Friday, February 20, 2004
I'm truly baffled when I read a story like this: Democrats nervously await Nader's decision. Our self-appointed savior is once again publicly considering a run for the White House. And Democrats are talking to him as though he gives a crap about what they think, or about any Democratic nominee. They're hoping that he stays out and are using the same bootless appeals they made to him 4 years ago, when he sunk Gore. Pleading to this egomaniac is ridiculous and degrading. It's time to lay the smack down on this self-righteous jabroni. As Kerry would say, "Bring it on!"
Nader declared war on the Democratic Party 4 years ago. Does this sound like a harsh statement? Consider the following statement he made in an interview:
He made it clear that same year that he was hoping for a Bush victory: "If it were a choice between a provocateur and an anesthetizer, I'd rather have a provocateur. It would mobilize us."
Apparently, the party wasn't paying attention. In 2000 Ralph Nader embarked on a deeply amoral social experiment to grow his particular sect. He did it by campaigning to undermine Gore rather than campaigning to attract 5% of the vote - the much celebrated threshold for public funding. He was happy to see Gore go down. Of course, he's largely pissed away the next four years with the odd Larry King or CSPAN appearance, but clearly doesn't loom on the national radar. He's been moderately more visible than Lyndon Larouche.
If he does run - and appeals to his political conscience are doomed because he doesn't share the views of Democrats - he needs to be addressed for what he is. Gore wanted to ignore him and pretend that he would go away. He didn't and he actually thrived on the inattention. Whoever gets nominated needs to have the willingness to take him on and challenge him and ask how the country benefited from his self-righteous splinter campaign 4 years ago.
Nader supporters are, in my experience, used to dishing out about the rest of the spectrum, which they consider hopelessly immoral. They can't really take it though. Saint Ralph may walk among us, but he is exempt from blasphemous criticism from we flawed beings. Well if he runs, that's going to change.
He may or may not run and if he passes this up, it won't be because he's reconsidered his view of being the spoiler. If he does run, the Democrats will have a chance to finally come to grips with the truth that eluded them in 2000.
It's time the Democrats accepted the fact that there is a sectarian faction to their left that wants to see their demise. For starters, accepting fact is an intellectually healthy exercise. Secondly, it would be clarifying for them to really grasp what they're about. The cult of personality that Nader fostered around himself is anything but democratic, and his bitter rejection of coalition politics forever sets him out of the Democratic spectrum. The Democrats have always been a coalition party and probably always will be. Compromise may be a dirty word on the sectarian left, but it is a necessity for binding liberals and moderates together and for moving this country forward.
*I should add that Dean did one very good thing in his speech - deny any intention to run as a third party candidate and urge supporters not to back one. If he is willing, he could act to undermine any Nader candidacy. As this blog makes clear, I'm the furthest thing from a Dean fan, but he should get some credit for that.
Nader declared war on the Democratic Party 4 years ago. Does this sound like a harsh statement? Consider the following statement he made in an interview:
this is war on the two parties. After November we're going to go after the Congress in a very detailed way, district by district. We're going to beat them in every possible way. If [Democrats are] winning 51 to 49 percent, we're going to go in and beat them with Green votes. They've got to lose people, whether they're good or bad. They've got to lose people to be put under the intense choice of changing the party or watching it dwindle.
He made it clear that same year that he was hoping for a Bush victory: "If it were a choice between a provocateur and an anesthetizer, I'd rather have a provocateur. It would mobilize us."
Apparently, the party wasn't paying attention. In 2000 Ralph Nader embarked on a deeply amoral social experiment to grow his particular sect. He did it by campaigning to undermine Gore rather than campaigning to attract 5% of the vote - the much celebrated threshold for public funding. He was happy to see Gore go down. Of course, he's largely pissed away the next four years with the odd Larry King or CSPAN appearance, but clearly doesn't loom on the national radar. He's been moderately more visible than Lyndon Larouche.
If he does run - and appeals to his political conscience are doomed because he doesn't share the views of Democrats - he needs to be addressed for what he is. Gore wanted to ignore him and pretend that he would go away. He didn't and he actually thrived on the inattention. Whoever gets nominated needs to have the willingness to take him on and challenge him and ask how the country benefited from his self-righteous splinter campaign 4 years ago.
Nader supporters are, in my experience, used to dishing out about the rest of the spectrum, which they consider hopelessly immoral. They can't really take it though. Saint Ralph may walk among us, but he is exempt from blasphemous criticism from we flawed beings. Well if he runs, that's going to change.
He may or may not run and if he passes this up, it won't be because he's reconsidered his view of being the spoiler. If he does run, the Democrats will have a chance to finally come to grips with the truth that eluded them in 2000.
It's time the Democrats accepted the fact that there is a sectarian faction to their left that wants to see their demise. For starters, accepting fact is an intellectually healthy exercise. Secondly, it would be clarifying for them to really grasp what they're about. The cult of personality that Nader fostered around himself is anything but democratic, and his bitter rejection of coalition politics forever sets him out of the Democratic spectrum. The Democrats have always been a coalition party and probably always will be. Compromise may be a dirty word on the sectarian left, but it is a necessity for binding liberals and moderates together and for moving this country forward.
*I should add that Dean did one very good thing in his speech - deny any intention to run as a third party candidate and urge supporters not to back one. If he is willing, he could act to undermine any Nader candidacy. As this blog makes clear, I'm the furthest thing from a Dean fan, but he should get some credit for that.
