I've written several essays on the topic. Here's another view. It's unfortunate that the Democrats refuse to engage Nader on the issues and try to make the topic the mere fact of his candidacy. It's not really surprising though. The Democrats really don't have any kind of coherent agenda aside from getting rid of President Bush. Engaging Nader on the issues would be fatal to Kerry-Edwards because it would shine light on how the ticket is trying to run to the right of Bush on several issues, on how embarassed they are to have to share a party with a few progressives. Engaging Nader on the issues would provide a counterpoint to Kerry's pro-Conquest, pro-Patriot Act positions, pro-war on civil liberties, pro-corporatocracy positions. He knows engaging Nader would threaten his strangehold on the ABB vote and possibly push some members of that group to realize the huge internal contradictions of their own position.
An essay by Mark Kamleiter of the Florida Green Party. Republished with permission of the author
American Politics - "Unsafe At Any Speed"
By Mark S. Kamleiter
The question is always the same. Why support Ralph Nader, if he cannot win? This sophomoric question is asked by seasoned journalists as often as by political neophytes. It is as though we are picking teams in a football game. The answer is simple. Nader must win his objectives.
As he has done all his life, Ralph Nader is fighting to protect people from danger and corruption. He refuses to accept a political system that has deformed and corrupted democracy. His campaign is a challenge the rules of that system. Ralph Nader is taking on the most significant reformist battle of his life, the daunting task of re-democratizing American politics, and he must
win.
His conviction that democracy has been stolen from Americans is a driving rationale behind his candidacy. In speaking to the editorial board of the St. Petersburg Times, Mr. Nader laid out his case. He pointed out, that through the complicity of the major parties, 95% of congressional elections are not seriously contested. Furthermore, unfair ballot access rules prevent third-party candidates from presenting alternative choices. Without a choice, there is no democracy. The Electoral College shamefully nullifies millions of votes in every presidential election. There is no democracy, when votes do not count. Without serious electoral finance reform, only candidates with significant corporate financing are able to compete. When corporations control the candidates, there is no democracy.
Democracy has been reduced to two corporate-controlled parties, who provide an empty parody of democratic form, without substance. This election is a reflection of what is wrong with our electoral system. Watching the sad charade of the Democratic presidential primaries makes one yearn for meaningful political substance. From the beginning millions of grassroots Americans rallied energetically and passionately around populist peace candidates. Public events had massive groups of Dean and Kucinich supporters, while only handfuls of Kerry supporters were apparent.
Then the corporate powers spoke. The priority changed, from issues and substance, to which candidate can amass the corporate money to win. Although the majority of Democrats are against the war in Iraq, the Kerry campaign runs on a pro-war plank. Peace activists are physically thrown out of the Democrat convention. There is no more talk of universal health care. A candidate, who voted for Iraq, the Patriot Act, GATT, and No Child Left Behind, becomes the
standard bearer. Winning becomes the issue.
The Democratic Party not only muted its own progressive voices, it is determined to silence independent and third party voices. Its conduct toward Ralph Nader has been ugly, viral and an absolute contradiction of democratic principles. Nader is not attacked on the issues, but for having the audacity to even present himself for election. Beyond their vicious attacks, there has been a concerted effort to prevent Mr. Nader from appearing on the ballots of many states. In the process, millions are denied their right to vote for their candidate. Then, in complicity with the Republican Party, third party candidates are denied access to the presidential debates, intentionally preventing citizens from hearing alternative voices. This is not democracy.
Even as his candidacy is an undeniable exposé of the present lack of democratic electoral process, Mr. Nader is taking effective, direct action to force open the duopoly to meaningful, democratic participation by third party and independent voices. After being locked out of the 2000 debates, he filed a lawsuit against the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), alleging that the
Commission engaged in partisan politics against third party candidates. The Federal District Court has found that the CPD's conduct was illegally partisan and ordered the FEC to remedy the situation.
In 2000 and now in 2004, Nader has filed lawsuits against state ballot access laws, which create a barrier against third party and independent candidates. Furthermore, Ralph Nader told the St. Petersburg Times that he was investigating the persistent dirty tricks and attacks on his ballot access and he promised that he would pursue remedies against those who have engaged in such
illegal and undemocratic conduct. Whenever Nader wins one of these lawsuits, he opens the door to independents and third parties. Because Nader's campaign effectively threatens the duopoly, it is a force for other election reforms, including, doing away with the Electoral College, institution of Instant Runoff Voting, and electoral finance reform.
Ralph Nader must win his struggle to reestablish democratic processes. This is not a fight that can be put off to a better time. The undemocratic, contrived electoral duet now being played out by the Democratic and Republican Parties is not a unique aberration. It is the result of a long-term complicity between the two corporate parties. At every election this country sinks further under the two-party, one-choice, monopoly. Only a steadfast, determined electoral effort, will pry open and re-democratize our electoral system. As Fredrick Douglas said, "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."
7 comments:
"At every election this country sinks further under the two-party, one-choice, monopoly."
I think this was a lot more believable four years ago. Perhaps I'm naive, but I don't think a Gore administration would have worked to open up the Artic Wildlife Refuge, increase logging on public land, invited energy executives to write the country's energy policy in a closed door session, or scuttled the Kyoto treaty.
I forgot to mention that a Bush re-election could very well lead to him having the chance to appoint a Supreme Court Justice and begin a conservative judicial movement that progressives will be powerless to stop for the next 20 years. If this does not seem like a real difference between the parties, then wow, I just don't know what to say.
Bobo,
The parties make a huge deal about the very few places where there really are big differences between them (abortion, ANWAR, affirmative action) so as to obscure the many issues where they are fundamentally similiar.
The Democrats would be less un-progressive. But they certainly wouldn't be progressive. Was it a Republican president who signed 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' sham? Was it a Republican president who signed the so-called Defense of Marriage Act or the welfare reform sham? Was it a Republican presidential candidate who was bribed by China on the eve of the '96 election?
We don't know what a Gore admin would've done. We do, however, know what the Democrats in Congress have done in the last four years. Or not done. They refused to stand up to the Bush administration's extremism. Democratic Senators voted for the Iraq war. Democratic Senators voted 48-1 for the odious Patriot Act. A Democratic Senate approved the "No Child Left Behind" farce. You want me to have faith in this group? I'd love to. I'd really love to. But I can't.
And as you know, the Clinton-Gore administration signed Kyoto but made absolutely not one iota of effort to lobby for it with the Congress. Ratification being the thing that actually matters.
And as for the Supreme Court, remember that John Kerry proudly admitted that he might appoint an anti-Roe justice. And remember also that Antonin Scalia, the most extremist conservative justice on the court, was made justice by a 98-0 vote of a Democratic controlled Senate. Clarence Thomas also got through a Democratic Senate.
If Kerry comes out with progressive positions, maybe I'll consider him. But as long as the left-wing ABB crowd supports him no matter how far right he moves, he'll have no incentive to do so.
Well written response, thank you.
I share your disappointment with how un-Democratic the Democrats have been, but to use the GOP's own parlance, the party it can be a "big tent" that includes a pretty wide range of positions. For example, Gov. Dean was regarded as a very middle of the road Democrat in Vermont (we actually have a separate Progressive Party), it was only outside of the state that all of a sudden he was a "progressive" or "ultra liberal" candidate with views "way outside the mainstream." Where I live, Gov. Dean was about as mainstream as you can get.
I would completely understand if someone said, "Look, Ralph Nader fits my politics. I think he has the experience, the vision and the leadership to be a great president of the republic. He is my guy." The rhetorical device that irks me is sticking to the idea that there is no difference between the two candidates, that one is just as bad as the other. You correctly point out the many points where the Democrats were not able to stem the tide of the Republic wave, so be it, they let down the side. But the big differences that you mentioned (abortion, ANWAR) are just that, *big* differences. Mark my words, if we have four more years of Bush you are going to see oil workers flying flags over the Arctic saying "Thank you Ralp!" in big block letters.
Notice that they Assault Weapons Ban is about to end with no reauthorization in sight? The NRA announced that they would be working out of the Oval Office, and sure enough they are. The virtual destruction of the Atlantic alliance? Another fine legacy of the Bush administration.
I don't consider myself a member of the "ABB crowd" or any other crowd for that matter. I am a concerned citizen however that is pretty unhappy with the climate of our country when the Border Patrol starts setting up roadblocks and asking for IDs in Windsor, VT a hundred miles from the border.
Bobo,
The differences you cite are obviously big to a lot of people, but less important to others.
Myself, I've been conscious of never saying the Democrats and Republicans are the same, of never saying there are no differences between them. I do believe that the differences between them are much less significant than either party would have you believe. I do believe that there are very few fundamental differences between them and that the biggest differences are in style. I don't believe they are identical.
Neither is committed to fundamentally reforming social services in this country or in the states. Neither has any interested in changing rigged electoral laws or instituting indepedent redistricting commissions (changes would help bring about effective multipartyism, which would make for more accountability and better governance.) Neither is committed to reducing America's dependance on militarism, even if some Democrats have enough decency to be uncomfortable with it. They nibble around the edges and try to pass this off as radical improvement.
For example, both would've invaded an Iraq that was never any threat. Just that Kerry would've sucked up to our European allies a little more in doing so. Some see that as a fundamental difference. I see that as purely stylistic. Still a horrible idea, just slightly less badly executed. Not enough of a difference to get my vote.
Kerry voted for the Patriot Act but said that the problem is John Ashcroft. If a law gives that much power to one man, then the problem isn't the man, it's the law.
(Notice a trend in the above? In both cases, he thinks Bush did the right thing, but in the wrong way. That's what I mean about them not being as different as people would beleive)
You cite the big tent ideal, and it's a nice ideal. But is it workable? Can the progressives and the corporate fetishists exist in the same party? Can they any more than Log Cabiners and Christian Coalition theocrats in the GOP? The Dems had enough trouble reconciling blacks and segregationists until finally the latter bolted for the GOP. A big tent implies that sometimes the faithful win and sometimes the centrists win. The faithful don't win often enough in the Democratic Party for it to be properly balanced. It's clear that in the GOP, the base are in control. In the Democratic Party, the corporatists are in control.
I had a glimmer of hope when Dean was all the buzz. I liked him back when he was governor of VT, even before anyone outside the state knew who he was. Even though he was actually fairly moderate as a governor, he was the only one energizing the progressive base; he was the only one engaging the rank and file; he was the only one who told ordinary progressive Democrats, "You still matter."
But then the establishment united against him and after The Scream was criminally overplayed, he was history. And so were the progressives chances.
When we really needed them, to oppose Bush's extremism, they act like a bunch of spineless pansies. If they're not going to do anything good, at least they can speak up when the other guys are proposing catastrophes.
The reason I support Nader is partly because I support his objectives. And it's partly because the progressive wing of the Democratic Party will never regain the ascendancy as long as the corporatists know they are hostage to the party. Nader's candidacy is necessary to give the progressives leverege. When the corporatists say, "You have to vote for our corporate candidate that we've imposed on the party. Who else are you going to vote for? Bwahaha." The progressives can have an answer.
"Notice a trend in the above? In both cases, he thinks Bush did the right thing, but in the wrong way."
This is an excellent point, but actually I buy this argument. For example, I was in Africa when President Clinton pushed through his welfare reforms. I thought this was a fantastic idea because it seemed to fit exactly what PCVs were trying to do in the field, empower people to help themselves and build community resources.
The moral that I took from this was, "Okay, if we really want to empower the poor in our own country then we do need to reform welfare. We are not helping people by handing out money. We need to get serious about health care, child care, job training, nutrition programs, etc."
The Republicans were pushing a different version of welfare reform motivated by one thing, "Real Americans are sick of paying for these ne'er do wells to sit around all day." In other words, they wanted to punish the poor.
Strangely enough, both sides could actually agree on some of the policies even through their motivations were completely different. For me, "why" someone supported a certain piece of legislation is important.
Let's accept the premise that Nader's candidacy will force the Democrats to no longer take the progressive wing of their party for granted. What is the cost? Will there be anything left to battle for after a few more elections? Conservatives are already pushing for a constitutional ammendment to actively discriminate against a group of American citizens that simply want to live in peace and raise families. Would that be a big enough issue between the parties for the progressives to accept that their victories have been phyrric? Or will it take the enactment of the entire social conservative agenda to convince them that the danger is imminent?
"Let's accept the premise that Nader's candidacy will force the Democrats to no longer take the progressive wing of their party for granted. What is the cost? Will there be anything left to battle for after a few more elections?"
Do you honestly think America is so fragile that one of the two main parties being re-elected with totally destroy it? If Bush destroys the country, it will only be because people didn't raise hell. The failure of the Democrats to stand up to him on Iraq and the war on civil liberties demonstrates this. The Republicans' crime is doing bad things; the Democrats' crime is going along with them even though they knew better. The Democrats have proven you can't rely on them when it really counts. If they're not going to represent me, then it's time to look elsewhere.
And if Nader's appeal is as powerful as to attract a lot of votes as you suggest, then why shouldn't he be an option for those who are disillusioned with Kerry and/or the Democrats?
"Conservatives are already pushing for a constitutional ammendment to actively discriminate against a group of American citizens that simply want to live in peace and raise families."
What does re-electing Bush have to do with this non sequitur? The president has no vote of the constitutional amendment process. It's entirely the Congress. The only way this amendment could pass Congress with the required 2/3 is if a significant number of Democrats voted for it. In which case, they'd AGAIN be complicit with a monstrosity.
"Would that be a big enough issue between the parties for the progressives to accept that their victories have been phyrric? Or will it take the enactment of the entire social conservative agenda to convince them that the danger is imminent?"
It's just difficult to continually be told to throw your principles in the trash can. I'm not being told to compromise a little for some greater gain. I'm being told vote for this guy I think is a chump, because I "can't afford" to stick to my principles. This is EXACTLY why so many people are so bloody disillusioned with politics. This is EXACTLY why so many people think voting is a waste of their freakin time.
I'm aware the danger is imminent. But it's clear the Dems don't have the backbone to fight it. They've proven this. Kerry won't reverse the social conservative agenda. He may slow it down a little. He may reverse one or two things. He may put a more pleasant face on it (just like Clinton and Blair accept Reagan's and Thatcher's economics, but were just less hostile about it). Will he have the guts to fundamentally reverse it? There's nothing to suggest he will.
In 1992 and 1996, it wasn't the right time to stand up for progressive principles. In 2000, it wasn't the right time. In 2004, the record's sounding awfully broken.
I said a year and a half ago (and have repeated this call several times since then) that I was willing to accept a Democrat-Green coalition against Bush. Whereby the Greens and Nader would agree to support Bush in exchange for three or four key cabinet positions (Justice, EPA as well as Interior and/or HHHS) being given to non-Democratic progressives. This would prove (or force) the Democrats sincereity about reaching out to progressives. It would've ensured that even if Kerry wobbled, there'd still be internal pressure on him to toe the progressive line to a certain extent.
When the Democrats tell Naderites, "We ALL have to sacrifice to beat Bush," they really mean everyone else except them. My plan called the Democrats "sacrifice" bluff. Not surprisingly, it got nowhere.
Post a Comment