« Idea of the Day | Main | Twin Studies »
July 27, 2006
Nader Was Right
Scott Lemieux takes up the Nader wars, arguing that Ralph was really Bush's best friend:
Actually, I am taking him at his word: "If you want the parties to diverge from one another, have Bush win." "Which, Nader confided to Outside in June, wouldn’t be so bad. When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: “Bush.""
Oddly enough, his word was correct, then, wasn't it? The Democratic Party really has diverged from the Republican Party. Its progressive and liberal strains have amassed vast amounts of influence and organizing capabilities. The most ostentatiously, unnecessarily conservative of its members are being seriously primary'd, an effort that, whether or not it succeeds, will worry all incumbents who would break faith with the left. The party is vibrating with new health care bills, national security strategies, economic philosophies, and progressive worldviews -- most all of which explicitly or implicitly reject the rightward drift of the 90's. And Gore, the man Nader helped beat, may well be the phenomenon's most compelling example: Where in 2000 he ran a mealy-mouthed, uninspiring campaign with few big ideas and even fewer moments of real liberalism, he's become an electric voice for progressivism and conscience, emerging a hero to lefties everywhere.
This, of course, is not to exonerate Nader. The damage Bush has caused is incalculable, the death toll staggering. But insofar as Nader believed his victory would reawaken the left's progressivism, he appears to have been dead on.
July 27, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/19450/5527524
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Nader Was Right:
Comments
It didn't take a genius to have that kind of foresight, Ezra. The questions are: 1) Was it worth it? and 2) Was there anothe way.
The correct answers: 1) No. 2) Yes.
Posted by: spike | Jul 27, 2006 11:11:27 AM
I agree with Spike's questions, although my answers are 1) we won't know until 2009 at least, and 2) maybe, but given the opposition we're still facing within our own party, I wouldn't bet much on it. It may turn out that the best Dems could ever really expect is a sort of mealy-mouthed inertia, barely holding off the GOP hordes, in which case a different outcome in 2000 would have been better in every way. And the outcome of the intraparty battles isn't certain yet, although I do think that in time the DLC types will be outflanked, & simply outlived, by more stouthearted types.
Posted by: latts | Jul 27, 2006 11:18:04 AM
Tell you what, if Edwards gets the nomination and chooses Lieberman as a running mate, he won't get my vote. Same with Russ. In fact, if Nader ran again and chose Joementum, he wouldn't get my vote either. I guess that's just my litmus test.
Posted by: keatssycamore | Jul 27, 2006 11:50:27 AM
It's "correct" only if:
1) you accept the premise that a Bush victory was the only way to achieve a revitalized Progressive Left
2) you think that the concerns a revitalized Progressive Left has today would not be different under other circumstances (hint: anti-war activism galvanized a lot of the Left's energy)
3) you think the Left truly had amassed "vast amounts of influence and organizing capabilities"
I reject #1 and #2, and think #3 remains to be seen.
Posted by: fiat lux | Jul 27, 2006 11:56:24 AM
Not to be picky, but it wasn't the victory of Bush, but the implementation of his policies that have awakened people.
I'm not a big fan of the "sabotage the system so the masses must face the reality of oppression" political strategy, but it was the only thing I saw Nader up to - he clearly does not want to be an elected political leader.
The problem with that strategy is that you are sacrificing the weakest in society - there have to be casualties for this strategy to work - so ethically it is a little suspect. However, Nader did also sacrifice his legacy and the political viability of the Green Party, so perhaps his approach wasn't without some benefit.
Posted by: pebird | Jul 27, 2006 12:01:38 PM
spike's questions:
a) Was it worth it?
Yes, because this is a debate that was inevitable. In fact, it was the central thesis of our times since the advent of the Reagan revolution: whether modern conservatism was right? Whether, if they no longer had Dems as an excuse, could they govern under this principles. The resounding answer is no. There was no other way for the American people, who aren't fond of history, to understand why conservatism (from Reaganomics to Neocon thought) is flawed. I don't know if liberalism (at least in its orthodox form) was any better, but to move on to the next revolution- we had to settle the questions raised by Republican revolution much like Soviets had prove to world the central flaws of communism.
b) No, there was no other way. Most Americans, including myself, flirted with the ideas without ever really being forced to realize their flaws. We would have continued to do so and 10 to 20 years from now we would still be in the place we are in now. Now, we had all the hurting, so there is no where to go but up (hopefully). I suppose this question however depends on what type of personality you have. I prefer to get the bad bits out of the way fast rather than slow. I also suppose it depends on whether you think of triangulation as a flawed strategy. I do, because I watched as what were moderate views that I held become under triangulation- 'far left.' If we think of the rhectorical trap that is triangulation we understand why in real world terms it was necessary. Do I like the pain? No- do I think there was any way to avoid it- no.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 27, 2006 12:05:10 PM
PS
this is not my thesis, but I agree with it: there can not be a vital center when one has only a vital right or a vital left, there can only be a vital center when one has both a vital right and a vital center. For the last 13 years we have had a vital right and a weak left. In that since Nader was right to kick peo in the ass to get up and start thinking and acting differently. Without 2000 many of us would still be too comfortable to change.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 27, 2006 12:09:40 PM
The thing that gets me about Nader is that he did irreparable damage to the very idea he was (purportedly) trying to promote: the viability of a third party. The Greens may, at some point, be a viable political party, but his shoot-the-moon stab at the presidency did them no favors. And by extension, it showed that the best thing a third party can accomplish is handing it's worst enemies a victory.
Also, it implies that Nader accepts 2,500 dead American troops and 200,000 dead Afghans and Iraqis as an acceptable cost of "energizing the left." Which has so far been much flash and little substance - for all the bloggers and anti-war supporters and progressives have gotten together and talked about changing things, Bush has started two wars that show no sign of stopping and the GOP's hold on congress has only tightened since 2000. Meanwhile, the most prominent Dems in the Senate rally around Bush's favorite donkey, and the only consistent opponent of the president's policies (Feingold) is seen as dangerously far out. This despite the president's 36% approval rating, and the increasing unpopularity of the wars.
All of this could change in 2006, but at this point it's still potential. Currently, if Nader's goal was to effect progressive change in America, he's failed miserably.
Posted by: Kylroy | Jul 27, 2006 12:35:25 PM
akaison:
we had to settle the questions raised by Republican revolution much like Soviets had prove to world the central flaws of communism.
What the Soviets practiced was not in fact Communism, it was socialist-flavored totalitarianism. Read some Marx.
Now, we had all the hurting, so there is no where to go but up (hopefully).
The hurting is by no means over, and for some 2500+ US soldiers and god knows how many civilians, the cost has gone far beyond mere hurt. You're being very callous about the price in human lives that has been paid.
Posted by: fiat lux | Jul 27, 2006 12:49:40 PM
I'm not sure we're moving away from 90's centrism. I think the prototypical 90's centrist group, the DLC, moved to the right in 00's. We're moving away from the DLC, but it's not clear to me that anyone thinks that, in sum, the 90's were anything but a massive success. If you could run a candidate that could guarantee a repeat of the 90's results, he'd win in a landslide.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Jul 27, 2006 1:00:20 PM
Jesus fucking Christ. Of course it wasn't worth it. The Democratic Party hasn't slid to the left on its own; it's done so - to the incredibly minute degree that it has - in reaction to a Republican Party that lurched wildly to the right and pulled half the country along with it. They're claiming the right to legally torture people and place the president above the law; we're getting more assertive about health care. This is not parity, people.
Posted by: Christmas | Jul 27, 2006 1:00:48 PM
SCMT has it right, too. The Dems are still essentially a centrist party, and have let anything that even faintly smells of liberalism be defined as "the far left" (see the tendency to brand strident opposition to the Iraq War as "leftist"). Who among the Democratic core is willing to go much farther left than Bill Clinton? Is there a viable Democratic presidential candidate who'd repudiate welfare reform? A leftward shift, my ass.
Posted by: Christmas | Jul 27, 2006 1:05:01 PM
There is also 9/11 to take into account. Without it, Bush probably would have been a pathetic lame duck his entire first term instead of a "War President" and 2004 could have been alot different.
Posted by: Adrock | Jul 27, 2006 1:13:18 PM
The left might be more active, but the Democrats don't appear to have drifted leftward.
Posted by: DDude | Jul 27, 2006 3:28:28 PM
Second that, or third, or fifth maybe: no need to argue about causality or anything else, since this thesis is massively contradicted by the facts. If you think what's going on behind the (D) names lately is leftward drift, I would like seeds from whatever you are smoking.
On the tangential never-really-tried-Communism plaint that I could have sworn went out of style with the original SDS: the reason Bakunin split the first International was Marx's authoritarian tendencies. Their later expression through Trotsky's Red Army, Lenin's War Communism and their apotheosis under Stalin and Mao were a natural progression. Most of what Marx wrote and everything he actually did flows naturally into totalism.
Get a grip on reality, the both of you.
Posted by: wcw | Jul 27, 2006 4:49:49 PM
Maybe I'm just seeing things but it does seem to me that the Democratic party is currently calling for: energy independence - which I think is unarguably to the left of any energy policy since the Carter years; significant expansion of health care (Medicare for All is indicative, but there are obviously a lot of other proposals); card-check neutrality for union organizing (every Senate Democrat except Ben Nelson has endorsed it); ... That sounds to me quite a bit to the left of the Democrats circa 1996. And on top of all that, the party is once again organizing at the grass roots level, which it had not done in a long, long time.
Again, this may be wrong, but I think the party has in some key respects moved to the left. That doesn't make the Bush presidency a worthwile experiece, let alone justify some of Nader's stupider moves in 2000, but I don't see how you can deny that its happened.
Posted by: Rich C | Jul 27, 2006 5:04:05 PM
Since Nader ran and Bush came into office, the Democratic Party has gone from a semi-governing party with a heavy moderate influence, to a powerless debating society in which liberals have a stronger voice. I guess you could look at this and say, "Mission Accomplished," depending on what your priorities are.
The thing that bugs me about the logic of voting Nader to create a big mess and force the Democrats to the left is that real people get hurt by this. I was still in college in 2000, and it really grated on me, seeing these white kids from upper-middle class families, who hadn't had to deal with day-to-day life yet, or pay bills, or find a job, or had much life experience outside their privileged existance, saying, "Well, sure, some people may suffer in the short run, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make for The Movement."
Posted by: Chris | Jul 27, 2006 5:29:04 PM
One more thing. The issues progressives will have to deal with, assuming they come into power over '06-'08, will deal overwhelmingly with figuring out, not how to enact bold changes starting in a vacuum, but with how to clean up the messes that Bush has made. God knows how long it'll take just to get us back to the economic and diplomatic situation we had in 2000, if that in itself isn't a pipe dream at this point.
Posted by: Chris | Jul 27, 2006 5:34:21 PM
Echoing Chris: anytime you say the end justifies the means, you're playing a dangerous game. Because in the end, all you can get are more means.
Posted by: Kylroy | Jul 27, 2006 6:00:12 PM
a) We went from a moderate leaning majority to a minority not because of nader but because of our own stagnancy and Gore was boring. Blaming others for what ails us may make you feel better, but it ain't reality. I believe some of you are about as in touch with reality as the DLC is. I say this as a guy who is mostly moderate (ie, believed in the Powell Doctrine in foreign policy, supported some form (although not the form it took) of welfare reform, believe in smart and fair trade and tax policy, believed in a state based healthcare system rather than federal or soley private, etc). Triangulation which is a centrist strategy rather than an idealogically moderate bent had and has nothing to do with that.
What does? As oft has been stated, I believe you know this, it's the stagnant view that the other side will simply allow you to triangulate off of them without regard to realizing that you are doing it. I swear some of you think the Republicans are strategically stupid. They aren't. And, no matter how smart you think you are- we aren't geniuses either. Rather than trying to be the smartest guy in the room why dont you realize that the American public is onto the game. You got two good presidential races out of it. That's it. If you make a move that is predictable and stagnant like triangulation, if you keep returning to the same well so that your oponent not only can create strategies to create their own version of mental ju jitsu then you are going to lose. That's true in the private sector, and not suprisingly that's true in the public sector too.
I am a nobody politically and not your opponent, and I can think of ways around the strategy- so why be surprised that Republicans can too?
And, let's deal with some more reality shall we- I mean 1994 did happen right? Was nader at fault for that too? Oh I know it was gays in the military or some other single issue that you think did us in. Maybe, just maybe it's not one thing, but more or less about how approach all of these issues? Maybe just maybe this introspecition, this debate society, as one person calls it is necessary to hash out the fault lines that have been ignored since the Dems came into power ??
b) I get tired of people saying that communism, real communism wasn't tried. Look, it doesn't matter if communism wasn't tried according to what Marx said (and yes I read marx, and quite a few other political theorists). The point is that it didn't work. Trying to rehash old theories is a waste of time unless you see the world as the neocon does- a place where you test your theories without regard to reality.
c) Some silliness over debating society- well what do y ou expect when you avoid having central principles that holds people together? Blame nader as much as you want,b ut I personally blame the party leaders for not thinking through what they were doing, for being reactive rather than proactive, for being careerists rather than centrally focused on party building (trust me, I volunteered this 2004 election cycle and there was no excuse- none, for what I saw of the party aparatus in a supposedly blue area. I imagine if you listened rather than just making conjecture you would hear a lot of people making that same complaint.), for being a fraid of risk to the point that even when a strategy is failing they continue to use it, etc.
d) Chris is right. A large part of 2006 through 8 should the Dems come into power will be clean up messes. More than this, I believe that we probably wont have a governing majority even if we achieve a majority. So- look for more debates, look for more power grabs as people jock for position. Look for blame the liberals arguments from 'centrists'
Posted by: akaison | Jul 27, 2006 6:01:27 PM
Or, "Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over"
Point by point to spell things out for Rich: a real move to the left would mean things like nationalizing energy provision rather than uttering platitudes, national health care rather than seeking somewhat fewer uninsured, a labor party rather than nattering about check cards, and a vital nationwide party movement rather than a few web sites with baseball-bat graphics. You're letting the GOP's move into Genghis-Khan territory get you to confuse sober, well-meaning Eisenhower Republicans for left-of-center politics.
I think Eisenhower was probably the second-best of modern US presidents, but moving towards his politics is hardly a move left.
Posted by: wcw | Jul 27, 2006 6:05:01 PM
I recommend we finish the job by electing Republicans for the next 20 years. Then we'll really have them!
Posted by: calling all toasters. | Jul 27, 2006 6:47:55 PM
well, what's worse, having to spend the 26 years fighting the republicans and continuing to lose bit by bit whole sections of the country (which we were doing), or having spent the last 6 letting them screw things up proving once and for all why they are bankrupt in ideas and execution, and now, being on the verge of a Democratic resurgence in places like MT, NE, KS etc? 26 more years hearing how Vietnam wouold have gone better if we had stuck it out? 26 more years about how its the democrats fault without any counter balancing narrative? As I said before, it really comes down to how you view this situation- do you view our prior continued appeasement of the theory of Republican leadership a sucess or do you think taking a risk of showing actual failed Republican leadership a sucess? Now 65 percent of the country thinks the Republicans are bankrupted for ideas and execution. They are looking to the Democrats for the first time in a different way. The pain was going to h appen anyway is my point, and it was really only a matter of whehter it would last 26 years or 6.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 27, 2006 7:00:52 PM
I think Eisenhower was probably the second-best of modern US presidents, but moving towards his politics is hardly a move left.
I like him, too, but Jeebus. For what value of modern?
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Jul 27, 2006 8:32:30 PM
FDR is the first modern US president, IMO, but I'll back Ike as #2 even if you go back to Wilson.
If you claim Lincoln is the first modern president, you have some 'splainin to do, but then Ike slips some.
Who beats him, besides FD-on-a-stretcher-R?
Posted by: wcw | Jul 27, 2006 8:39:58 PM
if you keep returning to the same well so that your opponent not only can create strategies to create their own version of mental ju jitsu then you are going to lose.
Thanks, no one here has ever said anything like that.
Oh I know it was gays in the military or some other single issue that you think did us in.
Well, you nailed all of us here with this one. Each and every one of us has a pet issue that we blame for all of the Democrats’ problems. Gays in the military is Neil’s, Ezra has Hillary’s health care plan (of course), and so on.
I imagine if you listened rather than just making conjecture you would hear a lot of people making that same complaint.
You mean that people are complaining about the Dem’s GOTV efforts in 2004? I know that I didn’t have any trouble at all when I volunteered. I know you’re surprised that I took time away from this ivory tower to go out and do something, but rest assured that I won’t be expending any energy this year or in 2008!
Nope, nothing but pointless conjecture for me!
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 27, 2006 9:10:14 PM
stephen
thanks for not addressing one of my points, and hence proving there is not argument against my points.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 27, 2006 9:15:35 PM
ps
if you or others actually do have something more than sarcasm to defend your position then let me know. otherwise, as I told capt toke- laterz.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 27, 2006 9:18:30 PM
akaison,
You didn't make any points. You just threw out a bunch of self-satisfied crud and apparently expected the rest of us to respond to your insults with gratitude and praise.
Really. Look at what you wrote. There is nothing of substance in it, nothing to which I or anyone else could respond if we wanted. Your intended audience was yourself, your goal to prove - to yourself - how smart you are once again, how you are the only one that gets it.
You don't want sarcasm, fine. Write something that deserves a better response.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 27, 2006 9:41:54 PM
akaison,
You just ran away from arguing with me cuz 'you didn't feel like it' or some lame excuse. Now you are telling these clowns that your points are infalible.
I think all them affirmative-action bonus points you've been getting is making you think you are smarter than you really are.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Jul 27, 2006 11:38:13 PM
Toke,
For this I will respond to you:
I think all them affirmative-action bonus points you've been getting is making you think you are smarter than you really are.
That's disgusting. At the very least Ezra should delete it. I wish that even you would have lines that shouldn't be crossed.
I also want to be clear to akaison that whatever differences we may have, and however blunt (rude) I may be, I am in no way associated with Captain Toke or his opinions.
I would hope that this was clear, but the juxtaposition of the comments in this thread, as well as the limited knowledge we have of one another's inner workings makes this something that needs to be addressed.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 28, 2006 12:02:24 AM
Actually, Stephen, you really took this discussion to new depths of idiocy. Seriously. akaison pointed out that the whole discussion up to this point was predicated on the idea that, up until Nader's 2000 run, the Dems were doing great. Further, she remined us that Dems - who have traditionally made up for lack of cash with excellent GOTV - got their asses kicked on the streets in 2004. Finally, she argued that the current Republican-led catastrophe was inevitable in the context of post-Reagan politics, and thus may as well happen sooner rather than later. Your response to all this was... nothing. Fucking brilliant.
Christ, I was planning on joining what had been a decently thoughtful review of Nader - one that actually might get beyond "Thanks, Ralph" - but it was more important for Stephen to shit on anyone who didn't want to spend his time kissing ass. Well fuck that.
Posted by: JRoth | Jul 28, 2006 12:14:55 AM
akaison pointed out that the whole discussion up to this point was predicated on the idea that, up until Nader's 2000 run, the Dems were doing great.
That makes no sense, at least not if you actually read any other comments besides akaison's.
Further, she remined us that Dems - who have traditionally made up for lack of cash with excellent GOTV - got their asses kicked on the streets in 2004.
The Dem's GOTV efforts were in trouble long before 2004. Don't know what you were doing in 2002, 2000, 1998, 1996, 1994. . .but the Dems have been held hostage to a consultant class that makes its money by placing TV ads, and so decides to spend the Dems money by placing TV ads. This is not new.
Labor has, in the past, been able to GOTV; there are other traditional Democratic groups that have had some success as well. But I'm aware enough to not confuse the Democratic party itself with these groups. If you want to call into question my intelligence, you might want to brush up on some basic concepts before you start.
but it was more important for Stephen to shit on anyone who didn't want to spend his time kissing ass.
Whose ass, exactly, do you mean? Mine? Not sure how you could think that, since my first comment was in response to akaison's unwarranted, sarcastic, insult-ridden attack against everyone else.
Really, have you even read the other comments at all? The ones that call into question the idea that Nader was correct, the ones that suggested that even if there is a revitalized left, it can hardly be attributed solely to GW Bush, let alone Nader's candidacy?
Or do you and akaison just flit among the progressive blogs, skimming the posts and comments just enough to provide enough stimulation for your mutual intellectual masturbation exercises?
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 28, 2006 12:45:32 AM
Stephen:
First, let me appologize for comparing you to Capt Toke. You aren't like that person at least in the sense you aren't acting as the 'reasonable racists' trying to pretend to be a conservative (for the record Toke, I got a plenty of conservative friends, and they would find most of what you say here as offensive as I do).
Second, I am going to have to say that JRoth, surprising that I would say this, I know, is right. The fact is I did read the other comments. They were all, not to be nasty, quite simple minded.
Indeed, the Democratic approach is very simple minded. I can't pretend like I am some kind of super genius know it all with all the solutions. I am not. I just can tell whats wrong based on paying attention, and being willing to be a little introspective. This whole blame everyone but ourselves mode of thinking is frankly not fruitful. My points were meant to say that Nader happened for specific reasons. I was against Nader when he ran. Still am. But I also think that there are a lot of problems with the party that were created by the issues that I brought up. I don't see where anyone in the comments here really address those issues. I simply see the majority of posts, with some notable exceptions, essentially saying Nader was wrong.
My point to you is that Nader, regardless of whether he meant it or not, did this country a favor. Just as the swiftboating of Kerry showed us there are still these faultlines out there still reliving old wars (indeed, I would argue Iraq is the product of us losing in Vietnam as much as anything else), there are other faultlines out there. I tried to point out some of the hidden issues that would have dragged on for decades more under the weight of short term victories in one battle or another, but ulimately which would have left us going down the same pathway we were headed (a non national party in the form of the Democrats, a country enamoured of Reaganite thought, etc). These aren't issues that anyone here was talking about, but they needed to be talked about.
I have said this before this diary, but I will say it here: the best thing to ever happen to the Democrats in a long time was to lose power, because these issues were once and for all something that could be talked about and dealt with. there are still a lot of people who are resisting any change even with the lost of power. They are still looking for others to blame other than trying to figure out what are the next steps. How long would this process have taken but for 2000? I also say the opposite by the way: I asked a Republican friend, what exactly does he think the Republicans won in 2004 with Bush other than their own version of Carter? Is there anyone here who questions, with Bush's poll numbers at 35 percent, with the GOP being discredited, with conservatism itself starting to come undone, that Americans wanting a change in the Congress to democratic (and other things I am forgetting because its late), that despite the horrors that have come out of a Bush presidency, we have a poster child now for all that is wrong in American conservatism? Does anyone question whether we would have continued to flirt with Reaganite thought through triangulation (considering folks like HRC still do- I mean flag burning come on!)?
For you, this maybe masturbation - but for me, this is my having to pay 400 a month for health insurance, my having a huge cost of education for my family etc. I am not telling you anything that my friends who dont come onto blogs havent been telling me.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 28, 2006 1:10:38 AM
First of all, the Democrats have moved leftward, and yet they still can't even get a majority of their members in Congress to vote against a war 60% of Americans opposed?
Secondly, the Democrats have been revitalized? John Kerry is revitalization? I suppose, compared to the Gore 2000 campaign it might have been. But that's as far as it goes...
Finally, I'm glad that we've gone back to blaming everything on Ralph. Because lord knows, it wasn't Gore's piss-poor campaign that lost him the presidency... Nor the choices of the 49 million folks who voted for Bush. Oh, no.
The Democrats could nominate a piece of chalk, and most Democrats would vote for it. As opposed to Bush, I'd agree with them. But that neither means that the Democrats are somehow back to being a real party, nor that they've adopted progressive politics. It means that Bush is a disaster. And that's all.
Posted by: faux facsimile | Jul 28, 2006 1:24:20 AM
akaison,
I realize now that I lumped you with JRoth while being mad that you lumped me with Toke. Sorry about that.
Your last comment was much clearer to me. And I pretty much agree with it. But I still think that the commenters here, including most in this thread, understand your concerns and agree with them as well.
Ezra had a post recently, I think, that was discussing the difference between conservative and liberal "think tanks" and advocacy groups. Maybe it's up in the thread here, it is late, after all.
Anyway, conservatives have spent a long time building up a machine that produces networked politicians and lobbyists and votes. That's pretty much it. Progressives, on the other hand, have been working on trying to make the world a better place.
This left the Democratic party wide open for what can only be described as a bunch of money and power hungry mercenaries. The "centrist voter" is a creation of those who make their money by selling strategies for reaching centrist voters. These people have worked really hard at making politics something so esoteric that only a few experts - themselves, of course - can be successful at it.
Then they set up a system that pays them more money the more money they spend.
Sooo. . .
My point to you is that Nader, regardless of whether he meant it or not, did this country a favor.
Only if the rank-and-file of the Democratic party continues, regardless of what happens this August, November or in 2008, to hold the sellouts accountable for their actions.
PS - I do hope that, when you said JRoth was right, you weren't implying that I had "taken this thread to new depths of idiocy" or that it was "important for me to shit on people." That's a far cry from saying that I misunderstood you.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 28, 2006 2:03:10 AM
wcw,
Well, those things would count as moves to the left, but that doesn't mean that moves to the left short of those you mentioned don't constitute moves to the left. To take these one at a time:
Energy independence at least in part means increased conservation measures and increased support for alternative energy sources. Nationalizing the utilities will not necessarily do either, and frankly the history of national utilities outside the US doesn't suggest that nationalization leads to progressive outcomes vis a vis fossil fuel consumption. Maybe you were arguing in favor of nationalizing oil reserves and distribution systems (so that gasoline could be distributed as the people's fuel!), but right now the largest US oil reserve is publicly owned, and anyway nationalization wouldn't solve the key problem of shifting away from fossil fuels.
On health care, I think your argument is tendentious. Yes, a (old) UK or Swedish-style NHS would be the cheapest way to ensure universal access to high quality health care, but frankly there are lots of other health care solutions out there (France, Canada, Australia) that are clearly superior to the US. Moving to any of those would be a move to the left, and a move in the right direction. I honestly don't believe that you disagree with this argument. Admitedly, the Dems are not uniformly in favor of such an arrangement, but the Medicare for All proposal, Kerry's health care proposals in 2004, and even the various proposed expansions of CHIP are moves to the left. Medicare for All is a big move to the left, roughly equivalent to the Australian system.
On card-check, you either don't believe this or don't know what you're talking about. It may not be literally impossible for workers in the US to form unions today, but it is very, very risky for them to do so. The Democratic Party has spent the better part of the last thirty years ignoring this reality, and the atrophy of the labor movement has been the result (there were other causes for that atrophy, but the failure of Democrats to insist that employers obey the law was a big contributor). Card-check neutrality would change all that in flash. Without a labor movement, what exactly would a labor party do that's different from what the Democrats do? Look at the UK, Australian, or German labor parties (SPD in Germany). How different were there recent periods in gov't from the Clinton years? Just becuase Workers Vangaurd tells you a labor party would make all the difference in the world doesn't make it true.
Posted by: Rich C | Jul 28, 2006 10:26:03 AM
Stephen
I think that we are seeing a generational change that will only grow in intensity. So, the likelihood of returning to the good old 90s of triangulating due to the good old Reaganite days of the 80s isn't going to happen. I don't think the far left understands the change either. i see it here in some of the comments, ie, unless one is left according to their definition of it, then one isn't left. I think that's why I prefer progressive because for me it comes with less of the baggage. Frankly, I just want whatever works and whatever treats each person both with respect for their rights and understand their duties as citizens.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 28, 2006 11:45:03 AM
I responded to this here:
I also have to disagree with Ezra's analysis of the Democratic party's move toward progressivism. While there is some of that going on, the fact that some of the party's most influential members include Hillary and Lieberman makes me question how far the party has come in the last 6 years. In addition to this, I don't see any compelling evidence that the limited progressive shift that has occurred within the party was directly caused by the fact that Bush was elected. If anything, the shameless use of the 9/11 crisis by the Bush administration caused some Democrats in Congress to react to the situation in a hawkish manner, which is anything but progressive.
Posted by: Josh Nelson | Jul 28, 2006 1:39:04 PM
is Iraq the only standard by which we judge these issues? What about the new involvement of a new generation of progressives that found a window of opportunity that would not have existed? These people y ou refer to would be in power anyway. The real question is whether by testing Reaganite thought, we have seen the winds being slowly let out of the sails or whether we would have had more of the same- including Iraq, because remember we were involved there before Bush got into office. Would we see the revitalization of left ward movements in this country. We are at at the beginings of a progressive shift, and at the end of the conservative revolution- I suppose the question is whehter you believe we are at the begining of a shift or do you think that 6 years if enough to change 30 years-a nd whether the public needed time to figure these things out? I find all this well we aren't there yet arguments just a bit strange when compared to where we have been, where we were going anyhow, and now what looks like a slow shift into the progressives favor on the horrizon. 6 years ago, did you even think the shift on a horrizon was likely? if you did, you are far more optomistic than I as at the time.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 28, 2006 1:46:36 PM
Nader's strategy (if it was a strategy) comes from the same school as "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." The damage to America is hard, possibly impossible, to measure...and what is Nader's response to the families of dead Iraqis and Americans - fatalities in Iraq and Katrina? CAn he claim they were necessary sacrifices to his imagined future greater good? Now that's Stalinist.
Posted by: kija | Jul 28, 2006 5:28:43 PM
I think frankly a l ot of you miss the point- nader isn't it. the point is what direction were we headed any way. some of you seem to think we were headed to some kind of nirvanna in which all the issues you mentioned would not have happened anyway. I think that we would have faced all the things you mention, not in 6 years, but over a period of several decades. This is the key issue here. Did our losing provide for a quicker end to the mess where we were already heading, or do you think think, hope against hope we would have been able to head these things off. There is zero to indicate that we would have. Iraq stewed through out the Clinton admin, our reaction to republicans was framed according to the Reagan revolution, we consistently ignored whole sections of the country, even on my pet issue, gay rights, our effort was one of capitulation. I challenge you to show me where we weren't heading in the direction we find ourselves in? You think its extreme now- imagine a world in which these extremes happened over 20 years (and the american public ignored them) and then tell me how its nader's fault. I have yet to see many of you, except stephen, address the serious complexity of what was happening in America. blaimining nader because of the harsh times misses the point- we are part and parcel because we give democratic leaders a pass go on responsibility for why these things occured. Its only in the last few years b/c we lost that we are doing this less and less. Regardless of nader thats a value lesson tht needed to be learned. I suppose the issue is whether you think its better to kill 50,000 iraqis over 6 years or a million over 20.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 28, 2006 10:43:14 PM
