics is important. Diversity and the struggles of blacks, latinos, and women have been prime issues in our history. But their issues are shaped by and connected to the dominant institution of the day. Once, in the south, it was the plantation system and slavery -- and then Jim Crow (which was my central focus in the first half of my life). They're gone, although the effects linger on. But now it's the large business corporation that's dominant. What I called "shallow identity politics" is identity politics that takes each group's problems in isolation, one by one. "Deep identity politics", which I'm strongly for, links each struggle with the others and sees them in the context of today's institutions. Without a prime focus on corporations, I doubt that any progressive movement will get very far.
Of course it will be awe-inspiring and hope-inspiring to see the barrier of the Presidency breached. It may energize people for a while. But what then? The smashing of the glass ceiling doesn't imply any particular political direction afterward. Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher, while showing what women can do, aren't my models for progressive change. Neither is Supreme Court Justice Thomas.
The Greens haven't done particularly well in ethnic diversity. That's always a concern for us. Nader was focused elsewhere but his attitudes were okay. McKinney has a fine and courageous progressive record in Congress. It took an AIPAC campaign against her and Republican crossover votes to defeat her in the Georgia primaries. Although some sensibilities might be upset by her tiff with a security guard at the Capitol, some will find it encouraging that she stands up for herself.
Concerning 3rd parties: well, there's always the example of the Republicans. Aside from that, 3rd parties have brought issues into the mainstream. Until Democrats or somebody start treating corporations, with the associated issues of 'empire' and climate change, as the defining issues for our country, the Greens have an important role to play in helping to kick-start a really progressive movement. We almost had one here in the US until 9/11 killed the 'anti-globalization' movement. Finally, we had got beyond narrower movements and saw the emergence of a really broad movement -- which included the critical component of labor, along with the other usual suspects --and which focused brilliantly on global corporate power. That was one of the tragic deaths of 9/11. It sometimes seems as if progressives have forgotten about it entirely.
In the meantime, the geopolitical situation has changed while we've been absorbed with Bush's wars, the War on Terror, and Islam. We're not the sole Great Power: competitive multilateral power relations with China and Europe over influence, investments, and the control of resources are the more important underlying realities. That's part of thinking Green. Until those topics move front and center, Greens have a political/educational role to play.
And then? Who knows what political realignments may occur?
How do we limit power of corporate interests
Bill, I wrote a post recently asking you to define the differences between Greens and Democratic liberals without reading this post. It seems to answer the question I had posed. It seems from reading your posts that Greens emphasize dealing with corporate interests as central to dealing with other Progressive issues.
I was curious as to some solutions that the Greens have to curb corporate power. In the 1800s and early 1900s, anti-trust laws and antimonopoly laws were used to try to limit the growth of corporations. In 2000, the Feingold-McCain law tried to reform campaign finance to limit corporate influence in campaigns. I guess that was why I was asking about the difference between liberals and Greens. Do Greens want more radical solutions to limit corporate influence? Do you see the Democrats eventually adopting some of the solutions the Greens are proposing?
For me, I always thought the key to limiting corporate interests would be revitalizing unions and the labor movement. I think the reason corporations have been able to grow in influence these past few years has been the decline in unions since the Reagan years. Unions seem to be the best check and balance to excessive corporate power. I think that was the great thing about Edwards' campaign. Would the Green Party agree with that, or would they go in a different direction?
couple of responses.
Bill you said:
Well, that's what folks thought in 2000 and look what happened. In fairness, Gore changed his posture, though not his positions, too much. But even if most Nader voters in Florida were independent, there's no doubt that a few thousand or even a few hundred of those liberal and independet voters would have changed the course of the election. It would be a real shame to go through that again.
Agreed, but fact is that we have as progressive as a contender that we've had in a generation, especially if Obama is the nominee. I do believe Obama when he says we can build a new progressive majority made up of Dems, independents, young people and even some Republicans who have been manipulated to vote against their own self-interest for many, many years.
Concerning 3rd parties. The Republicans arose as a result of the disintegration of the Whigs and extreme sectional conflict. Neither party is in such a tenuous position these days and we don't have a catalyst on the horizon for such a dramatic realignment.
Finally, the anti-globalization movement had some real problems even before 9/11. They knew what they were against, but they had no idea what the were for. I went to some of the protests in support, but I must say I heard no coherent plan from anyone about how to structure the global economic system. Indeed, I never heard any balance to the fact that globalization has actually benefited a good number of poor people. For example, over the last 20 years, 500 million Chinese people have been lifted out of abject poverty. That's an incredible accomplishment of globalization.
This decade, the fair trade movement has done a better job of proposing and executing upon some practical steps for public policy and for consumers, but they do not come close to achieving the broader anti-globalization mission of those protests.
But wouldn't Nader make a good president?
Assuming that he could actually win, wouldn't you be pleased with Nader as president? If the biggest objection to Nader is that he will possibly change the outcome of the election without winning then the problem is the system not the candidate.
I'm an avowed Green because, well, someone needs to be! My struggle with Nader is that he won't join a party so I'm not all that eager to have my party endorse him (which happened in 96 and 00, but not in 04 because he didn't seek the party endorsement).
I'll be content with the Democratic candidate winning, but since there will be a Green candidate on the ballot I intend to support that candidate whomever it may be since he or she will be the most progressive option.
For what it's worth, Greens have the choice among a young white woman, a black woman, a Native American man, Nader (as a draft candidate) or "no preference." (a black man and another white woman have withdrawn).
I doubt if he would...
...but that's not the issue, since no minor party candidate will become president.
I like this quote that I recently found while I was googling around for more analyses of 2000:
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.809/article_detail.asp
"Old ally Michael Pertschuk offered this perceptive analysis of Nader's proclivity for burning bridges:
'I keep returning to the metaphor of Nader as an Old Testament prophet. Prophets don't make good presidents. They attack and attack and attack. But to be the public scold, to call people to account for not living up to moral codes, that's the role Ralph performs best. His genuine contempt for Gore came out during the election. Maybe prophets are hardest on those who are lapsed.'"
Absolutely Not!
No Nader would be a terrible President. Why?
Well, he's never been able to work with anyone except through conflict. His major consumer advocacy wins came in the 70s and he hasn't done a lot since. He works through confrontation rather than trying to create win-win situations. Now, of course, sometimes we need confrontation, but if he were to be President he would actually have to work with people. It would be Nader vs. everyone else in govt. He would have no allies in Congress to get anything done.
As for the greens, i think its fine that folks organize locally to organize locally for progressive change. Running Nader a couple of times hasn't helped the greeens at all in terms of winning local seats or building the party. I question the wisdom of running a national candidate at all, especially given the state of the country and how desperately we need a more progressive force in the white house.
I think when Obama says he wants to build a progressive majority I believe him. And I do think Hillary is more progressive than her husband, though not as progressive as Obama. Either way, their Presidency would be seismic shift in our domestic and foreign policy for the better. We all can agree that this is what the country desperately needs.
You want to end the war?
You want to get health insurance for everyone?
You want to take on global warming?
Vote for a Democrat for President and create working majorities in Congress. We'll see some real change.
shifting the country left
I would love to see such a dynamic shift of the American political culture that the Republicans dropped out of the picture and Democrats and Greens became the prominent parties with the Democrats defining the right. However, until the time that such a scenario is a reality, I'm likely to keep voting and supporting the Democrats. There are too many conservatives and centrists for a viable second liberal party.
David
No!
He would be an unmitigated disaster.
Grace and Style?
Todd Gitlin described Nader perfectly, describing him as "Narcissism wearing the cloak of ideals."
Politicians and Narcissism
Frank, don't all politicians, especially Presidential candidates have to be a narcissist to some degree, and very ego centered? What humble person could run around for months, saying "Vote for me ,I am the best"!!
Nader Is Different
He sees himself as the cause.; a self-righteous, arrogant man who hasn't done anything to make the lives of average Americans better since he got the Chevy Corvair off the road.
I read Crashing the Party and I came away seeing what a self-absorbed, condescending fool he truly is.
don't see why Nader shouldn't run
I'm probably going to get flack for this, but I don't see why Nader shouldn't run. Especially after the way Kucinich got shut out of the later debates. I think for me, it depends on how the Democratic convention planks eventually wind up. If Edwards, Richardson, Kucinich could influence the Democratic domestic and foreign policy positions for this election, then Nader isn't really necessary. If they have no influence, then go for it Nader.
to what end and for what purpose?
Angelo, to what end should he run? Think about it: if the shoe was on the other foot, how happy we would be if someone on the far right decided to run against McCain (not an unlikely possibility as a lot of conservatives are besides themselves)? If that conservative ran and could pull 5% of the vote away from McCain in the general, that just might be enough to assure a Democratic victory.
Why would you want the same thing to happen on the Democratic side? Was 2000 and the last 8 years not enough for you to conclude that a Democratic administration would be so much better on every level? Hillary and Obama might not be as progressive as you or I might like, but they are the most progressive Democrats with a real shot at the white house as we've seen in a long time.
I do not understand at all why anyone would want to support this egomaniac Nader in his intentions to be spoiler again. And yes, folks need to have an ego to run for office as Jim says, but there is a difference between having an ego and aligning it for the best interests of the country and doing something destructive to appease your own ego.
Again..to what end and for what purpose would a Nader candidacy serve accept to jeopardize a Hillary or Obama's chances?
Exactly Steve-o
There is simply too much at stake--like the composition of the US Supreme Court.
Free flow of ideas important
Steve, I agree that it's important that a Democrat win the presidency in 2008. And I have nothing against Hillary or Obama. It doesn't bother me that both candidates are fairly moderate either. I think my point is more about the free flow of ideas, and the temptation to marginalize more radical ideas in an all comsuming effort to win elections.
One of the big mistakes that I see the Republican Party making these past 8 years is how the conservatives marginalized the more moderates of the party. Liberal and moderate Republicans like Jim Jefford and Lincoln Chaffee were basicly left voiceless and I think that was detrimental to the Republicans and to the nation as a whole. In the past few weeks, I've seen a similar trend with the Democrats. Kucinich getting excluded in the later debates, when more of the nation is focused on the primaries. In our rush to have a more appealing Democratic candidate, we should not marginalize more dissident voices. I watched the Republican debates yesterday, and it was healthy to have Huckabee and Ron Paul puncturing McCain's and Romney's assertions on Iraq and the economy.
My position is not so much that I like Nader, it's more that I think the Democrats should be respectful of all the voices within their party. I would defend Joe Lieberman's right to be heard as well as Dennic Kucinich's. Nader has made the argument that if voices like Kucinich's are marginalized within the Democratic Party, then people with his views should not feel any obligation to be loyal to the Democratic Party and I agree. For the Democrats to allow Kucinich to be mocked the way he has been is wrong. I'm saying this as a mainstream liberal who supported Biden.
I don't mind a moderates, so long as more progressive voices are allowed a chance. I think that tension between the two factions is healthy. Like I said, I'm just waiting to see what influence a Kucinich, a Richardson, an Edwards will have in the convention. That more than anything else, will determine my opinions.
and furthermore on tactics
If Ralph Nader wasn't such an ego-maniac, than why is he the one that's always running? why not lift someone else up? why not get behind a minority or woman candidate? why not build the leadership behind you?
he doesn't do any of that, because its all about him.
progressive voices fine, but these tactics are terrible
Angelo,
I would share the goal of progressive voices and all voices being heard within the Democratic party (though Lieberman is hardly a Democratic any longer as his endorsement of John McCain and his unwillingness to heed the will of Democratic voters in his state demonstrate), but Ralph Nader's tactics are terrible and risk serious danger to the progressive cause.
If Ralph is so concerned with ensuring a progressive voice in politics, why not organize within the Democratic party? why not run as candidate himself within the party? Democratic voters have decided that they want either Hillary or Obama, he should live with the decision of Democratic voters. If he wants to express himself fine, but he doesn't need to run for president to do so.
Kucinich was afforded the opportunity to speak at countless debates before he was cut off. I actually have no problem with it because he was a full participant up until the point where it was clear that he was no longer a viable candidate. He had no money and his performance from the first primaries were not at a level that he could be considered a viable candidate.
Tactics and the need for dissonant voices
I respect what you're saying Steve, and I have many of the same goals. I want a Democratic President and large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. I'll vote for the Democratic nominee. I have no arguments about Nader's tactice or even the wisdom of a Nader candidacy. Even though I'd never vote for Nader, though, I still would fight for his right to be able to run for the Presidency. If the Democratic Party is responsive to its most Progressive wing, then they should have nothing to worry about with Nader. If Progressives feel listened to and feel they have an influence within the Democratic Party, then they'd have no reason to vote for Nader.
I do think the exclusion of Kucinich in the debates matters. The early debates had relatively small audiences, while the later debates garnered national audienced, because the nation was getting more interested in the race. The issue of Kucinich's viability should not have been a factor to exclude him if he qualified to take part in the later debates. This race is not only about picking a viable candidate, it's also about a debate on ideas. Kucinich was the most progressive voice of the Democratic field and he had a chance to present to the American public progressive ideas and to argue the merits of those ideas. I don't agree with many of Ron Paul's ideas but I respect the alternative voice that he is giving to the Republican debates. The Democrats should not have been afraid of giving Kucinich a voice for a national audience.
One of the things that I am afraid of is the tendency of a group to enforce a uniformity of views in their quest to win. A Democratic movement should make room for inconvenient voices like Lieberman or Kucinich because it's important for a diversity of views to be heard, not just a narrow set of views from the political center. I feel comfortable voting for a moderate or a moderately liberal candidate. But for those that do not, they should be able to have an alternative.
Progressives have every reason to vote for the Dem. candidate
In this year and in this moment, progressives have every reason to vote for the Democratic candidate. Each is putting forward an agenda that includes an extraction from the war in Iraq (the preeminent short-term foreign policy goal of the progressive movement for the last 5 years) and a progressive domestic agenda with real commitments on health care, global warming and education. With the mood of the country finally tilting progressive Nader and other Greens should realize this is a chance to make huge leaps forward on a progressive agenda. Don't screw it up because we have a candidate that slightly less than perfect. These folks are lot more progressive than what we've seen in decades. Specifically, Obama has the opportunity to be a complete game changer in building the new progressive majority.
Alternative voices are necessary to public discourse and within the Democratic party, but there are times when we need a little discipline to achieve the goals that we all share. Its like the anti-war protests I've been to where the socialists, the Mumia folks, the global warming folks, are all pushing their causes. Can we stay on message here? Can we work together in an organized way to achieve our collective goals? The other side is much more disciplined in giving and taking within the Republican party and have thus been able to dominate the electoral map for the last 30 years.
Frankly, after having to listen to Mike Gravel through the early debates, I'm glad he was excluded. I want to see the front runners go at as we need to decide to between the folks who actually have a shot at being President in order to make an informed decision. Kucinich wasn't silenced and had the same chance as the other candidates to build a viable candidacy and he failed.
These are the primaries
You're right, Steve, that at some point the Democrats are going to have to unite and be disciplined to push a candidate. That should be during the general elections. Right now we're in the primaries. The primaries are where the alternative voices should be heard, where different ideas should be debated. Once the general elections come along, the candidates will be trying to appeal to the political center.
It's during the primaries that voices like Kucinich, Edwards, and Richardson should be allowed to appeal to the nation through the debates. Kucinich was eligible to go to the Nevada debates, until MSNBC changed the rules. As I wrote before, viability is not as important for candidates like Kucinich as influence. Isn't the point of the debates to argue out ideas? If these voices aren't allowed in the national debate during the primaries, when can they be heard?
Personally, I don't have any problems with Obama or Hillary. Both though have been pushed towards progressive positions that would've been political poison for a Presidential candidate in 2004. Changing circumstances, the failures of the Bush policies, and grassroots activism made progressive positions more palatable to the American public now than in 2004. The progressive voices were right in 2004. Now is the time for more far left ideas to be heard by the public, to be argued out and to have its merits weighed. The positions of Kucinich, Richardson, Edwards, and so on are farther to the left of Obama and Hillary, and though their candidacies may have failed, their ideas have merit. JFKs Peace Corps idea was actually the idea of his rival Hubert Humphrey during the 1960 primaries. If you compare the ideas of the various Democrats this year to the Republicans, the progressive ideas more vital and innovative than anything conservatives have to offer. It's during the primaries that these ideas could be debated, to see which ones could be incorporated into the Democratic platform.
Kucinich's right to speak
Angelo,
I agree that folks should be able to speak in the primaries. Each of the candidates got a chance...but look at the way Kucinich polled before he was told he wasn't a credible candidate:
Iowa: Kucinich 0 0%
New Hampshire: Kucinich 3,919 1%
I think at that point you're not really a viable candidate.
Viability not the issue
Like I said before, Kucinich's viability is not an issue with me, the right of Kucinich to argue out his ideas at a nationally seen debate and possibly influence the direction the Democrats may take. I feel kind of odd defending Kucinich like this when I'm a former Biden supporter, but I think ideas are important and it's important to give everyone a chance to argue out their case, even if I wouldn't vote for him. An article in the November Progressive magazine states the issue more eloquently than I.
"In a one-on-one race, where the Kucinich campaign is about an idea rather than a man, he could turn the tables on the elites. By ditching talk about actually being nominated- which only strains his own credibility- and instead making himself the tribune of the peace and justice movement that is alive and powerful at the grassroots of the Democratic party, Dennis Kucinich could win hundreds of delegats to the 2008 convention. He could renew and redefine the debate in the later primaries and at the convention. He could force the eventual Democratic nominee to listen to the party's neglected base- which polling suggests is now very close in its thinking to the self-identified independent voters who decide close contests in November- rather than to the Wall Street donors and Washington thing tanks that invariably muddle the message one the pundits the nomination fight to have been settled."
viability is an issue when you've already been in a dozen debate
Angelo,
Kucinich wasn't silenced. He was in at least a dozen debates before he was bumped. Many of those debates were nationally televised debates. To say he didn't have a chance to give his voice to the process is wrong.
It gets to a point in our political process where we want to take a measure of the folks who actually have a shot to win. For example, if Kucinich was still in the race do you think he should have been able to participate last night? I sure as heck don't think so. I want to see the the two folks who have a shot go at it.
We'll have to agree to disagree
Steve, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this. You have valid points, but I think I do as well. It's sort of a moot point, since Kucinich dropped out.
I think the main point of this a debate over Nader's possible entering into the Presidential race and the effect it may have on the Democratic candidates votes. My argument for Kucinich is based partly on the fact that I think progressives who support Kucinich would be the most likely Democrats to go for Nader if Nader were to run. If Nader runs, the best way to keep those progressives within the Democratic fold would be to listen to Kucinich's ideas and to give him a voice within the upcoming convention. If the Kucinich supporters feel they have some influence within the Democratic Party, they more likely will vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee. I do think Kucinich has some valid ideas. And I've noticed that many of his major themes of 2004, like universal health care and withdrawing from Iraq, have been adopted by the Democrats running this year. I liked watching the debate last night, but I think it would have been just as good if Kucinich was allowed to debate.
Your point, Angelo, is well-taken...
...and is in line with what Nader has said and what many Greens say. Listening to Kucinich, whose views are similar to Nader's, and incorporating his ideas into the Democratic message will help keep progressive voters from straying.
Nothing would co-opt 3rd party opposition to the Democratic Party like co-opting their ideas.
In reality, though, I suspect the Democrats realize that few will actually stray. I read one analysis of exit polls that showed that only 9% of those whose favorite candidate was Nader wound up voting for him. The Democrats have the Greens and our sympathizers pretty well pistol-whipped.
Thanks Bill
Thanks Bill. I am actually a fairly mainstream liberal who agrees with a lot of what Steve wrote. But I also have found from what I've read that most of the liberal innovations were derived from more radical sources, only watered down to make them acceptable to the general public. It's that Maus-Maus analogy you wrote about and I've taken it to heart. I'm actually fairly neutral when it comes to Nader. I suspect that he's contemplating coming into the race because of Edwards dropping out and the possibility of a Clinton nomination. I think the Democrats this primary season have had alot of progressive and fresh ideas from Edwards, Richardson, Biden, and Kucinich, and I'm hoping that they'll be able to influence Hillary, Obama, and the Democratic convention. Like you wrote, I think it's in the Democrats' interests to listen to more inconvenient voices in their party.
One friendly question. You asked a little while ago if people could define "liberal" and I had that same question myself. I'm curious about what you think the difference is between a mainstream Democrat liberal and a Green. It seems to me that the main difference is their different take on the economy. It seems to me that liberals have faith that government reforms could curb the worst aspects of the current market system, while it seems that Greens believe that the current system will always give too much power to corporate interests and that more radical changes are needed in the system. Is that accurate?
I don't know much about the Greens, but my brother is a Green. Here in California it seems like Greens are a force in certain places, like Santa Cruz and L.A. Out of curiousity, what is the state of the Green Party in other parts of the country?
Greens in Michigan
The Green Party in Michigan has a heartbeat and a pulse but that is all that can be said about it.
re:Greens in Michigan
I wonder, Jim, do Greens have a stronger influence in certain towns in Michigan? In California, they don't have an overall influence on the state, but they do have strong influences in specific cities and towns. I'm just curious if that's a trend elsewhere. I had this impression that Greens may be influential in the New England states, but I may be wrong.
I'm not a Green, but my brother is, and I respect my brother and I've grown to respect the role third parties play in incubating ideas. I don't think third parties will ever elect a president, but I do think strong third parties pop up because they offer alternatives to issues that the two main parties ignore or insufficiently address. I think the role of third parties is to come up with ideas that one of the two main parties eventually co-opt.
Greens
Angelo, I did some checking and was unable to come up with anything significant statiscally. I do no that at one time they had some influence in Ann Arbor, the home of the University of Michigan.They changed some voter laws here in Michigan and most students now vote in their home district and not in the colege town they live in. That may have effected the Greens in Ann Arbor. Otherwise they do have a small presence in metro Detroit but as far as I know, not much influence. Statewide they have little influence. I don't think they have anywhere near the influence in any towns as is going on in California.
I am active in some Peace and Justice groups and have talked to some Greens. They are not "misguided Democrats" who if there were no Green Party would just automatically vote for a Democrat, as is supposed by some. Many of them would not vote or would vote "Socialist Labor" or for some other Left wing party or write someone in. They are generally disenchanted with both the Democrats and the Republicans and see them as two sides of the same coin. They see the Greens as a non-corporate sponsored alternative party. I respect them and their convictions.
re:Greens
Thanks Jim. And thanks for clarifying the views of the Greens. I respect them too, and their ideas.
Glad you're enjoying A People's History.
depends on what's at stake
I don't know if Kucinich was robbed of his rights in this situation. Maybe you've got a point about viability in this case. However, in the 2006 election cycle in Arkansas, there were four candidates running for governor. Aside from the Dem. candidate and GOP, there was a Green Party guy and an independent. The two outsiders were left out of all of the debates. While it is true that neither of them were polling more than a few percentage points, other issues besides winning were at stake. By winning 3% points in the election, they would have gained State recognition as a party and would thereby have gained the legal rights that come with that. I think those rights include participation in debates and funding privileges. I was disappointed that each of the underdog candidates only came away with 2%. If they had been admitted into the debates and given that exposure, I think it would have made the difference for them. Would it have shaved some off of the Democratic candidate? Yes, but he had plenty to spare. All of the Democrats running for State positions won by almost 30% that cycle. Here's hoping that we can do it this time around too.
David
re: what's at stake
One of the privileges that's at stake is the automatic right to a ballot line. Along with that goes very greatly reduced requirements for the number of petition signatures that each candidate for office needs to file.
In NY, it's the governor's race that determines ballot status. The requirement is 50,000 votes in the general election. The Greens made it in 1998 and then lost it in 2002. There was talk by the Democrats of raising the requirement to 75,000 or 100,000 votes. For some reason, that didn't get done -- probably because they correctly figured that the anti-Nader backlash and the absence of a name candidate for the Greens would make it unlikely for us to succeed in 2002. And Spitzer was so popular in 2006 that there was no need to make the Democrats look petty.
However, if the Greens succeed this year in the nation's 2nd safest 'blue' state, it wouldn't be surprising to see the requirements raised in 2010.
Keeping 3rd parties down when they impinge on your own vote is one of the rules shared by the Republicans and the Democrats. They control the electoral machinery.
Bloomberg Battle
I saw an article suggesting that he'd only enter if Michael Bloomberg jumped in. And Bloomberg would apparently only jump in if Clinton gets the nomination. So, if Obama gets the nomination, that should keep both Bloomberg and Nader out.
I certainly hope so. Even Nader himself should be tired of achieving nothing more than wrecking opportunities for progress.
Unless, all this time, he's secretly been a Republican double agent . . .
Oops, note to self, click links before posting. That CNN article posted later than the one I'd read, and now . . . no mention of "countering Bloomberg" . . . simply the ravings of a madman who's determined to Forrest Gump everything up yet again. We must put up a 3rd-party conservative to counteract the damage. Bring me . . . Gingrich.
If this were MySpace, there'd be a button to click to give "kudos." If there's something similar here, I don't see it, so just know that I'm giving a thumbs up--to Stephen, not Nader, obviously.
will someone please inform Ralph Nader
that he is a political in-joke
Colledge Republicans were the ones fighting for him in 2004, not because they agreed with his policies, but because they knew he had no change and would peel his usual 1 or 2% off Kerry.
you've got to be kidding
unbelievable!
Its time to move on, Ralph
Please Ralph Nader go out with some grace and style, you did a lot of good work in the past.Let people remember you for that.