two questions for Mr. Nader
Ralph Nader has apparently decided to run for President. So says his website, votenader.org (which doesn't seem to render well on Mac browsers, but which my Dad reports renders quite well on a Windows machine. Don't look for Ralph's presidential campaign at Nader2004.org. That domain has been captured by a pro-Nader Nader-critic (which I count myself as), and is a graphic version of the argument I made earlier.)
This is obviously depressing to folks like me who, while admirers of the good that Nader did in the world, and admirers of more of his policies than the other candidates in the race, believe the consequence of his being in this race will simple be to increase the probability that President Bush will have a second term.
So two questions for Mr. Nader:
(1) Do you agree that even if it would be best if you were President, it would be second best if a Democrat were President rather than President Bush?
(2) If so, then will you promise that if 2000 repeats itself -- if it is clear that you are not going to be elected president, but probable that votes for you will deny the Democrat of the Presidency -- then you will ask your supporters to vote for someone else?
Because if Mr. Nader can answer both questions "yes," then I'm all for his candidacy. His views, his integrity, and (except for one important gap) his judgment certainly deserve to stand on the stage with any Democrat, and with President Bush.
| Permalink | technorati
Comments (26)
On Meet the Press today, Nader made it pretty clear that he thought the Democrats and the Republicans were more same than different - and hence it's not better that a Democrat be President. For him, they're roughly the same.
What we really need in this country is a change in the election for all races. Of all the different ways there are of choosing between 3 or more canidates, why do we use the worst? I am thinking of something like instant run-off, but there are other fine choices.
I'd like to make the opposite argument. I'd argue that the winner of the 2004 election doesn't matter. If Bush wins, things will be just fine with the country. If the democrat candidate wins, things will be just fine. You have to be pretty dense to think that somehow if we just "beat Bush" that the country will magically get better. By any fair account, Bush isn't any worse than Clinton was. And whatever candidate the democrats put up, especially if the only qualification required is "might be able to beat Bush", won't be any worse.
So, what is important? The important thing is shaping the long term fate of the political system. If you want a system where political parties put up qualified candidates, speak to issues and work for the future benfit of the country, then you need to start voting that way now. Otherwise, it'll just be more of the same.
I am very glad to see Nader in the race. I wish we had more candidates like him puttin issues, instead of simple politics, on the table.
I thought you might be interested in the Green Party's Who Really Spoiled in 2000?.
The Green Party will be fielding a presidential candidate again this year.
What has really bothered me since Clinton left office is that the Democrats are weak and divided. These primaries, during which I have supported Dean, have seemed to revive the party, attract the media and put the Bush Admin under the scope.
Taking the technology of communications to the next level, Dean empowered his constituents and built a campaign out of nothing.
I suggest that Nader equates to an extreme liberalism that a majority of americans are probably not comfortable with. The real answer to the problem of who shapes the White House does not lie than in a more extreme politcal position but a transition to populist funding--only possible through technology.
Nader's voice is important, it keeps the fight focused and hot for the liberals (which Kerry needs help with). But, to expect that one man can some how change the entire face of american politics is un-realistic at best and down-right irresponsible at worse.
On MTP this morning, Nader made a good point that people here haven't addressed:
There were other third-party candidates on the ballot in Florida (worker's party, etc.) who also got more votes than the difference between Gore and Bush. Is it also their fault that Gore lost? Should all third party candidates be abolished if they might make the election more complicated than a two-man matchup? Should I (a Bush guy) be upset that conservative or right-to-life votes were "stolen" from Bush - and therefore created the whole recount fiasco? Should I go to the right-leaning third-party people and say, "It's your fault we had the whole Supreme Court debacle in Florida!? Please stay off the ballot so that won't happen again?"
No - I wouldn't. We need those people (and left-leaners, too) in the race. They give some voters a clear conscience in their choice- something people should be able to have.
All the efforts to stop or marginalize Nader from within Democrat ranks would be better spent on their nominee. In the meantime, let a hundred flowers and third-party candidates bloom - they represent the vitality of our democracy.
I find it amazing that our country celebrates freedom, democracy, free markets and competition, yet these qualities are not welcome in politics.
The easiest way to solve this problem is to move away from plurality winner voting. There are plenty of voting methods (Preference voting, Instant Runoff Voting, the Borda Count, etc) that will fully express the will of the people without making it any tougher to vote (unless ranking your candidates is too tough for folks). These voting methods prevent the "spoiler" role that Nader, Perot and other third party candidates can cause.
We need to face the fact that banging the "Beat Bush" drum over and over didn't work in 2000. We tried to tell Green Party and Nader voters not to run, and not to try to bring up issues of social justice and international sustainability on a national stage, but would they listen? No.
Progressives, as a class, are just too stupid to realize how important it is to beat George Bush and the Republicans at all costs. It's simply a sad fact of life that some people in America are going to be more committed to social change than horse-race politics.
A different strategy is needed, and I think I know what it is. As far as I know, Ralph Nader and the Green Party have no intellectual property claims on the ideas they used to dupe millions of voters into pulling the wrong lever in the 2000 presidential campaign. (We've seen business plan patents in the past, but I have yet to see a political platform patent. It'll probably happen, though.)
The ideas are just sitting there waiting to be poached. The Green Party 2000 platform is available for download free over the Internet, or for fifty cents by post. Fifty cents! Nader's got his issues list on the Web, too.
So it seems trivially easy to subvert the 2004 Nader candidacy, not to mention the Green Party's campaign, by adopting and promoting the ideas they espouse. Sure, they'd need a rewrite; we don't want any copyright issues, after all. But writers are a dime a dozen. I think changing phrases like "social justice" to "just social policy" and "ecological sustainability" to "sustainable ecologicalness" would cut around any trademark issues that may pop up.
The party would then be able to convince progressive voters that they're getting a great deal by voting Democrat. All these great ideas... plus a free chance to BEAT BUSH included in every box! Can the Peace and Freedom Party offer you that? No way! We'd be pulling in hairy-armpit hippies and cooperative organic farmers by the TRUCKLOAD.
I mean, imagine the look on those guys' faces when John Kerry gets up on "Meet the Press" and reads the Nader/Green playbook out loud over national television... boy, would that make those progressives hopping mad or what?! "They stole our ideas!" Ha ha! That'd show those spoilers and election-stealers who's boss! Neener neener neener!
Larry
I agree with you regading your two questions. The *problem*, IMHO, is that Mr. Nader's ego won't allow him to answer "yes".
How depressing!
I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt to Nader, and therefore believe his intention of entering the election is primarily an attempt to structurally change the electoral process from a two-party system to a multi-candidate type of system. For someone convinced that the two-party system is very bad, the principled attempt to make structural changes to our political landscape would probably well outweigh the possible election of Bush (caused by the divisive influence on the left), or even the election of a string of consecutive "Bush's". Nader probably considers a two-party system particularly susceptible to corporate hijacking, and therefore a root (structural) problem in what he sees wrong with America.
Thus, I tend not to believe that Nader is primarily an egomaniac, as some, like Al Sharpton, have said.
If Nader then is looking at the really big--structural--issue of an electoral process entrenched with a two-party system, then Mr. Lessig's blog reads more like an appeal to pragmatism. Fine, Mr. Nader, make your statement--which is an important statement--but after you make your statement, be a pragmatist and support the Dem candidate because the Dem candidate will better represent your interests than Bush in this imperfect world.
Of course, the more extreme and idealogue-like you are here, the more the pragmatic attitude sounds like another root evil that allows the root evil of the two-party system to perpetuate. And thus, the pragmatic impulse becomes something to resist itself.
I am an unabashed pragmatist, and am moreover not convinced that two-party system is structurally more susceptible to corporate hijacking that a multi-party system. Thus, Mr. Lessig's attempt to pragmatize Mr. Nader seems to me a good thing indeed.
greg
Chris Floyd has a great article on this issue, which contains a strong criticism of Kerry, but eventually comes back to the opening lines:
closing with:
I am not sure I am convinced, though. And I definitely agree with a comment above that this is about idealism vs. pragmatism, rather than egomaniacal ambitions.
Re: Straw thing.
OK, so we're saying to any left-leaning candidate now: "Just in case the democrats run an ineffective campaign again, please stay off the ballot, because it might be close. If it doesn't look close - please go ahead and run - because we believe in democracy - just not when it puts our party at risk." How can the same angry crowd that thinks our democracy itself is at risk due to George Bush be so eager to keep other candidates off the ballot? It just doesn't feel right. If the Democrats are also going to be the "end justifies the means" party - then there really will be no difference between them.
Jeff: Quite right--and that is the reason why the Democrats (and Democratic Party supporters) who complain about so-called "spoilers" are hard to take seriously every four years when they raise the spoiler issue and yet do nothing to fix it.
In addition to seeking a better voting system, they could stop colluding with their ostensible opposition on bills, and they could stop narrowing the field of candidates via the official-sounding-but-privately-run Commission on Public Debates (which is run by the Democratic Leadership Council, the Republican National Council, and some mutual corporate friends) by denying third parties the chance to appear in the televised debates. They could also push for free TV airtime for ballot-qualified candidates. The lack of party-wide focus on these and other issues tells me they are comfortable with the status quo so long as they're one of the two parties the system degenerates to.
Pragmatism seems to me a poor course to take in something as important as our political system and Nader's percieved ability to take away a Democratic victory does represent a flaw (correctable as pointed out in earlier comments) in our political system. Also, I agree with Nader that a two-party system makes it very easy for corporate interests to "hedge their bets" so to speak.
But I think on a more subtle level, Nader is against the amalgamation of interests that the two parties have become. After seeing the crash and burn of Howard Dean, it became apparent to me that the Democratic party is heavily fractured along class lines; Dean donors representing the young, hip, trendy liberal intelligentsia while those who voted for Kerry/Edwards seem more the labor/working class majority. The Republican party faces the same issue with its Reagan-induced unification of socially conservative with economically conservative types. Both parties have become so pragmatic and internally conflicting that it seems ripe for more choice to be offered. Personally, I don't agree with Nader's views but I applaud him for what he is doing for the entire system.
"(1) Do you agree that even if it would be best if you were President, it would be second best if a Democrat were President rather than President Bush?"
Nader and the Greens are VERY clear on this. It is "best" that this is up to the voters, via an Instant Runoff ballot. That is the only democratic answer.
Evan,
It is my sincere hope that you will join Professor Lessig in NOT trying to help. Sweeping generalizations (i.e. "Progressives, as a class, are just too stupid...") do nothing to advance the debate. There are enough rational political and socio-economic reasons to toss Bush out of office without your ad-hominem criticisms.
--Jason
Two questions, which I ask in all seriousness:
Has any mainstream Democratic candidate (i.e. Gore, Kerry, Edwards) ever reached out to potential Nader voters with even a token concession?
Have any of those three encountered any serious mainstream criticism for not doing a better job of keeping those votes from being siphoned off?
Dru: Kucinich did and I think he has the best chance of all the Democrats to get Nader voters to vote for him. The Democrats have known this for some time and yet they don't make any effort to run candidates who are more progressive. The mainstream media helps their cause by marginalizing Kucinich at every opportunity. Dean gets more press than Kucinich does despite that they are neck and neck for number of won state primaries.
On your second question--none of them encounter criticism of that ilk because many Democrats place the onus of responsibility on the progressive candidates and their supporters, not their Democratic party candidates who fail to convince voters. The message from Democrats is clear--fall into line with wherever the Democrats want to go once every two years (or at least once every four years). Many people and organizations are very wedded to a two-party system; they argue to preserve it whenever they see someone come along and threaten to discuss something the two parties would rather not. What Progressives who champion this line don't appear to understand is how it undermines everything else they work for--it's harder to take media reform (a big part of which is based on diversity of voices and owners) seriously when the Progressives who champion it complain about competition in elections. It's difficult to hear Professor Lessig talk about free culture where people have the freedom to express themselves without the hassle of corporate-crafted copyright law, while at the same time he posts about how Nader should not run (and even ignores the evidence to the contrary).
Third parties and independants have an exceptionally hard time getting on the ballot in many states and congressional districts (I have personal familiarity with the latter of these having helped a local man run on the Green ticket for office against an incumbent Republican. The Democrats scrambled to find a candidate to deny the Greens a two-way race against that Republican in which the Greens might have gotten enough votes to enjoy the same easy ballot access as the two major parties). Let alone getting in front of people where their arguments can be heard.
The criticism I've seen in mainstream press and ostensibly progressive articles is remarkably one-sided: check out captions underneath print pictures of Nader or ostensibly neutral descriptions of who Nader is and you'll find repetitions of Democrats criticising Nader for "taking" votes from their candidate (an explanation which only makes sense if you come to it with the assumption that only Democrats and Republicans have any business running for president). I also see repetitions of how Nader "caused" Bush to win (which only makes sense if you ignore the thousands of Floridan voters who were unethically placed on scrub lists and the decision of the US Supreme Court). Progressives who back Nader's issues three years out of every four fall into line on a voting year and are eager to tell us how dangerous the incumbent is and how we should simultaneously vote Democrat (regardless of who the Democrat is) and discourage the alternative progressive from running (which saves us the hassle of having to hear their arguments or examine the record or campaign funding sources of the Democrat).
Jason: sorry if my sarcasm wasn't clear. I think the idea that we need to remove choice from the presidential election is insulting and outrageous.
The Democratic Party needs to court progressive voters, not attack and intimidate progressive candidates. The argument that Ralph Nader should pull out of the race so idiots like me can't vote for him is paternalistic bullshit.
If someone wants my vote, they're welcome to talk to me about it. Convince ME that beating Bush is the most important thing in the entire world. I might be convinced. Really! But don't try to go over my head to Big Daddy Nader in order to limit my choice and force my hand in the election. That's never gonna get my vote. Ever.
I have a question for you Lawrence Lessig. Who's responsible for a Democratic candidate not winning traditionally Democratic states: Ralph Nader's 2% or the 15-25% of registered Democrats who don't even bother to vote? You are just like everyone else who blindly uses Ralph Nader as a scapegoat. The fact is, Democrats run weak campaigns and often drift to the middle in an attempt to please some of the people all of the time (or vice-versa). You have to understand that Ralph Nader does not support the Democratic party in it's current form. So what you are essentially saying is to that Ralph Nader should support choosing the lesser of two evils. That is still choosing evil. You just don't get it. Quote by Frank Herbert: "Without change, something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken." Wake up Mr. Lessig!
Everyone arguing both sides of this issue is a product of the horse-race propaganda that has captured political scientists, politicians, and members of the media since the advent of the modern political party.
On balance, it matters very little the effect a Nader presidency has on the final numbers. Elections should be, and must become, conversations about issues. The duck-and-run bi-polar type of elections we have today leave dozens and dozens of issues -- and potential resolutions -- off the campaign table. The public is interested in resolutions to these issues, but the limited conversations we call campaigns don't address them.
Including candidates like Nader in the conversation (and before him, Perot, who single-handedly brought deficit reduction to light) would make our politics better, our government more responsive, and our country more democratic.
I disagreed with most positions Nader took in 2000, but I voted for him. That is irrelevant, though, because the impact he could have had on the issues if he would have been included in the debates would have far outweighed any perceived negative impact he had on the final horse race.
Elections should be, first, conversations. And after all of the candidates have shared with the American public their views on ALL of the issues, then THAT is the time for the voters to decide who might best implement policy.
If we have open "primaries" in all states (the Louisiana model) and we had campaigns that did not segment candidates into "viable" and non-viable" group, we would begin to approach democracy. Bi-polarity has done more to harm democracy in the U.S. than anything GW Bush has done (or Clinton before him).
Some might be interested in reading Micheal Albert's recent article on not supporting Nader (www.zmag.org).
But why don't we spend more time talking about ways Nader can run and NOT be a spoiler? For example, instant run-off or other forms of vote ranking. I realize that the issue is that 2004 is now and it isn't going to happen this election, but we should be spending our time raising awareness of this easy solution. We can end these kinds of debates with what I would imagine would be a highly popular alternative system that wouldn't be complicated to implement. If we can spend time as a country debating a marriage amendment to the constitution why can't someone force the issue of an amendment that fixes the voting system. It would be far less controversial, I would imagine.
This is politics! Each candidate simply wants to win.
Question 1 answer: Kerry won't attack the corporate stranglehold on American politics.
Question 2 answer: It is not clear that Kerry will be elected president at this moment based upon polling data. By your questionable logic, Kerry should drop out of the race and ask his supporters to support someone else since he will deny the incumbent the Presidency.
You conclude that a presidential candidate does not deserve to debate with Democrats and Republicans if he is not committed to winning an election. Thus, Kerry shouldn't have been allowed to publicly debate when he was running single digits in the polls?
If you want to convince Nader voters that he doesn't deserve votes, a better strategy is to draw upon policy differences between Kerry and Nader. Otherwise, I will remain convinced that Kerry is not electable and will take a proactive stance to admonishing corporate power in politics - chalk one up for Nader.
This sequel to Making History will encourage you to get more runescape gold and hands on in your research of the past, giving you insights into the world quiet beginnings and its harsh realities.
In the beginning I play this game, I was very exciting, although at first I did not know how to upgrade and earn cabal alz, after my friends took me to play, I know all.
I remember the first time you chat with deep, then we tried to upgrade and earn conan gold, so I sat quietly, listening to you that you own in the past.