Letters to the Editor
-
Interesting tibit
Sadly none of this was discussed on KPFA this morning when Matt Gonzalez was guest on the Morning Show discussing his and Nader's campaign. I'm sure Gonzalez would have gotten defensive, but it would have been interesting to hear it discussed.
-
I Hear What Nader Fans Are Saying, But . . .
For those voicing support of Nader and/or criticism of the Democratic Party for not fighting Bush harder, not being sufficiently progressive economically, etc., I hear what you’re saying, and largely agree with you. When the positions of many average Americans (not just liberals) on a range of issues, from healthcare to the occupation of Iraq, are significantly to the left of typical Democratic members of Congress, there’s cause for frustration.
I, too, feel frustrated about this. But I also feel frustrated that we on the left have not learned the lessons taught by those on the far right—the ability to significantly move political parties through grassroots movements. I honestly don’t lose a lot of sleep over a Nader candidacy in and of itself. Yes, given the margin of “victory” in Florida in 2000, even a handful of votes could conceivably give us a President McCain rather than President Obama or Clinton, but it’s doubtful.
No, the fear and frustration that I feel are that so much time and effort is being channeled into something resembling a progressive “children’s crusade,” a movement that is full of righteous resolve, but is pathetically impotent and destined for catastrophic failure.
As a progressive, I need to feel that we’re making real inroads in moving the country toward values of economic and legal fairness, compassion, and basic common sense. But I don’t think complaining about the Democratic party accomplishes these goals, at least not by itself. And I feel the Nader campaign is little more than that: complaining.
Our friends on the far right transformed the GOP from a party of corporations to a party of reactionary, Bible-quoting, gay-hating, true believers. They didn’t do that by creating a “Christian Party” and running third-party candidates; they did it by working from the grassroots change the character of their party from within.
There are already signs that this can happen within the Democratic Party, an in fact *is* happening to some extent. Already, DNC-style Democratic candidates have been getting tested, and defeated, by more progressive candidates in primaries. Clinton and Obama, while not exactly Kucinich or Feingold, are arguably significantly to the left of any Democratic presidential nominee in the last 30 years. Pronouncements that such progress "can't be done" for any number of reasons is defeatism, and isn't terribly believable coming from people who use this pessismism as a reason to support a nearly non-existent canidacy and party.
If the Nader/Green movement were something that was happening within the Democratic Party, I’d support it and participate in it. But I can’t help but feel disappointed that so much effort by so many decent people with good ideas and values are dropping out of the fight. Unfortunately, I think the association with progressive ideas with a figure like Nader, who’s become—rightly or wrongly—a walking punchline and with a fragmentary third party does to true liberal ideas what Lyndon Larouche did to libertarian ideas: make them suspect and laughable.
So again, I hear what Nader fans and Greens are saying, and I feel a certain sympathy and camaraderie with you, but I need to feel that the people I’m working with are really devoted to doing the most to forward progressive ideas, which (to me, at least) means doing it the old-fashioned way—through political grunt work that is frustrating, but can yield real results.
-
Isn't it funny?
That Dems always blame Nader for losing elections and not Perot? I won't be voting for Nader since he takes money from Repugnants but I find it hard pulling a lever for either Dem in this race. Remember what they promised us in 2006, when they took over? Change my ass. why should we believe anything will change this time? Granted, Bush is scarier than shit, but keep in mind, many atrocities have happened under Dem watch as well. If Hillary Clinton's commercials are evidence as to what's to come, we can expect scary times under her watch as well. The "what she knows now" bullshit about Iraq doesn't fly as many people knew the invasion was predicated on Neo-con dreams dreamt up decades ago. you can't tell me she didn't see that one coming... and if Obama had the chance, he would have voted for the invasion as well. get real.
-
I think McCain
could use a chinskinectomy. My son pointed out that his head looks like an uncooked turkey. He is a monster by all accounts. A liberal, socialist, anti-constitutional monster at that.
-
Is this a fair, independent article?
It seems unfair - rather, dishonest - to point to Nader as being the head of a grand conspiracy to elect a republican who has recently taken to back peddling on every moderate and progressive position he's ever held.
Even more unfair is the notion that Ralph Nader's run for the presidency in 2000 was "disastrous". It wasn't. He didn't cost Al Gore the election, our constitutional process (which insures that the state is protected from the popular vote), and the supreme court (and dare it be mentioned: Gore's loss in TN) cost Al Gore the electoral majority he needed to win in 2000.
Why does Salon, or anyone for that matter feel that our process, or our country, is improved by limiting the opportunity of anyone but the 2 major parties from launching a successful National campaign? And if Democrats are so worried that Nader's voters are going to cost them the election, why don't they just throw in with Nader? I'll tell you why: because this whole notion of Nader as spoiler is BS.
-
Why is Joe afraid of including Nader in a debate?
I think the answer is that in a debate Nader would reveal what a true change platform would look like--single payer health care, an end to corporate personhood, end of the drug war, etc. This would expose the fact that Obama is actually not offering change, he is merely using the word expediently and fraudulently. His platform is the same as Hillary's-- the same old safe, spineless, moderate Democrat platform. In short, Obama's illusion of change would be shattered. So there is good reason to want to obstruct Nader.