Ralph Nader manages to be relevant again, sort of
Ralph Nader continued his personal and political disintegration this week.
He suggested in interviews with Fox News that America's first black president, Barack Obama, could turn out to be an "Uncle Tom."
Most pundits have observed that Nader has already slouched into irrelevancy, following his dramatic spoiler role in the 2000 elections.
But it now appears that Nader did give manage to give some very real aid and comfort on Tuesday -- once again to the Republican ticket.
In the battleground state of Missouri, John McCain won 1,442,673 votes, a scant 5,800 more than Barack Obama.
Ralph Nader's role? He stripped away 17,769 votes from the Democrat, apparently costing Obama the state. (Missouri hasn't been officially called yet.)
Of course, it turns out that this is a bit of election night trivia.
But imagine a different (and entirely plausible) scenario, where Missouri had turned out to be the Ohio of 2008.
If Obama had needed the Show-Me State's 11 electoral votes to put him over the top, then Nader would have been the spoiler once again.
Well played, Ralph -- well played.
posted by Brian Mann @ 11/07/2008 10:06:00 AM
12 Comments
12 Comments:
Democrats do love to hate Nader, except, of course, those who vote for him. But on the other hand, telling him that he--or anyone--shouldn't run so as not to muddy the traditional two-party cage match would be just wrong. It goes both ways--many say that Bill Clinton would never have won without Ross Perot's candidacy in 1992 taking more votes from the GOP than from Democrats.
I'm no fan of Nader, but his beef with the two-party lock on American politics has wide resonance with voters who feel excluded from the either-or choices on offer in most elections. A more attractive third party option than Nader could move the dial in a big way.
Don't forget Bob Barr in your calculations. Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr, with 11,355 votes in Missouri probably cancels out the majority of the Nader vote. Assuming all of Nader's votes to Obama and all of Barr's to McCain (a big assumption), Obama does win Missouri, but only by 500 votes.
There are many who believe that, although there are the noble exceptions, the corporate Democratic Party is no longer a relevant vehicle for progressives. You can't spoil something that's rotten into the first place.
And Dale Hobson is right too. The Democrats hate Nader not because he's irrelevant but precisely because he speaks the truth about the corporate control of their party. You don't hate someone who's irrelevant. You ignore them.
If we accept the official figures, Bush won Florida by 500-something votes in 2000. EVERY candidate on the ballot, include other left of center options, got more than 500-something votes but the Democrats singularly focus on Nader.
I don't agree with Nader's Uncle Tom comments. But you're propagating into the 'spoiler' myth is insulting. Partly to Nader but mostly to the millions of people who voted for him in the last few elections.
I voted for him not because I wanted to spoil anything. I voted for him because I thought he was far and away the best candidate on the ballot and the one whose values and beliefs most jived with my own. I voted for him because I believe that the greatest threat to our democracy is corporate control of government and that the Democrats had become complicit in this as Republicans.
Your insult was not primarily against Nader because a guy who runs and gets no votes has no impact. You're saying that I and others who voted for him are spoilers. And I resent being told that voting my conscience is ruining anything. It's called democracy.
I'm very disappointed in this because you usually produce work of the highest quality and strive to debunk cheap myths. You write a lot about liberal snobbery toward people who have different political beliefs. I'm afraid you're guilty of exactly that here.
Incidentally, you may want to do a story on the recent Zogby poll (linked to here http://mofyc.blogspot.com/2008/09/more-spin-than-karl-rove-in-g-force.html) reporting that 44 percent " believe the United States' system is broken and cannot be fixed by traditional two-party politics and elections."
Hi guys -
Normally, I let comments speak for themselves, but I want to wrestle with this Nader issue a bit.
The facts as I reported them in the blog are accurate.
If Missouri were the "Ohio" state of this election, then it's entirely possible that Ralph Nader would have cost Democrats the election.
Yes, it's true that Bob Barr also drained away votes from McCain. (He actually may have cost McCain Indiana and North Carolina.)
But my observation wasn't about third party candidates in general.
Mr. Nader has had a unique and recurring role in American history -- a role he might have reprised this week.
It is absolutely NOT insulting to point out that a person in Missouri voting for Nader helped to tip that state to John McCain.
Again, it's a simple fact.
Obviously, I think it's the only moral thing for a citizen to vote for whomever you prefer on the ballot.
If that's Ralph Nader, great.
It's also fair to cast your vote based not on the likelihood of electing a president (Nader had no chance of winning, obviously), but as a comment on the two-party system.
But it's also fair to confront the ramifications of that vote.
Again, it's simply true that by choosing to vote for Ralph Nader in 2000, a group of Americans helped tilt that election to George W. Bush.
If -- as Mr. Nader argues -- there was no distinguishing between Al Gore and President Bush (they are both "corporate" politicians, say) then fine.
No harm done.
But if, as some Americans have concluded, Mr. Bush was a devastating figure in our history -- lacking, for example, many of the qualities that later won Mr. Gore the Nobel Prize -- then those votes are worth a long, hard think.
One final thought: Mr. Nader has absolutely no track record of helping to create a third party.
He emerges every four years and talks about the evils of Democrats and Republicans, but I've heard of no serious effort on his part to create an alternative.
Best,
Brian
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
(I had some blogger issues so I deleted a few comments and consolidated them into one)
Brian,
With all due respect, your essay was not primarily facts. It was opinion and speculation.
"continued his personal and political disintegration" -Opinion.
"following his dramatic spoiler role in the 2000 elections" -Opinion.
"stripped away 17,769 votes from the Democrat, apparently costing Obama the state." -Dubious speculation.
"imagine a different (and entirely plausible) scenario" -Speculation.
"If Obama had needed..." -Speculation.
"then Nader would have..." -Speculation.
Your piece was primarily speculation. And that's fine, but please don't claim it was primarily fact-based.
Polling has shown that people who voted in Nader in 2000 were fairly evenly spread out on the political spectrum. Opposition to corporate governance is not just a liberal thing.
Additionally, it is also well-known that the excitement surrounding Nader's 2000 campaign brought a ton of new people into the political process. If Nader hadn't been on the ballot then, many of the people who voted for him, simply wouldn't have voted at all. Much like the excitement and enrollment boom that Obama generated this year.
Further, your argument is premised not on a 'fact' but on an assumption. The assumption that (whether 2000 or 2008) everyone who voted for Nader would've voted for the Democrat had Ralph not been on the ballot. That is simply not true.
This year, I would've voted for McKinney had Nader not been on the ballot. I know others who would've voted for Barr or Calero.
MAYBE enough would've switched to make the difference. Maybe not. But contrary to what you imply, it's not as simple as taking the bloc number of Nader votes, hypothetically switching them to the Democrat and coming to a definitive conclusion.
People who vote for Nader tend to be fairly independent minded and with strong beliefs about the corruption of the two corporate parties.
I dare say (and with all due respect, at least I'm going to admit this is not fact, but informed speculation as someone who keeps company with Nader supporters) that if Nader weren't on the ballot, most of his supporters would've voted for another smaller party candidate.
Finally, I really don't understand what the point of this essay was other than to take a cheap shot at Nader. (Ok, maybe he deserved a slap for the Uncle Tom comment but the rest was pointless). But a blog devoted to rural politics, this essay seems dramatically out of place.
If the electoral college had been close, Missouri might have been Florida/Ohio. But the electoral college vote wasn't close.
If Nader hadn't been on the ballot, Obama might have won Missouri. But he was on the ballot.
If all Nader supporters had voted for Obama, the Dem would've won Missouri. But this was never going to happen even if Ralph wasn't on the ballot.
(I'll refrain from asking why you didn't blame other smaller party candidates for the non-problem in Missouri)
I'll put it another way. If Obama hadn't been on the ballot, it's possible that Nader might have won Missouri. This possibility is also a 'fact.'
Brian, you do some of the best public radio reporting out there. But in this particular case, I'm really not sure you understand the mentality and rationale of people who belong to smaller parties and support smaller party and independent candidates. We do so precisely because we're disillusioned with the Democratic and Republican parties.
(I'm talking about the real smaller parties, not the major party trojan horses here in NY like the Conservatives, Independence Party and WFP)
It's not as simple as "If Nader/Perot/scapegoat du jour weren't on the ballot, smaller party voters would've all supported the Democrat/Republican."
For most of us, if our guy or our party's candidate weren't on the ballot, we'd vote for some other smaller party/independent candidate.
Best,
Brian
Okay, fair enough: some opinion crept in there.
But I still say the basis of the argument was fact.
If Missouri had been the pivot state in 2008, Ralph Nader would have made the difference.
I'd also argue with the "cheap shot" point.
I've thought and written a lot about the moral choices that "protest" candidates make.
The whole idea of protest politics strike me as problematic and complicated.
When a society faces a painful and difficult choice, choosing "other" or declining to vote can be viewed as sending a message...or as a moral abdication.
To the specifics of Ralph Nader:
In 2000, Mr. Nader had a reasonable case to make: the two parties were nearly identical, in his opinion.
They were "corporate" political entities.
But by 2004 -- and again in 2008 -- it was nearly impossible to maintain that it didn't really matter who won.
Anyone who would equivocate George W. Bush with John Kerry -- well, that's hard to rationalize in my opinion.
So - as I wrote earlier: I do think people who vote for third parties in these instances have a serious moral conundrum on their hands.
The same, obviously, would be true for a pro-life conservative who voted for Bob Barr.
Because Barr is certain to lose, that vote does nothing to advance the pro-life cause; indeed, it contributes to the likelihood that a pro-choice candidate will be elected.
It goes without saying that Nader supporters are free to make that moral calculation as they see fit.
The part I find sketchy is that so many Nader fans refuse to acknowledge that there is a moral calculus at play here.
Best,
Brian
Brian, as always I find it very disturbing that much of your argument as a Democrat is simply based on the feeling that if I and others could not vote for Ralph Nader, we would vote for the Democrat's corporate prole instead.
Just in case there is any doubt in your mind, we would NEVER do so. Simply can't see the margin in it. I don't ever vote for the two war parties' candidates regardless of which side of the fake aisle they pretend they're on. Not ever.
I also take great umbrage at the constant labeling of "Naderites" as "fans". We are not "fans". We are SUPPORTERS. We support Ralph's platform. I came to see things in a very similar common sense way to Nader long before I really knew much about him or knew him which I do). That's something I find that most Nader SUPPORTERS have in common and do not share with our two-party brethren. We are not followers. We can all articulate our viewpoints and argue them. I resist the urge to call Democrats "Obamaniacs" (regardless of the temptation) so please give us a little more credit than that. I see far less substance on your chosen side of the aisle than on mine.
All that aside, part of the Democrats' mantra is that great damage can only be done by Republicans. This is patently ridiculous. Bill Clinton waged a daily bombing war against the civilian population of Iraq and starved a million children to death there. He destroyed our manufacturing base by pushing NAFTA through (a corporate Republican enslavement plan that the Reaganites couldn't get through congress even when they had a majority). He passed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and Workfare.
Clinton failed to get us meaningful health care (that's why he had is wife spearhead it, so the "failure" would be attached to her). Its no accident that she became the second highest recipient of HMO and Big Pharma money in history.
I could go on for days but the basic point is this; Obama is NOT different than the Clintons and Bush is not Satan. He's just another smarmy blue blood fleecing the public without style or grace. Democrats are no longer different than Republicans. Our new president ill simply take on the mantle of CEO of USA Inc.
He will keep us at war and occupation in the Middle East for the same reasons that we went in the first place, control of oil and the military industrial complex's need for bloodshed to feed its constantly gaping maw.
We will not have single payer health care. We will have mandatory HMO care at twice the price of any modern country.
We will see no living wage passed at the federal level.
We will see more socialism. Not the kind where Rush and the John Birchers run around screaming that "Obama is a commie" but the REAL kind where $700 billion is given to Wall Street speculators for no good reason anyone can think of at the expense of those who work for a living. Socialism for the rich. Capitalism for the poor.
Clean energy? Where was that during this campaign? Clean COAL? SAFE nukes? We will not see wind and solar developed along with a national energy job creation plan which is what we need NOW.
Democrats like to say that Bush is the devil and that Gore would have been better. You know Gore, the "environmental hero" who should be best known for never doing anything for the environment in his entire political career but who is instead known for his little enviro-movie (he should primarily be known as the guy who refused to fight for the rights of 57,000 disenfranchised black voters in Florida in 2000). We all know that Gore never would have gone to war in Iraq even though exactly the same conscienceless corporations run him that ran Bush. Says who?
Democrats love to say that John Kerry (the guy who had a draft on his 2004 campaign website and who voted for all the wars Bush has spearheaded) would have been a much better president and would have gotten us out of Iraq. From his Senate record, I see absolutely NO evidence of this at all.
My own feeling is that Democrats are happy to support COVERT fascism but like to stop short of those crazy Republicans and their OVERT fascism.
I am not any better off having an intellectual articulate a case for war than I am when a simpleton does it. Either way, it kills children. I do not choose either.
I choose common sense. I choose Nader. It is a matter of principle as you say BUT in NY, and in 39 other states, it is also the only position that makes ANY sense if one understands the electoral college. Why vote for either type of fascism in a SAFE STATE? Where's the margin in that? How is this a success? It is the poster child for throwing your vote away!
That said, Nader did NOT call Obama an "Uncle Tom". he said that Obama now had to choose between being an "Uncle Sam" for the American people or an "Uncle Tom" for the corporations that put him in office. Big difference but thats what you get for watching Fox News and taking things out of context.
Lets revisit this in a year when we're still in Iraq, we've seen another bailout and are still without health care. Lets talk about what kind of "Uncle" you think Obama is then. ;-)
Peace,
Matt
P.S. Remember Molly Ivins; "You gotta dance with those what brung ya". Obama received more money from Corporate America than any president in history. Who do you think he'll be dancing with?
Hi guys -
A couple of points.
1. I am enjoying this conversation immensely; thanks to the folks who've offered such interesting thoughts. I've always found Nader to be a complicated and challenging figure.
2. I'm not a Democrat. I vote Republican a lot of the time -- and have even voted for third parties occasionally.
(I lived in West Germany -- I know I'm dating myself here -- when Petra Kelly was at the peak of her influence and even had the honor of meeting her once.)
3. If you remain convinced after eight years of George W. Bush that there are no material distinctions between America's two big parties -- well, fair enough. But I think that's a huge stretch.
(If John McCain had been elected president, it's nearly certain that at least one more conservative Supreme Court justice would have been chosen -- leading to the repeal of Roe v. Wade. That's just one difference that strikes me as particularly stark.)
4. Ralph Nader -- for all his virtues -- has absolutely no track record of creating or helping to build an alternative party. None. If anything, members of other parties have viewed his influence as problematic. His role during the 2004 Green Party campaign helped to fracture that movement significantly. If he had been working in the trenches from 2000 onward, showing a capacity to build some kind of significant coalition (or even the seed of such a coalition) my views would be different.
All best,
Brian
Brian, I don't want to clog up your blog but I too enjoy this.
I have had the German Green discussion with Paul Hockenos, a childhood friend, who wrote the definitive biography of Joschka Fischer. I don't think that the same conditions exist here that allowed the German Greens their brief success. America is not Germany. Germans still read books and argue politics in pubs. We watch TV and argue about sports. We have become a nation of TV-fed followers and our media is not helping the issue, though some may be trying.
On a foreign policy level, the neo-con agenda is brilliant. Frightening but brilliant. Pax Americanus and PNAC are all about working the war machine and securing the oil ourselves so we can discontinue our decades long indirect rule of the oil countries by supporting Israel's military. I remain convinced that should Gore have taken his rightful spoils in 2000 we still would have gone into Iraq or Pakistan. Its simply part of the master plan. It would undoubtedly have been an invasion with less swagger and bragadoccio, a more nuanced affair, but we would still be at war. I believe that.
As for the Dems being lesser evils, I will have to await the proof. What have they actually done for the working class in this country over the last 40 years?
As for Roe v. Wade, that's a Dem red herring. We would have riots in the streets if Roe was overturned and the Republicans know that. They are not the religious right. They are just using the religious right to get elected.
You would probably enjoy Jeffrey Rosen's great assessment of the bench in "Supreme Court, Inc" published in the NY times Magazine
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16supreme-t.html). It details how the US Chamber of Commerce has a full time office devoted to choosing and vetting our supreme court justices (on both fake sides). It details the actual pro-corporate bias that has dictated decisions from this body over the last 30 years. Lets also please remember that Antonin Scalia was approved by the FULL senate, 98-0. The Dems are not an opposition party in any meaningful sense of the word.
You say that Ralph Nader has built nothing but that is actually not true at all. He built the PIRGs and he built Public Citizen and FAIR and The Center for Responsive Law and the Center for Public Integrity. He has always tried to work with the movements where politics is concerned but he is, in his gut, anti-party like many of the founding fathers and the original George W.
I have been a National Committee member of GPUS for the last 6 years and I can tell you unequivocally that the Greens are not a serious political force, nor do they seem to really want to be. The grassroots of the Green party is with Ralph (85% of us). The national party was co-opted by the "DemoGreens" in 2001 and we have never been able to take it back. They engineered the David Cobb fiasco in 2003-04 and Ralph just did what he had to do ... he left. Look at what the national Greens just did to Cynthia McKinney (they promised her a real campaign if she went Green and then delivered her very few ballots and almost no money). They have steered us to the very brink of irrelevance with steady hands and seem to have no intention of applying the brakes as we plunge off the cliff. Most have already left the car.Others are leaving daily. If you want to blame someone for the failure of grassroots political organizing, I can tell yo the three people at the National Committee who specifically wanted to get rid of Ralph and who engineered it. They are all working with the new Green think tank that Soros bought for them second hand after they screwed us all. You can't blame Ralph. That would be like blaming union members because their corporate labor HQ's killed the newly emerging Labor Party in 1984 by building the Working Families Party (who only endorse Democrats and work for a higher poverty wage instead of a living wage). Remember that Ralph has an awful lot of smart well-monied people trying to ensure that he never succeeds at building a movement. No one in this country has succeeded in doing that over the last 40 years.
As such, Ralph is trying to wake people up, not win. He wants us to see that it is our duty to vote. He wants us to think about the electoral college when we vote. He wants us to collect signatures and organize and call people and run for office ourselves. He wants us all to "see the wizard" with our own eyes, to see our system suffering under immoral ballot access constraints, fake debates run by corporate interests and a virtual media blackout for all independents and third party candidates.
The crazy thing is that according to FAIR, Nader only got 1/4 of 1% of the media coverage in 2000 when he was polling between 7 and 18% regularly! In 2004, he was barely covered at all. Most Americans had no idea he was even running. In 2008, they have pretty much relegated him to just comedy shows to flex their muscle and show how well they can beat up on a 74 year old guy who has probably done more for us collectively than anyone else they will ever meet. Very sad.
Post a Comment
<< Home