Nader and Clintons (REMEMBER 2000)
I like Ralph Nader. He's a good fighter and a passionate advocate for consumers. But he'll always be remembered for taking 5% of the vote in Florida in 2000, depriving Al Gore of liberal votes that could have saved us from these dark ages we call the Bush years.
But it's not fair to blame Nader, not by a long shot. He ran, but he ran for good reason. He ran because the Democratic Party was a joke. Bill Clinton had spent 8 years pulling it to the center, even right of center, essentially eliminating a liberal choice in our 2-party system. Gore lacked the charisma to demonstrate differences with Clinton; and Clinton, for his part, severely tarnished the label "liberal" by faking it for so long. So Nader ran, a weak 3rd party candidate knowing he couldn't win, but hoping to pull the Democratic Party left and gain enough votes to qualify for public funding in future elections. You have to respect that.
When I go to liberal forums like Daily Kos, I see a lot of Democrats who passionately hate Nader because they so passionately hate Bush. I understand. But I disagree. I hate Bush as much as anybody, for all the loss of life and stripped civil liberties and other assorted tragedies and lost opportunities, but blaming Ralph Nader for the last 7 years completely misses the point: the Democratic Party lost because it no longer appealed to liberals.
We now face another Clinton trying to take the White House. A panderer who runs to the center any time a controversy arises. Someone who plays ball with the corporates. A mouth that spews talking points, rarely showing anger even after seven years of relentless national tragedy and party humiliation. A polarizing figure who alienates many liberals, someone who a great many rank and file, activist, bona fide Democrats are on record as saying they can't support in a general election. Someone who looks very willing to sell out left ideals and duck major fights that urgently need to be fought, and fought hard and passionately. I can't help but think that if she wins, we'll face another Nader in 2012 or 2016 and end up with another Bush.
I don't want just any Democrat elected president. I want a liberal leader who will usher in a dynasty of left wing dominance in our politics. I don't want 1 or 2 terms of a centrist, corporatist Dem to slap on some band-aids on our wounds. I want decades of real liberal rule to sew them up and make the country and the world healthy again.
REMEMBER:
I strongly dislike Ralph
I strongly dislike Ralph Nader. I recognize that he has been and remains a strong voice on the left wing and I respect him for that. However, I also have to recall that in 2000 he and his supporters decided, despite the objections of myself and thousands of other citizens with foresight, to in effect drop out of the political system. He decided that his quixotic goal of personal power and glory was more important than the general good of the nation. I told them what would happen. I was there, yelling at my friends who claimed that trying to get a few percentage points for a third party candidate who never had a chance in hell of getting public funding was more important than keeping a man who I told them would obliterate this country out of the White House. Lord knows Gore has simply promoted the same centrism that Clinton did and hasn't become a guiding light for any left wing movements in the past 8 years. And I find it rather ironic that many of the same people who labeled Gore a centrist and the "lesser of 2 evils" in 2000 would now give their left arms to see him run.
I am not a fan of either Bill or Hillary Clinton, I find them to be both centrist, and too corporate for my liking, but I weep at the idea of 2000 being repeated. Even if it is moderate left wing leadership, we need left wing leadership in this country. The Clinton years, for all their faults, were generally good, we had a stable economy, balanced budget, and a strong domestic standing. We cannot afford 8 or even 4 years of McCain, Romney or Huckabee.
I agree with you Jake, a true liberal in the White House is the ideal. However, it is unlikely to happen right now, because most of the country is not far left. Most of the nation is moderate, so right now we will see a more moderate President. We will not see a far left winger like Kucinich in the White House because his radical agenda looks as dangerous as Bush's radical agenda to most of the country. We have to elect an Obama or a Hillary right now, and use that to set up the kind of liberal dynasty we both want to see. But, that dynasty will never occur if we continue to infight like this. Those on the far left need to stop running off into the hills at any sign of centrism, need to recognize moderate liberals as having as much right to be called liberal as those on the wings. The far left needs to stop being so arrogant that they refuse to cooperate, they need to begin supporting those candidates who BEST represent them and not only those who PERFECTLY represent them. If they, we don't you will see 2000 over and over again.
Peace and love,
Joe!
yeah, I hear you. I want to
yeah, I hear you. I want to reiterate my only point in this post is that if you don't want 2000 repeated, alienate liberals as little as possible. in other words, an Obama or Edwards win is far healthier for left in the long term than a Clinton (for the record, I'm not arguing for Kucinich). in fact, it's possible that a Clinton win could create more consequences in the long run (10-20 years) than another term of Republican president could in the short run (4-8 years).
I disagree on 2 points. first, that Nader was a "candidate who never had a chance in hell of getting public funding". he had a chance. a really good chance, actually, because (as we both saw) there were so many disaffected liberal voters who'd been abandoned by the Democratic Party. if ever there was a shot for a liberal 3rd party to gain traction, it was after 8 years of Bubba (NAFTA, corporate welfare, ridiculous partisan bickering, etc).
second, it's not for each liberal to dictate how other liberals should vote. in my view, we should all just take note of how other voters feel, and plan accordingly. so while I can agree with the sentiments of a statement like "the far left needs to stop being so arrogant that they refuse to cooperate," I think that in elections it's important to adapt to the environment, i.e., the preconceived beliefs of voters. changing the environment happens between elections, hence my extreme wariness toward a possible Clinton win (and extreme disgust at how early this election started). her numbers look very good right now, but four years of relentless attack from the right wing and I think it'll come out very different. I could easily see 2010 being another 1994.
on one other point, I think we just have a misunderstanding. "[A] true liberal in the White House is the ideal. However, it is unlikely to happen right now, because most of the country is not far left. Most of the nation is moderate, so right now we will see a more moderate President." I didn't argue anything about "far left". this is what I'm talking about: http://www.gallup.com/poll/103609/Increasing-Momentum-Economic-Populism.aspx
and that's just regarding economics. look issue by issue, and country's passed the GOP by. the definition of "moderate" has clearly shifted to the left.
^^^^^^^^^^
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly."
-Robert F. Kennedy
Post new comment