for three years we've heard that Nader makes no difference,

[ulysses]

that he's irrelevant, that it was all for naught, that the left should shut up, sit down and accept what it's given.

And yet, for three days and more, DU has been completely convulsed with threads about Nader. And why? Because people are terrified that his candidacy will make a dent, again, in the accepted manner of political discourse in America, by which I mean the structure under which the Republicans put forward some outrageous plan, the Democrats assent in part, and everyone goes back to watching The Apprentice until the next crumb of meaning is leaked down. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Here comes the clue bus, just in time: none of the "usual supects" still able to post to DU, that I've seen, is supporting Nader this time. (this is subject to error on my part, of course) The cognitive dissonance involved in claiming that Ralph Nader is both irrelevant and the greatest threat known to mankind aside, the question comes down to one of what the Democratic party will do once the Bush threat has been dealt with.

Is the party changing? One likes to think so given the resonance of the Dean and Kucinich campaigns, but I'm not counting my chickens. A party that does more regarding its base than demand votes from same without policy concessions (policy concessions in exchange for votes being, pretty much, the definition of the word "politics") in return is to be desired. Is it happening, Nader or not?

[jpgray]

1. Since all your premises are false, why should one bother to reply?

I don't see many people saying he's irrelevant, and I don't see any saying that the left should sit down and shut up. Please make your points in the future without casting false accusations about. I will say that Nader is a hypocrite, and hardly deserves the support he receives. He fails by standards he created himself.

[ulysses]

3. so why *are* you replying?

Please tell me which of my premises are false. I've seen plenty of people, both now and in the past, claim both that Nader is irrelevant and that the left should be happy with things as they are given its minority status.

[jpgray]

5. I'm replying without a good reason. :-)

edit: But seriously, I resent the implication that my dislike for Nader is somehow related to keeping the left down. I also resent the implication that DU is being hypocritical by declaring him irrelevant while at the same time filling the board with threads concerning him. This hasn't happened--people have filled the board with Nader threads partly because they love to fight, and partly because people on all sides are very emotional about this race. In other words DUers aren't being hypocritical, because they aren't dismissing Nader--they have strong views about Nader. Your thread incidentally adds to the pile, but I have no desire to generalize about you and your opinions. Strange that as a representative of those who hate to have their positions obfuscated and their goals misunderstood would use the same reviled tactics. :(

I'm for DK in the primary, but Nader deserves to be called to task for failing his own tests. If he were running as a Democrat it would be expected, but he is running as something better and therefore he is a hypocrite.

[ulysses]

7. and without pointing out those false premises, I note.

:)

[jpgray]

8. Check the edit, I anticipated the inevitable one-liner. :-) (nt)

[ulysses]

11. thanks for the edit

although you're still not telling me which premise is false. :D

But seriously, I resent the implication that my dislike for Nader is somehow related to keeping the left down.

That's not my contention. My contention is that the left bears a wee bit more importance to the DP than many people would like to admit.

Your thread incidentally adds to the pile, but I have no desire to generalize about you and your opinions. Strange that as a representative of those who hate to have their positions obfuscated and their goals misunderstood would use the same reviled tactics. :(

When in Rome. You wouldn't be the first to generalize about me and my opinions.

I'm for DK in the primary, but Nader deserves to be called to task for failing his own tests. If he were running as a Democrat it would be expected, but he is running as something better and therefore he is a hypocrite.

Nader certainly deserves no special consideration, but how is it that running as a Democrat makes things all better?

[jpgray]

14. It makes nothing better, but among Democrats his hypocrisy is not unique.

As someone who is supposed to represent leftist ideals and be BETTER than the Democrats, it is unique. He has condemned himself with his own standards.

Again, you present a false view of the perception of Nader at the very beginning--that Ralph has been marginalized and declared irrelevant. Some have done that, some have done the opposite, declaring him to be the decisive factor in 2000. You can't say one interpretation doesn't exist just to make a point. Your point about the hypocrisy of everyone freaking out would not make sense if one remembers that many folks did NOT see Nader as irrelevant. Your point is only effective when those who saw Nader as a major factor are conveniently assumed not to exist.

[scarletwoman]

2. The answer lies in strategic voting -- GET DELEGATES!

If we could somehow (*sigh*) get enough progressives to vote for someone who still in the Democratic race (hint: see my avatar), we could have a sizable delegate block at the national convention to PUSH for some common agenda items!

See this post -- How To Vote Strategically

sw

[billbuckhead]

4. Nadir is more of an accomplice to the RepuKKKes than the DLC

He helped get repuKKKes elected. I think Dems would vote quite differently in the Congress if they had a majority.

[ulysses]

6. thanks for the insight, Bill.

[scarletwoman]

9. You've missed my point.

I'm just pointing out that progressives have a chance to do something WITHIN the Democratic Party.

sw

[The Magistrate]

23. You Are Quite Right, Ma'am

By organizing within the Party, and being a reliable arm, some real influence may be exercised. By demonstrating value with contribution to victory, chits are created that can be called in. It is worth remembering that whatever many committed leftists might think, the great majority of the people in the country do consider the Democratic Party to be the left, and so persons who vote for the Party's candidates are, in their own minds, identifying somewhat with the left. This makes them easier for committed leftists to reach and persuade, and is key to moving the political discourse of the country away from its current right-ward drift.

By calving off into a splinter movement, only disaster can be achieved. If the Party wins despite the splinter, which it very well may this year, the splinter will have demonstrated conclusively that it can be done without, and so it can expect to assert no influence whatever on the Party in future. If the splinter causes the Party to lose, the result will not be an approach to the splinter in grovelling sack-cloth, asking the Lords of the Left what can be done to gain their favor in future, but rather, there will be a wave of rage and hate that will dwarf the sequalia of the last election, with the permanent ostracization of the splinter and its allies from the Party, and a redoubled resolve to concentrate on gaining votes from the center. Either outcome of the splinter course will only leave the left maginalized even further than it is today, and with even less chance of actually ever gaining real influence in future.

"Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disasterous and the unpalatable."

"LET'S GO GET THGSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Scott Lee]

24. Repukkkes and the DLC had a common goal - get Dean

And they did. You should be reeeeal proud.

[The Magistrate]

25. So What, Mr. Lee?

You are in error in any case: the Democratic Leadership Council may have opposed Gov. Dean, but the Republicans wanted nothing so much as to run against him in the fall, and have been disappointed at being deprived of the chance.

Those who lend support and apologias now to Wrecker Nader, however, do share a common goal with the Republican Party, namely the destruction of the Democratic Party. Since coalitions form around identity of interest rather than identity of principle, these "lefter than thou" elements are now in open alliance with the reactionaries grouped under the banner of the Republican Party. Since the masks are off now, it is quite proper to treat these reptiles as what they are: left deviationist tools of reaction. It is not, after all, a new folly, and there is a proper vocabulary to describe this infantile disorder....

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

35. So why does Dean "support the party"?

when it's controlled by the DLC?

[PVnRT]

10. Stop making sense

You know the rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth knee-jerkers don't want their own dichotomy pointed out to them. It ruins their world view.

[jpgray]

12. ulysses presents a fairy tale, where all discussion of Nader is one-sided

That he would generalize and obfuscate the positions of a diverse group of people must indicate how much he enjoys the tactic when used against progressives and liberals.

All we've heard for three years is how irrelevant Ralph is? It seems to me we've heard myriad interpretations, from Ralph singlehandedly swinging the election to Bush to Ralph being so insignificant that he could not get his 5%. It all depends on what subjective interpretation you want to lap up. You've chosen ulysses's. Vroom. :)

[ulysses]

13. mmm hmmm.

All we've heard for three years is how irrelevant Ralph is?

(emphasis added)

You'll kindly note that I didn't say that that's all we'd heard, speaking of subjective interpretation. Please, though, tell me where I've generalized and obfuscated. I look forward to your reply, although I'm not holding my breath.

[jpgray]

15. Assuming you didn't change anything substantial in the edit

"The cognitive dissonance involved in claiming that Ralph Nader is both irrelevant and the greatest threat known to mankind aside"

This 'cognitive dissonance' only exists if you deny that people see Nader as a very important factor. If people see Nader as an important factor, there is no cognitive dissonance there. Your thread continually contrasts the one argument "Nader is irrelevant" with all the attention he is getting on DU.

You pretend one side of the argument does not exist. At the least, you don't deign to mention it in your thread--why not?

[ulysses]

17. but if Nader

is a Very Important Factor, why continue to beat the shit out of his supporters? The cognitive dissonance may shift location depending on your point of view - and it has been the view of more than a couple of folks over the last few years that Nader is insignificant - but it's still there.

And no, I didn't change anything substantial. I edited a typo - "thread" to "threat".

[ulysses]

19. they do, however,

seem to flee being asked about specifics regarding accusations they make. Imagine that...

[library_max]

16. Nobody's said that Nader is irrelevant

any more than a box of matches is irrelevant in a gunpowder factory.

What we've said is that, like the matches, he can only be a force for harm, not for good.

[ulysses]

18. but even following your argument,

Nader's "force" derives from his level of support, which this year will likely not even show up on the radar given Bush's awfulness and his Independent standing...but which in 2000 was enough that you're still talking about it almost four years later.

Put out the matches or deliver the gunpowder to your enemy. So far, the former course has been preferred by the party.

[library_max]

20. Deliver the gunpowder to our enemy?

What's this, unilateral disarmament?

My point, which wasn't hard to follow, was that Nader can do a lot of damage but no good. You're saying that he won't do much damage this time because Bush is so awful. That's a nice thought, and it might turn out to be true, but you can't blame people for being unhappy at being forced to take the risk for no benefit of any kind whatsoever. And if you're wrong, well, another four years of Bush.

[ulysses]

28. poor choice of words on my part.

How about "expend it *on* our enemy"?

And my point is that Nader can only do damage in reverse proportion to the extent that people are driven from the Democrats by the DLC course. I don't see anyone being forced to do anything via Nader's candidacy other then, evidently, being driven to hysteria.

[library_max]

32. Same old Games People Play

Look What You Made Me Do. People aren't "driven from the Democrats" by the DLC. People decide for themselves how to vote. If people are so unreasonable that they would prefer to put Republicans in office rather than put up with the DLC, that's their own fault. But if Nader wasn't running, nobody would be voting for him. He's an "attractive nuisance," to use a legal term.

[mike_c]

21. just to set the record straight, I'm probably one of the "usual suspects"

...and I not only wholeheartedly support Nader's right to run, I damn well might vote for him if the dems don't pull their heads out of dubya's butt and the Green's don't run a better candidate. Personally, I don't see the Democratic party making the kinds of concessions you mentioned-- John Kerry is likely to get the dem nomination and he's worked hard to further Bush's agenda during the last three years.

[buddhamama]

22. it's like you've read my mind

presented in a more coherent manner but, it's all here.

i've been asking 'the irrelevant' question for two days now.
we have been told countlessly that he is irrelevant
but yeah, at the same time, he's the devil incarnate too.

the party structure is not changing,yet.
the party faithful, in some small measure, is.
maybe it is the result of the last three yrs under Bush
the stolen election, the illegal invasion, the policies
enabled...i dunno.

the anger has 'spilled' over onto its own.
people will vote ABB but, i think the Officials
will get a rude awakening if they think
all is well at home, and defeating Bush* is going to be enough.

[John_H]

26. Difference between he's irrelevant and He should be politically destroyed.

One is a fact. The other is revenge. Revenge makes you squeamish? Step aside.

[ulysses]

29. no, not squeamish.

I've been at this for a long time, friend. That I and others find spending four days on DU obsessing over this revoltingly stupid is, I'm sure, of no concern to to those bent on sweet revenge, however. Please, carry on.

[Iverson]

27. I dunno, ulysses. ...

Maybe DU hasn't been completely convulsed with threads about Nader.

Hang on.

(whistling)

Let's see here ...

... hmmm ...

wouldja look at that!

Well, I'll be darned! This place has been in a continuous obsessive fit about Nader.

[library_max]

34. "Intellectually, ridicule is bankrupt." /nt

[Cappadonna]

30. As a registered Green, let me say that Nader's run == DUMB!!

The reason that Nader isn't seeking the GP's national support is b/c the GP told him to get lost. Yeah, there are some Naderites still waiting for the cantankerous Jesus H. Christ of wonky consumer advocates to save us the morays for 'Republicrats' and 'crony capitalism'. However, the rest of us wised up and realized that Nader's run would just be a really bad idea. There are several things wrong with Ralph's candidacy, IMHO.

First and foremost, this is no time to political grandstanding. Bush is dangerous, period. If he is re-selected, he WILL reinstate the draft, virtually gut the social safety net and any other mean, nasty republican nightmare you can imagine. Since 9/11, the Far Right have proved no shame is using the deaths of innocent Americans (by enemies they created in the 80's) to push their insidious agenda, no matter how corrupted (Haliburton and tax cut) jingoistic (PATRIOT ACT) or illogical (a constitutional amendment on gay marriage (?!)). And if their boy gets back into the Oval Office, ain't nuthin' gonna stop 'em. This country is evenly split, and we can afford to lose a single vote this time around.

Second, even my Nader's on evaluation, the Dems are nowhere as bad as Bush. No matter how much of disingenuous or corporate-kowtowing Clinton was, nobody would imagine the virtual rape of the constitution, if only because the Repugs got enough lunatics with ammo who would burn the White House to ground if Gore or Clinton even thought of the PATRIOT ACT. And, yes, the two Johns (Kerry in particular)have done nothing but bent over for Smirkco. But, Nader even admitted that Bush was much worse than any of them. And, he also admitted that there was a Democratic front-runner, Edwards, who agrees with his biggest DLC gripes-- NAFTA is an utter screw-up and screw over for the American worker and that the social safety net must be restored. The "tweedle-dee, tweedle-dumb" shtick isn't cutting it anymore.


Third, he's not going to bring out the voters he thinks he's going to bring out. Unless he picks Buchanan as his running mate (in which he would have really tossed his cookies) Nader is about as likely to get disenfranchised conservatives to voter for him as Bush is to get a guest shot on Queer Eye. Nader has either vehemently opposed their big issues (destruction of welfare, abortion) or has show little concern for them (gay rights, religion, patriotism). He is, and always will be, an annoying, cranky old Yankee trial lawyer with a vocabulary straight out of a thesaurus and a lazy eye. As with the last election and with the Kucinich campaign, Nader is candidate for the converted.

Fourth, even though the national GP told him to fly a kite, Nader's run makes it harder for local candidates. As local green parties gear up for municipal elections, its hard enough to get people to remember that there are other campaigns in town other than who gets to lay the smack on Smirk. Now, we'll have to contend with the 80-dead weight around our necks in the form of a Nader candidacy.

I have ran for office and literally have conservative Republicans slam doors in my face because Nader the enabler help Bunnypants get into office. Even if Nader had nothing do with Bush's ascension (which he didn't, since he's not on the SCOTUS) perception equals reality. And he goes back into the ring, we can kiss the Green Party and any chance for a growing 3rd party goodbye.

And as a last note, isn't kind of egoistical to withhold your support from a major party candidate when you can only garner 3% of the vote in a good year? But, this is Ralph Nader, whose hubris knows no bounds at times.

Just my thoughts -
Cappadonna

[Padraig18]

33. Every Green I know is voting 'D' for POTUS this year.

There are a lot of Greens in Champaign/Urbana (U.of IL), and I know a lot of them. Without exception, they intend to vote 'D' this November in the presidential race, because they see the great danger that a 2nd Bush term represents to the republic.