Ralph Nader on Meet the Press

by: Matt Stoller

Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:42


Yes, he's running for President.

Nader created a good deal of the antipartisan organizational apparatus of the 1970s and 1980s.  What he did in his career was remarkable, and yet, now on TV he's taking no responsibility for his lies during 2000.  Watching him on TV, it's clear he hates the Democrats and just won't recognize that it's a different Democratic Party, one that is much more movement-based, than it is when he ran in 2000.  Nader is part of the TV cult of personality model of politics, similar to Dennis Kucinich, and he sounds kind of pathetic.

Nader's not wrong on a lot of his charges, but he's also in his own increasingly irrelevant way part of the problem.

UPDATE:  Perhaps some more pungency makes sense - I don't see Nader as particularly progressive, and I do see him as a pathologically dishonest diva.  That shouldn't take away from his very real accomplishments, but his claims in 2000, that there were no differences between Al Gore and George Bush, were lies and he is appropriately held accountable for them.  As for his ideological stripes, Nader was on the wrong side of the Schiavo controversy, and that suggests a basic lack of concern for how to treat human beings.  Working with religious wackos to invade someone's privacy at their most vulnerable moment, and lying about the Democratic Party to put George Bush in charge and hewing to those lies are not ok in my book.  I did enjoy this video.

Matt Stoller :: Ralph Nader on Meet the Press

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Ralph Nader on Meet the Press | 64 comments
If the dem controlled congress had impeached... (4.00 / 3)
If the dem controlled congress had ended the Iraq war
or impeached bush, I might consider agreeing with you.

It seems the dems must be pushed from the left if we are to have any real hope for them to do the right thing.

Dems indeed need to be pushed. Obama ain't pushing nobody. (4.00 / 1)
This is what Obama said about Ralph Nader:

"My sense is is that Mr. Nader is somebody who, if you don't listen and adopt all of his policies, thinks you're not substantive. He seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work. Now - and by the way, I have to say that, historically, he is a singular figure in American politics and has done as much as just about anybody on behalf of consumers. So in many ways he is a heroic figure and I don't mean to diminish him. But I do think there is a sense now that if somebody is not hewing to the Ralph Nader agenda, then you must be lacking in some way."

I think that Obama is a fool not to embrace the agenda put forth by Ralph Nader who is many times the man and human being he is.

Ralph Nader has accomplished much for the American people.
He has positively impacted all of our lives.

Obama has done nothing for anybody.

What part of Nader's agenda does Obama not agree with?
Let him tell us.

And to folks who blame Nader for Gore's defeat - please think for a moment. Gore was coming out of the most popular presidency in modern times - named Lieberman as his running mate - distanced himself from Clinton - ran a bumbling campaign against an absolute non-entity former drunk and druggie. He lost because he couldn't even win Tennessee.

We are lucky to have Ralph Nader around to remind us of what our ideals are supposed to be. Freedom of expression. Freedom of dissent. Civil liberties. Health care for all guaranteed by the government. Government by and for the people - not the few wealthy corporations who control the democratic and republican parties and their candidates.

Obama is a chump for diminishing Nader.
Obama is a chump. Period.

[ Parent ]
Ralph Nader (4.00 / 2)
This will be interesting.  I hope he gets in a debate, or two.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
i think this is great (4.00 / 1)
one of the best things of this race so far was Edwards being able to put on enough pressure to move O and H left. When Obama gets the nomination there will be no pressure on him to refrain from moving center. But with Nadar now on stage there will be a lefter voice to keep Obama from moving too far center. I think its a great move by Nadar, and those with the fantasy that Nader somehow stole the election from Gore (as if Gore and WJClinton didn't play bigger roles in ruining the Dem party image) would do well to take a second look at how Nadar being in this race will actually help to keep the focus on progressive goals and ward off centrasizing.

BTW - 90% of things "progressives" who hate Nader are trying to restore in govt we're originally created by Nader.

And Nader is right if the Dems can't pull of a easy win this year. Think of how pathetic the GOP management of govt has been, and McCain is a freak'n geezer nut case. No excuses in '08 should be the progressive motto.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
Besides - the next Democratic President (0.00 / 0)
can point to the fact that they FINALLY put the "Nader asspoiler" narrative to rest.  They will take the WH after beating BOTH McCain AND Nader.

On debates: I'd like to see a more open format, at least early on.  Let more candidates in - not just Nader.  Give 'em a shot, at least - doesn't a nation that praises itself as a democracy owe that to our fellow citizens?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
The jury is out (4.00 / 1)
  First, I need to make sure everyone understands that I do NOT support Ralph Nader in any way, shape, or form. He's become a caricature of his old self, a hollow shell of a man whose inability to see the forest for the trees has destroyed his once-estimable reputation.

 That said, if Hillary Clinton does manage to pull out the nomination, many of his claims about the Democratic Party WILL have a ring of truth to them. It won't be a very "different" Democratic Party -- elements like Harold Ford, Lanny Davis, Dan Gerstein, Mark Penn, Terry McAuliffe, and others of that crowd will have a second chance to complete their goal of turning the Democratic Party into a virtual clone of the Republicans.

 I disagree with Barack Obama on quite a few things, and his anti-liberal rhetoric can be infuriating on occasion, but there is no doubt in my mind that an Obama nomination will drive a much-needed stake into the heart of the DLC nexus, simply because Obama's not of that crowd, and his support is too broad-based for him to ever indulge the DLC element. And only at that point will Nader become truly, utterly irrelevant.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

check your list (0.00 / 0)
Ford and Gerstein are Obama supporters.
[ Parent ]
They claim to be (4.00 / 1)
  I don't believe them.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn
[ Parent ]
as someone said on this subject (4.00 / 2)
Jesus and the Grateful Dead have a lot of assholes among their fan base. Ain't their fault.
[ Parent ]
Did you read James Fallows? .. (4.00 / 1)
I think this:

http://jamesfallows.theatlanti...

Sums it up well ... Ralph is a good man .. he's just gone off the rails the last 8 years

[ Parent ]
Not Again (0.00 / 0)
He's not going to get into any debates.  He never really has, the rules are going to stay the same.  He's going to be largely ignored.  
From his website, it looks like he's already focusing on attacking Obama. The "best" he can do is to force Obama to respond to some attacks either alienating some of the more "moderate" members of the new majority that Obama has to create to be a leader that can make real change, alienating some of the more "left" members of that same majority, or alienating both.  Any way, he pulls what is looking ever more like a real bi-partisan majority back towards the old bickering two party gridlock.
I've contacted him asking him to stop this run, but I think his ego is out of control and he will just hurt both the chances that Obama can win, and that Obama can win in a way that can pull together bi-partisan support for real change in this country.  
It's really nice to read about Nader without all the emotional (4.00 / 1)
baggage from both sides that becomes attendant.

Your post Matt was straight-forward and surprisingly even the comments that preceded this one were measured and intelligent.

Now I'm not saying that emotion does not belong in politics, just that I'm weary from all the Nader emotion.

Thanks Matt and commentors.

Jeff Wegerson

That's as emotional as I get (0.00 / 0)
I like seeing Nader in the race for two basic reasons: 1) I have respect for him, and 2) I prefer chaos in elections.  2008 is proving nicely chaotic and unsettled.

Unfortunately, I don't think Nader will have much impact this year - so I'm still hopeful that the Fundie Right will toss out a candidate too.  Don't see much chance that Bloomberg will try to run between McCain and Obama/Clinton.

 

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
That part of the "left" that need to be (4.00 / 4)
"correct" even when it devastates, feels no shame, and needs to be exposed.

Nader wanted to be "right" and thought his "plan" would drive the Democratic party to the left, instead he is responsible for 1 million dead Iraqis. Eight years of the worst carbon emissions, and don't doubt that will mean many many dead.

This shame shall hang like a wreath of bones on his memory forever.

For all you "it doesn't matter who gets elected" lefties -- Canada never had am "oh isn't that revolutionary" government and they have free excellent medical care.  Sweden, Denmark and Norway all have massive social services the happiest people on the planet and the lowest carbon emissions anywhere. No political party in Canada would ever, ever talk about dismantling the health system.

Put the program in effect, and defend it. The people will help you defend it.

For the eight years Nader smugly sat proud at how 'progressive' his program was, while watching Bush destroy the economy and create private armies.

Nader's Nightmare isn't over. He empowered the worst people in a corporatist state, Obama winning won't get us back to pre-Bush America, he will only start the rebuilding. President Obama will only start us down the road to the post Bush era. Trillions of dollars have been wasted, while a planet has been devastated, and an experiment in Democracy almost destroyed.

History will never forgive Ralph Nader, Judas pretending to be the messiah.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

It's just silly... (4.00 / 5)
- to say that Nader is responsible for the Iraq war.  Clinton voted for it, Nader and Obama both opposed it.

I was hoping we could put to rest the urban legend that "Nader gave the election to Bush". Here's why:

1. Look at the numbers, a huge number of Democrats 'voted' for Bush in 2000, way more Democrats voted for Bush than voted for Nader.  So, who is to blame?  Well lots of people, but not Nader.

2. Bush clearly stole the election, and Gore actually did win, but didn't fight it as he should have - we should have taken over the streets of DC when they decided to stop counting votes.  And we should have taken to the streets in Ohio after the debacle in 2004.

3. Gore ran a campaign much like Clintons is now, and it was mostly a failure at energizing the progressives.  It's not Naders "fault" that he captured the attention of those voters, if he hadn't, someone else would have.

4. The Democratic party platform in 2000 was practically indistinguishable from the Bush platform on issues that matter to progressives.  The same was true in 2004.  I worked for the Kerry campaign, but it was not an anti-war campaign and it should have been.

[ Parent ]
Not True (4.00 / 1)
"The Democratic party platform in 2000 was practically indistinguishable from the Bush platform on issues that matter to progressives.  The same was true in 2004."

This is just false.  From taxes to abortion there have always been huge differences in positions and platforms b/w the two parties.  It is one thing to argue the Dem platform is not progressive enough which I can buy into.  However, to argue that the platforms are indistinguishable on important progressive issues is just not true. That is still why I loathe Nader - he continues to perpetuate this myth.

[ Parent ]
Sort-of... (0.00 / 0)
I didn't say that there weren't "huge differences in positions and platforms b/w the two parties".

I worked on the campaigns knowing full well that Gore and Kerry were running as corporate democrats.  That didn't stop me from supporting them, but the official democratic platform for both years left out nearly ALL the issues that mattered to me as a progressive.  I also worked to lobby the party to change that platform, so I'm very familiar with what it contained.

[ Parent ]
Kerry ran in 2004 as a pro-war candidate (4.00 / 1)
Clinton voted for the war too (as if we need reminding).

They approved Alito and Roberts without even a whimper.

They approved the Protect America Act without even reading it, and they're going to renew it.

On Tax policy the differences are negligible.

Bill Clinton signed NAFTA, HRC still won't repudiate it.

It's like when Nader's name gets mentioned progressive/liberal Democrats suddenly get amnesia about all the things they're pissed off at the party for.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
4 - Erm, just no (0.00 / 0)
Two words: Global Warming

Anyone who can still seriously say there was no difference, and having paid attention, I knew there was a difference then even if Bush was trying to blur it, is being ridiculous. If that issue was important to you then, you didn't buy the lie that the man who'd railed against the destructive properties of the combustion engine was no different from the man who claimed to have his come-to-Jesus about the environment on the campaign trail.

If we don't fix the climate issue, the Iraq war is going to seem like a tragic footnote to what may not even be preserved as history.

[ Parent ]
right (0.00 / 0)
'cuz Clinton/Gore were doing such great things to prevent Global warming in the 8 years they had control of 1600 - not.  95% of Clinton's accomplishments on environmental issues were done in the last 2 months of office, after Gore lost, and late enuf that Bush was able to roll them back.  Clinton/Gore was a miserable failure on the environment, 8 wasted years when we should have been leading on climate change, instead Clinton sent Gore to gut Kyoto, even as he knew we'd never ratify.

Gore's recent awakening only happened because he got out of Washington and saw what was really going on, and is not indicative of what a Gore presidency would have been like in terms of environmental issues.

[ Parent ]
Nader was the guy standing beisde you (0.00 / 0)
waving and shouting, when you were trying to catch a ball.

Democrats realize now, as do a lot of Americans it seems, understand there is a responsibility when you govern yourselves.

Or bad things happen.


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
Time Has Proven the 2000 Lies (0.00 / 0)
false.  Just look at the different paths of Bush and Gore.  Bush started a needless war which cost tens of thousand American and Iraqi lives while ruining our reputation around the world.  Gore won a Nobel Prize for his work to address Climate Change.  But according to Nader electing Gore would have made absolutely no difference.  The guy is such a fraud.
[ Parent ]
Bush lied far, far more than Nader did (0.00 / 0)
Bush didn't run his campaign saying that he was going to do the horrible things he did.  He ran saying that he was going to be a compassionate conservative that would pull the US military out of foreign commitments and foc us on education above all else.  

Today, Nader sounds like a fool who has let history pass him by.  In 2000, the complaint that the Democrats were inexoriably drifting to the center, and weren't a realistic alternative to the Republicans was a much more valid argument.  

[ Parent ]
Add up the lives Nader saved, too (0.00 / 0)
With his public safety campaigns.

Just being fair, and all.

Then apply the same calculation to any other Presidential contender.  

Let me know how it turns out.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Where's Nader been the last four years? (4.00 / 3)
  Certainly the Bush administration hasn't been shy about doing things that Nader allegedly despises. Funny how he's been so quiet about it all.

 But, somehow, he surfaces NOW. He can't even wait for the Democratic nomination to be decided.

 I wonder if he's just part of a multi-pronged movement to derail Obama before he can capture the nomination. The AP is repeating Republican smears on Obama, Hillary and McCain are coordinating their attacks on him, and anti-Obama 527's are revved up and ready to go in Ohio.

 It's going to be an ugly week.

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

Like Sharpton in 2004 (4.00 / 1)
I bet he has a lot of Republican donors.

I heard him at Powershift07, the youth climate conference. He gave a great speech about civic participation and remembering that Congress works for you. But at this point in his life, he's become like a skipping record that keeps playing the same track.

And considering the response he got at an anti-war rally in DC last September, someone in the crowd yelling out 'You gave us Bush!', I just don't think he's going to matter much. The energy is with the Democrats and he's already served as a cautionary tale for those inclined to look to a third party.

It seems to me that time spent talking about him now just feeds the troll. There'll be the obligatory flurry now that he's announced, hopefully though, we'll all be able to restrain ourselves in the face of his inevitable future provocations.

But, while it's still just going to get lost in the wash, his Mastercard commercial in 2000 was a pretty awesome piece of political communication. If you've never seen it, give it a look up. Though, as has been amply noted, this is a different Democratic Party. It's coming slowly, but all the changes that started in earnest in 2004 are ripening nicely.

[ Parent ]
I ask the same question (0.00 / 0)
Where has he been for the last four years, and the four years before that.

But the sad fact is, post-2000, I don't think he has enough of a constituency to affect the debate in any of the big questions of the last few years: Torture, FISA, the environment, even corporate malfeasance. These Pat Paulsen imitations are the only way he can get anyone's attention anymore.

[ Parent ]
Look (4.00 / 2)
I don't support Ralph Nader, but to say that he only surfaces every 4 years is completely false. The fact is that the media only pays attention to him when he is pulling votes from Democrats.  

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!
[ Parent ]
I'm Not Defending Nader's Run for President... (4.00 / 1)
I'm very frustrated with Nader's ego (though it should be acknowledged that everyone who runs for President has to have a  pretty large ego). And I wish he would acknowledge how the Democratic Party has shifted in a more progressive direction and appreciate all the people who have pushed it in that direction.

But Nader has done many good things in the last 8 years. For example, take a look at some of the opinion columns he has written and had published in 2007. He is still doing some excellent work and deserves more than our scorn.

[ Parent ]
Critics like you are so smart. (4.00 / 2)
Where has Ralph Nader been the last 4/8 years? Je-sus H Christ. Did you bother to Google first before shooting off half cocked like the other 100,000 "reform" Nader hating Dems that have done sooooooo much the last 4 years ranting about how Nader stole 2000 at sites like Dailykos?

We can skip right over the fact that some of the most important public advocacy organizations, Public Citizen and US.PIRGs were established by Ralph Nader's direction. PC and the PIRGs do ongoing decade after decade after decade important and reality changing advocacy. Thus far Nader's vision from the 60s as manifest through these groups has done more to change the US for good than Gore, Obama, the Clintons, and Kerry combine. Sometimes it was fighting the stupid Clintons. But we're going to skip over this, since this is just the stuff derived from what Nader was doing in the 60s and 70s.

In the 80s Nader formed Essential Information, which to this day gives grants to journalists, and pumps out reports. Now you may so, we'll that's old. Well, Essential Information also produces http://www.halliburtonwatch.org  -- so maybe that's "doing" something the last four years. Have you been able to organize an army of volunteers to create a leading website that exposes the crimes of Haliburton? didn't think so.

Nader more recently formed Citizen Works which does education and training programs for creating advocate groups and building coalitions. And his Center for Study of Responsive Law continues to spotlight important issues, most recently Coal Mine worker safty. Doubtlessly he has done much more, but I don't think i have to do all the research for you.

The Nader bashing really is just scapegoating. Real reform points to the real problems. Nader running in 2000 was not the problem. The real problem was Gore was a dude, just like Kerry was in 2004, NAFTA had been passed against all good consciousness, and that Clinton just about destroyed whatever good was left of the Democratic party image. Apologists say sexual behavior shouldn't matter - well, they aught to get real and be shocked and deeply angry that Clinton was that out of control and set the stage for a GOP comeback which has led to the worst central governing in the last 100 years. Instead half the party wants to elect his wife so we can all be dragged down into that god forsaken mess again.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
In court fighting the Democratic Party? (0.00 / 0)
over ballot access issues from 2004?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
he had no effect in 2004, and won't in 2008 (4.00 / 1)
The idea of reaching the level that attracts public financing was very attractive to liberals attracted to the Greens in 2000.  (At least, I heard a lot about that in California.)  That dream (whatever its merits) is dead, and now we need to me more concerned with registering and turning out new voters than worrying but less than 1% of existing voters.  His vote numbers are near the Libertarian party.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
And, once again, (0.00 / 0)
he won't even get the green nomination
[ Parent ]
That went to Cynthia McKinney (0.00 / 0)
She's only on the ballot in a couple of states, but nonetheless it means that Nader's not only running against the Democratic Party this time around, he's also running the his own former party. It's worse than his not being able to get the Green nomination; he's going to end up undermining them AS WELL.

But luckily I doubt he's make it anywhere close to 1% support this time around. He certainly didn't in 2004

[ Parent ]
Ugh, McKinney (0.00 / 0)
If anyone wants to write a book on how to successfully primary incumbents, they should devote an entire chapter to McKinney, who got booted twice.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Nader Is A Relic (4.00 / 1)
from another era.  He still deserves lots of credit for all the things he did in the 60s, 70s and 80s but where has he been the last decade?  He seems to pop up every 4 yrs to announce he is going to run for President but is silent in between.  

I watched the documentary on him and what seems to be going on is Nader is very upset that no one pays attention to him anymore.  However, he fails to grasp the power of the Internet and how it allows individuals rather than organizations to be a force.  I just don't think the Nader is relevant anymore b/c he hasn't adapted to a changing world.  Too bad b/c he is ruining a truly amazing legacy.

His efforts are necessarily counterproductive (0.00 / 0)
The problem Nader and his sympathizers don't seem to get is that losing only ever pushes the Democrats to the right, and Republicans to the left.

After losing 6 terms consequitively, in 1952 the Republicans bit their tongues and nominated Eisenhower, a man who could plausibly have won the Democratic nomination.

After losing with Goldwater in 64, Republicans (re)nominate Nixon.

So what happens after Nader arguably* succeeds in 2000 in costing the Democrats the presidency with their insufficiently left nominee, Gore?  Do they bolt left?  That's not how I remember it.

* - it isn't important whether Nader really made the difference in 2000, but that many believe he did, and that their case is not wholly without merit - Nader made some kind of difference in 2000, which clearly did not have his desired effect in 2004 and 2008

On the contrary, it is winning that gives a party the collective confidence to run explicitly on their core ideology, stop fudging to the centre and so forth.  

I think he would have been better off running for the Democratic primary.  Edwards proved that's the better way to turn the party left, judging by how the other two took up his calls for substantially better health care, and discussion of poverty and corporate control.

Doesn't that have a lot to do with the Dem leadership? (4.00 / 3)
If the conservative base decided to bolt from the Republican party, wouldn't the reaction be "Ugh... we need to throw them some sort of bone to shut them up."?  

In the Nader case (in 2000), a fraction of the democratic base got fed up with the DLC-Clinton-Gore-Lieberman style of governance, had a legitimate grievance that Progressive values were being nigh completely ignored, and a small part of them bolted.  

Rather than deciding that they lost that election because they failed to shore up their base, the centrist dems decided that the dissenters had no valid complaint whatsoever, and were a bunch of idiotic pie-in the sky hippies, and decided to chase yet more votes in rural Alabama.  

If Bush hadn't been so bad, and Dean hadn't been prescient enough to seize onto all of this discontent, it would have been an almost neverending cycle.  

[ Parent ]
hard to study (0.00 / 0)
I think 9/11 really messes up the ability to analyze the effects of the 2000 Nader campaign on the Democratic party. I think it could have been a very interesting case study without 9/11 - but I think under the circumstances its hard to say one way or another why the Dems moved further right in 2004. Maybe they still would have moved right in 2004 without 9/11 hard to say.

I think the parent comment is interesting for comparing Nader's strategy and effects to Edwards' this cycle - again such a shame 9/11 spoiled a more clean comparison.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
Mistakes (0.00 / 0)
Yeah, the Democrats repudiated McGovern after the Humphrey, Muskie and others torpedoed his general election campaign in 1972, and continued moving the party to the right, leading to Ronald Reagan, Bush, and more Bush. That worked out just great, didn't it?

Especially when it turned out that McGovern was in the right. Hey, Nixon was a crook! And the Vietnam War was a bad idea! And sanctions on Cuba never did do any good! And maybe we should have a health care plan for all Americans.

Or maybe we could just shelve all that for 40 years.

Those who have had a chance for four years and could not produce peace should not be given another chance. --Richard Nixon, 9 October 1968

[ Parent ]
Nader inspired me once... (0.00 / 0)
I saw him in person when I was a college student in the 1980's.  It was one of the most moving, inspiring speeches I've ever heard.
However, his ego is clearly gargantuan and he appears not able to perceive that he was a spoiler in 2000, and that he contributed to Bush's ability to occupy the Presidency, at least in part.
He reminds me now of Homer Simpson's dad, and the headline about him: "Old Man Yells at Clouds."
Sad.
Worked for Nader (4.00 / 1)
I worked for Nader briefly in the late 70s. It was a disillusioning experience. He is deaf to everything but his own voice.
[ Parent ]
Not Surprising (0.00 / 0)
but unfortunate to hear.
[ Parent ]
RE: his efforts are necessarily counterproductive (4.00 / 1)
It seems pretty clear to me that all the democratic losses of recent years have forced them to move left.  That's why we actually have an interesting election for the first time in a while.

We will probably never know whether Nader had anything to do with that, but it seems to me that there's more to be gained by assuming he has good intentions (whether you agree with them or not) than by just automatically dismissing him as either malicious or crazy.  Whatever you think of his campaigns, he does have a lot of valuable insights that we perhaps need to be periodically reminded of. And i second the appreciation for the unusually calm, rational discussion about an issue that often degenerates very quickly into mindless namecalling and selfrighteousness.

Why hasn't Nader been working to actually organize third parties? (4.00 / 6)
If Nader took his charges about the problems with our current two-party system seriously (and I think, like Matt, that he's not wrong about many of them), why hasn't he spent the last eight years trying to get Greens elected at the local and state levels around the country? It would be the natural starting place for any real attempt to build up a party able to convincingly challenge the Democrats from the left.

Of course, Nader's not actually a Green anymore, but if he really wanted to accomplish what he claims he might have tried to create his own new third party. That would still be an exercise in vanity but it would show the he's at least little serious about accomplishing anything other than screwing over progressives who dare to deal with political realities as they exist right now.

Instead we get his pathetic whining every four years followed by a futile, egotistical presidential run.

I consider myself an independent (i.e., an independent Democrat) (0.00 / 0)
... and I'm also a fan of Mao's concept of guerrilla war.  The essence was you strike where the enemy is weak, remain mobile, and avoid set-piece battles aiming at holding territory, where the enemy's superior firepower will crush you.

I believe that independents have to fight guerrilla-style.  Supporting Obama in open primaries is perfect guerrilla tactics.  Nader is a lousy guerrilla AND a lousy independent!  All he does is go for the set-piece battle, gets massacred, and then resurrects to get massacred again.

Viva independencia!  Abajo a Nader!

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

Nader Sweater (4.00 / 1)
Wouldn't it be funny to have a Nader sweater?  A grandma-style sweater with Nader's mug sewn right in.

For some reason, it is really easy to denounce Nader as being:
1. A fraud.
2. An ego maniac
3. A shell of his former self.

It also feels easy to say that he only comes out of hiding every four years.

This might be a misuse of the word trendy, but being a Nader Hater feels trendy. At this point, the dislike for him feels more like the current dislike for tight-rolling jeans.

I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that none of the above cliches about Nader are as true as they are easy to say. While the conversation about Nader in the comments above is mostly civil, I urge people to resist the temptation to simply parrot the easy things to say about him.  As far as I can tell, Nader has always been a determined, stubborn man who is not afraid to turn on his closest supporters if he feels they have sold out.  If anything, he seems to be hurt by his stubborn consistency in the ways he goes about things. He's hurt by his unwillingness to change his ways.

I watched this PBS film about him recently and while it may or may not be a propaganda piece, I found it interesting:
http://www.pbs.org/independent...

For example, the film offers some thoughtful counter-arguments to the idea that Nader lost the 2004 election for Gore.

Or 2000... (0.00 / 0)
I mean.
[ Parent ]
re: nader sweater (4.00 / 1)
I agree.  Most of the nader-bashing i hear seems to be based on an unwillingness to confront the weaknesses of the democratic party, which includes taking responsibility for one's own role in enabling their rightward lunge.  It is fashionable because it is easy and it makes people feel good.  That's not to say that there aren't any thoughtful and valid arguments to be made against supporting nader; just that i don't hear them very often.
[ Parent ]
easy is the key (4.00 / 1)
staring the full problems of the Democratic Party in the face is deeply depressing. Just look at the last 2 years and how little we've gotten out of holding the majority (if slimly) in both houses. Then there is the issue of how outrageous the HRC campaign is to the notion of Democratic access to the White House. And with the Obama grassroots movement we can only hope it is as reform minded and activist as it claims to be on the surface. Matt and Chris I think rightfully wait with baited breath to see Obama and his grassroots movement fully realize govt reform. I could go on and on, but its just a heck of a lot easier to say we wouldn't have any of today's problems if that damn Nader didn't steal Florida. Damn you Nader!

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Quite the contrary (0.00 / 0)
It seems to me that the Democratic Party has become increasingly irrelevant and part of the problem, with the other part of the problem being citizens who believe their votes are owned -- not earned -- by irrelevant Democrats.

http://www.anunreasonableman.com/

re: quite the contrary (0.00 / 0)
If they are irrelevant, how can they be part of the problem?
[ Parent ]
Chronic Naderism, Severe, Acute Exacerbation (0.00 / 0)
From today's "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.co...

"Sunday, February 24, 2008
Chronic Naderism, Severe, Acute Exacerbation<

I am defining a new disorder: Naderism, the diagnostic criteria for which are listed below:

1) The delusional belief that your heroic intervention is needed by the nation, despite any evidence whatsoever to support it (see also delusions of grandeur, erotomanic delusions, narcissistic personality disorder)

2) The compulsive need to attempt to destroy the very outcome that you claim to seek by your intervention (rule out passive-aggressive personality disorder)

3) Verbal echolalia, i.e., the repeating of statements that bear no connection to reality, e.g. "The country needs me now more than ever", or

4) Feelings of irrelevance, of being left out or isolated, which are compensated for by grandiose claims of relevance and necessity for his actions

5) Unconscious suicidal ideation, manifest in statements indicating suicidal behavior, e.g. "I have been collecting pills", or "I have decided to run for President"

6) Destructive behavior without awareness of the consequences of such behavior, e.g., spending sprees, reckless driving, running for national office.

Use the following codes to indicate the severity of the episode of Naderism:

Mild: Mutters at television during Obama rally: "That should be me"

Moderate: Begins making late night telephone calls asking "Shouldn't I really run for President? The people need me"

Severe: Announces campaign for president.

Note: Patient should be evaluated on presentation for whether he is a danger to self or others."

Cite
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.co...

Not to be impolite but did you RTFA (0.00 / 0)
The Nader essay is very good. There is nothing equivocal between Nader's argument and the kind of political exploitation and diagnosis by remote control that Bill Frist and the GOP et al were conducting.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
Ralph Nader is One Person (0.00 / 0)
I used to be one of the angry apologists for the Democratic Party that would attack Ralph Nader supporters.  It was stupid, and more to the point, politically moronic.  The trouble with the debate over Ralph Nader--in 2000, in 2004, and now, is the singular lack of political intelligence that gets applied.  To an extent, that's Nader's fault, but it's the rest of us too--who, like Ralph, can't understand how a good inside/outside game works.

1. When Ralph Nader said there were no differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party in 2000, he should have been taken to mean that the Democratic Party had moved substantively steadily towards Republican positions over the Clinton years.  Which it had, and it has even further ON POLICY, as many HRC supporters have pointed out in looking at Obama's rhetoric on health care.  But, as opponents of Nader today point out,  that's changing somewhat.

2. What hasn't changed is the lack of a radical political programme.  The U.S. elite has since the Depression had two wings--one which promotes corporate interests while allowing the state to buy off the working class (with significant items--no doubt--I'm not diminishing the importance of Social Security or programmes for low income people in the context of their lives) and one which actively advocates for the interests of capital with no qualms (and most recently used religion/racism as a mobilizing tool to do so).  I am resigned to this state of affairs, for now, but I think it's important to be clear that this is how it exists.

For instance, why can't we talk about how state-sponsored health care, for all its advantages, also has specific political intent that's designed to foster working class allegiance to big business and the state?  That the interests of finance capital currently run large swathes of American (and other) policy?  That one of the major reasons large portions of the American elite eventually rejected this part of the Iraq War is, unlike the sanctions + containment + air strikes, which also killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, this was a public relations disaster, ineptly executed and most pertinently damaging to the strategic interests of the Untied States (read: capital).

3. That said, for my interests (which have to do more with the U.S. role in promoting imperialism and global capitalism, as well as certain international/domestic issues like race and homophobia), Nader isn't going to do much to advance them.  But if you're pissed about what various people did to damage the world in 2000, perhaps some prioritization is in order:

1) Karl Rove
2) Dick Cheney
3) James Baker
4) George Bush
.
.
.
12) Al Gore
.
.
.
20) Opponents to the "left" of the Democrats who didn't realize that if you opposed the increasingly nakedly corporate nature of the Democratic Party under Clinton/DLC/etc., it made sense to do it strategically.  And this is where I indict Nader--why didn't he get 5% of the vote to build a sustainable party institution that would continue to push the Democrats, if he thinks electoral poltiics are important?  Why didn't he actively encourage people to vote for him in places like New York rather than in places like Florida?  Why didn't his surrogates do this?  

There is absolutely no reason to oppose a 3rd party on principle or from a sense of defeatism - 3rd parties have taken over or contributed large swathes of agendas, either becoming one of the two major parties or shifting the discourse.  Just because there's a structural tendency towards two parties in the U.S., that doesn't mean that history doesn't happen within that context.

What does make sense is opposing a series of unstrategic and personally self-interested choices--whether by Nader or Bill Clinton ;)

.
.
.
30) People who ignore Pat Buchanan's role, whose share of the 2000 vote (in Florida too!) is ignored only so the rightwing can continue to have us at each others throats rather than to understand that we need to be smart about an inside/outside game.  
.
.
.
.
35) Ordinary people like you and me.  But we'll get there.

why didn't he get 5% of the vote to build a sustainable party institution (0.00 / 0)
"A 2005 study by Harvard professor Barry C. Burden found that the locations of Nader's campaign stops were primarily chosen to maximize his vote toward the goal of obtaining the threshold 5 percent vote total needed for the Green Party to obtain ballot status, and was separate from how close Bush and Gore were running in certain states. The study also looked at where Nader spent money on advertising, and got the same results. Burden concluded that there was no evidence for the claim that Nader was deliberately campaigning as a "spoiler," a contention Burden identified (p.678) as emanating from both the political Left and the mainstream media, and which he concluded was inaccurate"

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

Not to mention 250,000 Dems voted for Bush, not Nader.

When does the Democratic Party take responsibility for losing 2000?

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
read the article (0.00 / 0)
Will, you're right that my discussion still has a little of that old resentment in it, so I apologize.  But I want to protest: if you look at where i placed the amount of responsibility I put on different people, I'd like a little more charity than you're willing to grant me :)  

One point though, from the paper you cited (available in google scholar), not on intention, but on strategy/effects:

"The travel schedule and television ad buys show no evidence of a purposeful attempt to throw the election. While it is true that a more benevolent (and somewhat more strategic)
Nader might have actually focused his efforts on less competitive markets, neither his travel schedule nor his limited television advertisement decisions point to an active attempt to target the Democrats. The spoiler thesis is apparently the result of journalists' looking to sensationalize the campaign, Democrats looking for a scapegoat, or a simple misreading of the campaign record."

(my emphasis)

[ Parent ]
true that (0.00 / 0)
you have put more emphasis on others in shaping the race. I was not trying to condemn your post as I have some other more blanket ones which are boring blind repetitions of the Nader spoiler myth. I was just highlighting that one because it is so frequently cited by Nader haters as "proof" of his spoilerness and that that study suggests Nader was in part trying to do what you where suggesting he should have.

Otherwise, I think your analysis is far more fair and worthy of a full read, tho I still would disagree on the assumption that Nader's motives are ego driven. I think its far from that. Nader has been wildly successful as a good government activist. Perhaps unparalleled in US history - but I'm not a historical scholar, maybe one would like to weigh in with some perspective on that. Given his unarguably impressive track record I think one must give him the benefit of the doubt of being both strategically savvy and generally noble in his goals. What ego boosting gain would he possibly enjoy from sending thousands of young people to their deaths in Iraq - especially after his deeply intimate collaboration with college aged people across the country over several decades - or setting back many of his causes for years? Nader may be a nihilist, but I don't think he's an egoist. There are easier ways to get his name in the papers without unleashing the self righteous scorn of the Michael Moores and Bill Mahers.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
that's fair (0.00 / 0)
I just think now that there's enough people and enough space to talk about some of the real issues here from the two points that should be really uncontentious: a) the democratic party had almost wholly sold its soul by 2000 b) nader's campaign and the response from DLC/Republicans/New Republic/etc. ended up dividing people on what's nominally called the left than creating more space for a social justice movement that includes electoral and non electoral politics, regardless of whether that's what his or his supporters' intent was.

For all the flaws I see in the specifics of Obama's rhetoric, it's very different in political style, and that's a style that would do people to Obama's left (in terms of his role as a political agent, not his personal beliefs, which I know nothing about) some good.  In other words, it would be nice if someone to the left of the democrats could unite people who don't like, for example, energy companies setting domestic policy or the interests of Wal-mart and health insurance companies setting the terms for the health insurance debate to the extent that they do.  Unfortunately, I think Nader missed a real opportunity to do that (in 1996, and in 2000), but things contineu forward, and so will we.

[ Parent ]
p.s. (0.00 / 0)
i also appreciate the tone of this discussion (and others on this blog).  it's a welcome relief.
Ralph Nader is as bad as the worst Republicans (0.00 / 1)
He's a liar and puts his own vanity ahead of the country.  The death of everyone that was killed in the war in Iraq is on his head.  No matter how loudly the enablers scream, he cost us a Gore presidency.  There were major differences between Bush and Gore.  He's a liar and he deserves as much contempt as we give Bush, McCain and other Republicans.
Matt's Update and Video Sum It Up Nicely (0.00 / 0)
And I had forgotten about Nader getting involved with Terry Schiavo.  Having had to make a decision whether to continue life support for my terminally ill father, the idea that outside parties would get involved in this type of decision is repulsive to me.  Nader's articles and press quotes on this matter confirm my belief that the guy is a complete egomaniac trying to keep himself relevant.  He was no better than Tom DeLay on Terry Schiavo and that is pathetic.
I'm thinking (0.00 / 0)
Nader in the race might help an Obama candidacy.  At least as something to frame against.  Better he frame against Nader than the reasonable Left.

vodamusic.com
Ralph Nader deserves your deepest respect (0.00 / 0)
People need to appreciate that what happened in 2000 was not the personal fault of Ralph Nader, but the result of an extremely flawed electoral system.

Nobody who considers themselves remotely democratic should condemn the addition of new voices to our electoral process.  This country suffers from a stifling duopoly of political power, and we should categorically embrace any candidate of  Nader's quality.

Ralph Nader deserves the deepest respect of anyone who sincerely believes in progressive values.  He has done more in his lifetime to improve this country than anyone else you may care to suggest.

Just stop with the Nader-hating, and focus on improving an electoral system that is about as undemocratic as a democracy can get.  If we had used range voting in 2000, you would not have a problem with Ralph Nader.

http://rangevoting.org/

Ralph Nader on Meet the Press | 64 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox