Well, it was sort of a joke.
Actually I agree that Nader deserves credit for taking a stand.
JMB
If Nader’s platform and rhetoric get any attention after the Democratic primaries, it will put pressure on the Democratic candidate to move to the Left to differentiate himself from the Republicans. So yes, his egocentrism aside, his presence in the race does help promote his principles.
Someone asked about Sharpton’s campaign being financed by Republicans… Al Sharpton’s campaign manager is Roger Stone, a right wing operative who has been portrayed as “being involved in every major Republican dirty tricks operation, starting with Watergate”.
There is a great expose about this in the Village Voice called “Sleeping With Republicans” by Wayne Barrett, if you are interested it is a really good piece. Basically Stone and GOP contributors are funding Sharpton’s campaign and keeping him in the race, and Sharpton has promised to disrupt the Democratic convention and wreak havoc on the party for allegedly ignoring issues important to black voters (or something like that). Roger Stone is supposedly using Sharpton to undercut the eventual Democratic nominee.
I try to stay out of political debates as I am an uninformed 20 year old kid, but I’m just a bit confused about all this. I would think that Ralph Nader is running for president to win the presidency, not to take away votes from the Democrats or give Bush votes. Many other people and I would vote for Nader not because they want to take away a Bush vote, not to take away a Democrat vote, but to give Nader a vote for the presidency. I just do not understand why people would assume that Nader is playing for Bush’s team in some big conspiracy to make sure Democrats don’t get the presidency. That just doesn’t make sense to me so could someone please explain it. Thanks.
StevenF, you are the man!!!
Lumpy, I forgot about Roger Stone. I did remember he gave to Sharpton, but I thought it was only like $4000 or maybe $10,000. Anyway, according to the values you seem to want us to believe you have, Sharpton’s alliance with Stone shouldn’t bother you very much at all. Here’s his motivation: Sharpton wants DELEGATES. In this way, he has more of a say on the Democratic platform in future elections. Stone’s motivation is to drive the Democrats to the Left (so the majority of Americans have less to agree upon with the Democrats, and Republicans can dominate the center). Sharpton also wants the party more to the Left. So do you, correct?
That was The New Yorker’s analysis way back when I read about Stone. Of course, Sharpton also likes to campaign across the country, staying at fancy hotels and being the center of attention. He has the luxury to spout the same tripe and demagoguery, whether he’s getting cash from his Left-wing flock as usual, or from Roger Stone. So in that sense, cash is a motivation. But of course, if hypocrisy really bothered you, you being balls-to-the-wall for Edwards now. Unlike SteveF, Lumpy, you’re a cynic. And incidentally, by backing Kerry, you’re also doing what Republicans want you to do.
Nader’s candidacy may even help Kerry in the eventual contest.
Allow me to explain. I’m thinking that most people who will eventually vote for Nader won’t vote if he’s not in the race – that or they’ll throw in with the Green Party or something. This isn’t 2000, and there aren’t nearly as many hard-left liberals willing to “vote their consciences” against the Clinton/Gore administration, which they saw as too centrist. Democrats will vote more strategically, which means for Kerry. The Nader vote will mostly be the loonies – kind of like Perot version 2.0.
However, the presence of a visible candidate on his left will allow Kerry to triangulate: “The radical left, embodied by Nader, wants such and such; Bush and the radical right want such and such – here I am in the Center.” This will allow him to deflect attention from his very liberal voting record in the Senate.
As for the Sharpton theory, that is silly. The Dems need to mobilize the black vote to have a chance at all. Sharpton keeps the black base motivated by continually bringing up certain hot-button issues, such as the idea that blacks were purposefully disenfranchised in Florida in 2000. Without him, the black vote will almost surely not mobilize like it did in 2000, which was largely a function of the carry-over of Clinton’s personal popularity with the black community (which Kerry does not share).
BB, I disagree. There are two problems if Kerry uses Nader to stake himself in “the center”:
(1) He risks fulfilling Nader’s charge of pandering and being part of the political machine. If any Democrat raises these suspicions, it’s Kerry.
(2) On the hot-button issues, Bush is already in the center. Anything he does that’s extreme right happens off to the sidelines. The best Kerry can do is say he agrees with President Bush, which is going to make him look like a man without his own vision or gumption. Note that agreeing with the President is not what’s taken Kerry this far.
Brian:
True. But it all depends on how the media plays it. If they are dissing Nader and Bush, Kerry can triangulate much more effectively. Remember, he’s triangulating to the middle, not the people to whom Nader is catering.
But that’s just one possibility, and not necessarily a good one.
Anyway, here’s Gregg Eaterbrook’s take on Nader, which I think is generally apt:
RALPH NADER, REACTIONARY: Someone “characterized by opposition to progress or liberalism.” That’s how my dictionary defines “reactionary,” and what else to call Ralph Nader at this point? His decision to run for president can have two possible effects: He can be ignored, or he can help reelect George W. Bush. Presumably it is not Nader’s goal to be ignored, so his goal must be to keep Bush in office, thereby thwarting liberalism or progressive ideas.
Most are assuming the reason Nader is launching a second token candidacy is vanity, and vanity does seem involved. But vanity motivates many politicians, thus some other factor may be at work. Unless Nader is irrational–and surely he is not–he understands that the sole possible impact he can have on the campaign is to reelect the president. We must therefore conclude that Nader wants Bush reelected–because that would be good for Ralph Nader. If Republicans retain the reigns, Nader can continue to wear his Saint Ralph robes and endlessly praise himself as the only virtuous person in Washington. Life is good for Saint Ralph when there is a conservative in the White House: There’s more to denounce, claims of secret corporate conspiracies will fool more people, and, above all else, Nader can cling to his self-delusion of being the only virtuous person in Washington.
An entire generation grew up admiring Ralph Nader, and now Nader seems determined, in his dotage, to convince that generation they were wrong and that their hero is just another self-serving cynical opportunist. At least Nader is still being honest.
Great post, BB. That’s probably the most plausible explanation I’ve seen yet. It makes almost as much sense as my theory of a payoff from the Republicats.
Either way I strongly disagree with any contention that he is running with the intent or hope of being elected or of somehow making a difference (other than the obvious one of helping bushleague). “Saint Ralph” is nowhere near as ultruistic as he’d like his followers to believe. In the end it’s all about what’s best for Ralph, and only Ralph, that counts.
tme, suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome writes:
“That’s probably the most plausible explanation I’ve seen yet. It makes almost as much sense as my theory of a payoff from the Republicats.”
Priceless, tme. Or maybe not “priceless.” Your conspiracy theory is so patently ridiculous, it makes me wonder whether you’re on the payroll of the Republicans…
Yep, you got me Brian. The RNC pays me pretty well to make this stuff sound rediculous enough so that no one will believe it.
If we tried to lie about it or cover it up no one would believe us, there would be investigations and a whole big “Nadergate” thing. So we tell the truth, but it sounds so rediculously farfetched that they don’t believe that either. Funny how that works.