A Picasso For Navyswan:
by Frederick
The Old
Great Campaign; Now Where’s the Movement?
A Plea to Ralph Nader
By JOHN V. WALSH
…as we approach 2008 and another presidential contest, will Ralph run again – this time in a way that builds a movement that stands against war, empire and the police state, overwhelmingly the major issues on the mind of the electorate? Greens, libertarians, many paleocons and disaffected Democrats and even Republicans deeply yearn for such a movement-building candidacy. So far the Greens have not succeeded in doing so and a different vehicle may or may not be needed. But the doors are as wide open to a new party and a new movement as they were in 1854 when the Republican Party was born, winning its first presidential election six short years later.
As the elections of 2008 get closer a plea from many of us goes out for Ralph to run early and to build a real organization or a party which can endure, grow and eventually win. But why Ralph Nader? Because he is one of the few who has consistently opposed the war and exposed the Democrats as the other party of war and corporate welfare. He is one of the few who has the stature, the intellect and the integrity to begin such a mission.
…and just to be fair and balanced:
Comments
It’s a wonderful thought, but it will never happen. Too much bad blood. John Aravosis at AmericaBlog still blames Nader and the Greens for the loss of the 2000 election. I voted for Nader then as 1) I did NOT honestly beleive the American public would be stupid enough to elect George W. Bush (last time I ever trust the American people) 2) I didn’t particularly care for Gore at the time and I really didn’t foresee him losing his home state…
The Democrats hate Nader as they feel he pulls THEIR entitled votes from them (There are a lot of liberals/progressives out there who feel you must vote Democratic in order to participate). Hell, if Nader hadn’t been running in 2000, I probably would have voted Libertarian…so much for the Democratic theory of vote entitlement.
The biggest chance for a third party try would be Gore. The central question posed: Is Gore so loyal to the party that he would rule out an independent run? There is no doubt he would pull a lot of votes from the Democratic candidate, but he also might re-energize people like me (I’m about one election from asking to be removed from the voter registration logs and I’ve only missed one election since 1978). A grass-roots serious independent run by Gore would be just the thing this country needs. If he were to take a few big states, he could throw the thing into Congress and we would have a lovely mess on our hands. It would also scare the hell out of the Democrats.
Politics aside,
Nader has been playing the most consistent and accurate tune.
Ralph plays the guitar? And Mr. Buonaparte must be writhing in his holding place.
I can see a strong independent candidate coming in and snatching up all the frustrated, unhappy Republican votes, but they won’t win them with a “end the war” stance. A strong independent could pick up a lot of Dem and Green votes with that stance, tho. The Dems do have Kucinich who IS strongly anti-war and supports National Health Care. So maybe Kucinich is the one to go for.
Nader wasn’t on my ballot in 2004, and I am guessing he won’t be on the ballot in 2008. Am supposed to write in a candidate?
“they feel he pulls THEIR entitled votes”
That is exactly how they feel about it, because they dont blame Gore for neglecting the green-lefty base.
Gore should not have chosen Lieberman and he should have been more “Gore”.
Your ads in sidebar feature the conservatives book club with selections from Loofah Head and Coultergeist.
Thats kinda weird. I mean, I get that you dont control. But… its kinda weird.
I’m with Peacechick. The Democrats have a candidate who opposed the war in Iraq from the start, and has taken measures to hold the Bush administration accountable for it’s crimes. Kucinich for president!
The American people would never support Kucinich. He looks too much like a Tolkien character. I was originally rooting for Emmanuel Goldstein but now I think I’m going to settle for Big Brother.
I started a “Dead Gus Hall” exploratory effort. Unfortunately, Gus Hall, being dead all these years, was unable/unavailable for negotiations. Too bad, I had such a cool slogan: “Red and Dead.”
I’m all for Kucinich as an Independent. But you know the MSM would coninue to ignore or misrepresent his positons on the issues because he looks funny.
John Aravosis at AmericaBlog still blames Nader and the Greens for the loss of the 2000 election.
Indeed! He’s not alone. I’ve said it before and been savaged for it, but I’ll say it again. Regardless of what anyone thinks about Nader or his motivations–what anyone thinks about the Democrats as ‘the other war party’–two stark facts remain. If Gore had been president there would be no war with Iraq, no $500B down the toilet. Gore would have been president if Nader had not been in the race.
Nader is a chickenshit who doesn’t have a problem taking this country down as long as he can have his pound of flesh. He’s said as much in opining on whether or not he’ll run in 2008.
Gore failed to take his home state! Explain that please!
Bush had 1,061,949 votes in TN.
Gore had 981,720 votes in TN.
The difference was 80,229.
The combined third party vote tally was 32,084. So had all of these “misguided” voters cast their votes the True and Proper Way for a Democratic Candidate, it still would not have been enough to overcome the margin. Had Gore carried his home state of TN with its 11 electoral votes, he would have had the clear margin in the electoral college.
And don’t get me started on Kerry…that was best you Democrats could come up with? Nice work.
How did Gore lose Ohio with its 21 electoral votes?
Bush 2,350,363
Gore 2,183,628
Diff: 166,735
Nader 117, 799
Nader’s votes in Ohio wouldn’t have made a difference.
Missouri
Bush 1,189,924
Gore 1,111,138
Diff: 78,786
Nader 38,515
Nader’s votes in MO don’t make a difference.
Nevada
Bush 301,575
Gore 279,978
Diff: 21,577
Nader 15,008
Nader’s votes in Nevada don’t make a difference.
The only state where Nader was a factor other than Florida was New Hampshire with its four electoral votes:
Bush 273,559
Gore 266,348
Diff 7,211
Nader 22,198
However New Hampshire isn’t a factor if Gore wins his home state or better yet, Ohio. Again, how does Gore lose his home state? How the hell does a Democrat lose New Hampshire of all places?
I’d like to remind the staunch defenders of the Democratic Party that YOU need US (the independent and third party voters) more than we need you. We’ll just go ahead and vote for our Green, Libertarian, Dead Commies, Reform Party candidates just as we always have done. Maybe we’ll catch a district council or school board seat. But if the 2008 election is going to be as close as the 2000 election, you either get real busy with voter registration drives and register a whole bunch of new Democrats or you might want to cultivate the third party voter. Cause you need us more than we need you. Remember that.
Bayh. Biden. Dodd. FEINSTEIN. Cleland. Daschle. EDWARDS. Schumer. Landrieu. CLINTON. REID. LIEBERMAN. KERRY.
What do all these names have in common? They’re Democratic Senators.
And they all voted for the authorization to use military force in Iraq!(all told 29 Democratic Senators voted for the authorization).
Please note: there are no Greens, no Libertarians and no Reform Party members on that list.
Now, these douchebags, with the notable exception of Lieberman are tripping over each other be against the war. Yet how many have ever stood up and said, “Boy I really made a big mistake.”
Culture Ghost,
I understand your frustration, but chill a bit.
Btw, you said, “Gore failed to take his home state! Explain that please!”
Have you ever been to TN? I have. I know exactly why Gore didn’t win his home state. The philosophy in TN is, “vote R fir right.” I am actually surprised it was as close as it was in such a state.
You said, “How the hell does a Democrat lose New Hampshire of all places?”
New Hampshire is not as liberal of a state as you may think it is. And, what it seems you are forgetting in all of this is all the propaganda that we as a nation have been fed since 2001. Also, what about voter fraud in Florida? You seem to not mention that.
“We’ll just go ahead and vote for our Green, Libertarian, Dead Commies, Reform Party candidates just as we always have done. Maybe we’ll catch a district council or school board seat.”
That’s just fine and dandy, but you will not stop the destruction of the constitution with a school board seat. We need to be cohesive. Not necessarily cohesive with the democratic party, but we do need to stand together. You seem to fight against others who share your ideas. Maybe the third parties need to work harder to get the attention of the people. I understand it is hard with the corporate owned media, but none of your candidates make me excited. (no democrats do either)
I’m tired of the implication that by supporting third party candidates that I am responsible for Bush & Co. I’m tired of the unspoken leverage that if I’m not voting for a Democratic candidate in all circumstances that I am endorsing the stauts quo. If the Democratic Party and its minions want my vote: do something to earn it!
I’m so tired of the two party system and its devout supporters I am getting very close to removing myself from the voter registration logs and I’ve been a lifelong believer in the civic necessity of voting in all circumstances. You can have your precious two party system-I’ll govern myself.
Amen.
Culture Ghost,
You didn’t chill. Instead you went on a rant about minions. I did not imply this:
“I’m tired of the unspoken leverage that if I’m not voting for a Democratic candidate in all circumstances that I am endorsing the stauts quo.”
I said we need to be cohesive. The problem as I see it is the third parties have niches that only pertain to a small segment of society. There is no universal agenda. You need that to bring in votes and to inspire people. The democrats are good at mimicking this. You, however, just call people stupid and move on. You want people to wake up and start voting in a way that is better for them, you better find a new way of expressing your platform.
I am not a ‘democrat minion’. I hate the two party system. However, I am a realist and I see that there is a long way to go before we can rid ourselves of this system. I also see that being belligerent and condescending does not win any supporters.
Where the hell are your precious third party leaders? Why aren’t they out there at every opportunity trying to get things changed? Why aren’t they screaming in the streets for change? All I see are more politicians who cannot put themselves or their career on the line for real change.
The country is ripe for change right now. Everyone is fed up with the two party system, yet there is no big rush to a third party candidate. Think about that. Why is that? Maybe it is because there is no one over there that is really standing up and taking the initiative for change either.
“You didn’t chill.” Bring me up on charges for disobeying an order.
I never called anyone stupid.
I am somewhat belligerent-the times call for it.
Thanks for addressing the substantive portions of my post. It really advanced the discussion.
You’re welcome.
Where the hell are your precious third party leaders? Why aren’t they out there at every opportunity trying to get things changed? Why aren’t they screaming in the streets for change? All I see are more politicians who cannot put themselves or their career on the line for real change.
The country is ripe for change right now. Everyone is fed up with the two party system, yet there is no big rush to a third party candidate. Think about that. Why is that? Maybe it is because there is no one over there that is really standing up and taking the initiative for change either.
All right, all right. I think the charge that there are no third party people leading can hardly be justified with the corporate media shoving everyone left of Hillary Clinton off the stage…for one thing. Navyswan, I love ya girl…BUT YOU LIVE IN SOUTH CAROLINA!
I hate to say it, but I wouldn’t expect the positive impact third party politics has had on individual townships, municipalities, counties and state legislatures all over the rest of the country to be as readily apparent where you live.
Here in New York state a Democrat doesn’t get elected without the support of the working families party. Hell, New Hampshire has a Socialist Senator!
I don’t have any answers anymore, it seems. But I sure can point to what I don’t like and say, “that’s a pile of shit.” And that’s exactly what Reid, Pelosi, Boxer, and the rest are handing us right now. They are in collusion with the enemy, an enemy who has usurped the Constitution, and I will have no truck with any of them any longer.
Yeah, I met the Green Party candidate for State Treasurer last year. He was a really nice guy, and he knew he wasn’t going to win. Hell, in this part of the state, a second party would be nice. There is a choice between the Christian Republicans and the Libertarian Republicans. Very few others have a shot at anything.
You know what one of the most frequent criticisms of the local democratic party is? They aren’t visible. They aren’t active. They have no message. Until that changes, they will never have a shot, not to mention a third party.
I know not all politics is like S. Carolina politics. I know in some states, a full and vibrant debate about real issues actually exists. And I know that in some states, third party candidates win elections. My point is, what are your local third party people doing on the scale of national politics? Is there a plan to nationalize and promote anyone on a large scale? So far, Nader is thinking about maybe running, but is he developing some plan to convince people who won’t already vote for him? Is he working towards anything? Or is he just a pipe dream of disillusioned folks this year?
I’m a little more plugged in to the national political debates than your average South Carolinian, and I don’t know of any serious third party candidate running next year. How, then, are they supposed to have a shot at winning? In elections, if I haven’t heard of you, you may as well not be running. Sucks, but that’s how things work. (In the case of Nader, Alabama, 2004, it also helps if you show up on my ballot.)
Again, realistically, there are not enough people willing to vote for any ONE third party. Is there a way to maybe bring several of the smaller parties into some kind of coalition party, at least for one election? Is there any way for the groups to give up their hold on their niche for a few months to work with each other towards a common goal of getting someone different elected? If not, then I have to place my vote for the person most likely to keep the republicans out of office. But I’m sure as hell not going to take my ball and go home, just quit voting.
Silence, when you have the option to speak out against injustice, DOES affirm the status quo.
Remember what Sanders did during his Senate campaign? He had campaign volunteers go to every house in Vermont and talk to them about the Sanders campaign. He went to where the people were, so that he didn’t have to rely on the media to distribute his message.
Mao conquered China without the support of the corporate infrastructure. He did it by going to the farmers in the countryside and getting them excited about change. He was building an army instead of a political party, but the concept is the same.
There is no one doing this in America. It doesn’t need to be something that finishes with the 2008 election. Sometimes revolutionary movements need a 10 year plan. But without a charismatic leader willing to consistently be where the people are, with a plan for a new future that actually looks different/better than the past, willing to put in the time it takes to build a movement, there is nothing. Who will be Bernie Sanders on a national level?
Never been to TN – see no reason to…
But let’s return to some factual evidence:
1976: Ford loses to Carter, but captures his home state of Michigan.
1980: Carter is crushed by the Reagan Juggernaut, but still wins his home state of GA.
1984: Mondale is slaughtered by the Reagan Machine , but still manages to win his home state of Minnesota.
1988: Dukakis is trounced by Bush One but wins MA.
1992: Bush One loses to Clinton but wins Texas (his adopted home state).
1996: Dole is soundly beaten by Clinton but wins his home state of Kansas.
2000: Gore loses the closest election in recent US history and LOSES HIS HOME STATE.
2004: Kerry loses to Bush but still carries his home state of MA.
To quote Sesame Street,”One of these things is not like the other…”
Never been there, huh? But your gut tells you there is something wrong with the fact that Gore didn’t win TN. My in-laws are from there. I married a TN boy, I know a thing or two about the state.
Your list is meaningless. If you looked at it a different way, for the most part you would see that the republicans from red states won their home state and the dems from blue states won their home states. The only real anomaly I see is Carter, who is a dem from a red state that won his home state. Of course, you could say that has a lot to do with the fact that the Carter election was pre-conservative revolution.
By the way, how did Bush I and II do in Connecticut?
And why are you so determined to not discuss third party candidates? You seem to dance around that whole subject. All you do is blather on about how dems suck. Most people know that already. The question is what are the third parties doing?
“Blather…” how charming.
Having spent 21 years on my life in Manhattan and the past 20 years in the San Francisco Bay Area, I have a cautious aversion to the South…just not a comfortable environment for people like me.
There are no viable third party candidates at a national level in this country. Is that what you want to hear? There are no viable third parties at the national level because the system is designed to be binary. The last viable third party candidate was George Wallace (from the South) in 1968. Wallace garnered 12.9% of the popular vote and won the following states: Ark/LA/Miss/ALA/GA.
The real fault of this system lies with the American people. They rather have 47 choices in dish-soap than a wide spectrum of political candidates. They prefer to vote on “American Idol” than they do at their state and local elections. And rather than attempt to solve their own problems, they defer them to a professional political class.
“There are no viable third parties at the national level because the system is designed to be binary.”
Yes, that is what I wanted to hear. Now that we are on the same page, what can be done about it? Short of a revolution that changes the very structure of our system, what can we as a normal individuals do to change the binary system?
What can we do to get the word out about national third party candidates? Maybe several viral campaigns? Utilize the blogosphere a little more? These things could be alternatives to the MSM. Are they enough? How can we directly confront everyday people? How can we get them informed? These are all questions that need to be addressed. Without a plan, a movement cannot start. How do we get the lazy, American Idol masses to get off their butts and work for change?
Maybe it is an impossible task, but you can’t know that until someone tries.
The average American (The Consumer American) likes the binary political system. It’s easier for them. And we love our convenience (because we lead such busy, busy lives what we working sooooo hard, and then raising families, and then working hard some more and so on).
We are a nation of convenience hence our love of the soundbite, the fast-food equivalent of political discourse. Look at how we’ve adopted the terminology of Red State/Blue State…it’s simple and we like simple. The Consumer Society has made us simpletons and turned politics into a commodity for consumption.
While the original framers of the republic did leave open the possibility of revolution to safeguard against the situation we find ourselves currently in, those options have been quietly removed from the system over the course of the 100 years or so. Speaking of overthrowing the existing system 1) can land you in prison 2) automatically casts you into the fringe elements of the political spectrum.
What can we do as individuals to change the binary system? Probably very little. I have chosen the path of individualism: The revolution begins at home. I engage in volitional acts that define me in relation to The System and most of those acts involve removing myself from subscribing, participating and endorsing those elements which I feel are not conducive to how I want to live my life. A very tiny example: being a “Green” I have had myself placed on the “do not call registry”, informed my post office not to deliver mailers and other trash, and informed all the companies (credit cards, etc) I do business with not to send me offers, flyers, and other crap. It’s worked out very well. My phone doesn’t ring with telemarketing calls or survey calls. My mailbox usually only contains mail I’m expecting and I’ve managed to reduce my waste generation quite significantly. It works for me. I feel good for not endorsing useless advertising (though I do miss the days of giving absurd/surreal answers to survey takers and fucking with their precious survey), providing answers to marketing assholes and generally messing with the system ever so slightly.