Nader: It is "censorship" to say "I shouldn't run"
I realized today just how angry I remain at Ralph Nader, former hero of mine, while listening to him on NPR today. Apparently, Mr. Nader is considering another run for president. When pressed quite effectively by Melissa Block to respond to the many many many who are begging him not to run, including the Nation, Mr. Nader responded that such a request was "censorship."
This man is truly outrageous. The only thing a Nader candidacy would do is increase the chance that Bush will be reelected. This man has become unsafe -- to himself, and to the nation. If he has friends, they should be his friend and stop him from this.
Which got me thinking: If you believe that but for Nader's not withdrawing in the last moments before the 2000 election, Bush would not have been elected (which is true), and you believe that a Bush presidency has caused great harm -- to the nation, to the environment, and to the families of soldiers lost in Iraq (which is also true), then which has been more harmful to society: The Corvair or its enemy?
And what would we say of a car company that released a Corvair again?
And oh, by the way, is it "censorship" to say you should not run, Mr. Nader? No, it is not. It is asking you to do what you have asked corporate America to do for your whole life -- take responsibility for the consequences of your actions. When I hear you explain why you did not cause the election of George Bush, you sound like a tobacco executive. And when you increase the risk of a second term for President Bush, you are behaving worse than an auto executive from the 1960s -- the harm will be the same, but at least profit is taxed.
| Permalink | technorati
Comments (69)
True..Nader's candidacy might reelect Bush again...something that this world can live without...how about giving him a disincentive to contest or a incentive from the Dems.
I thought almost the same exact things when I heard Ralph on my way to dinner tonight. Amazing how he missed the irony in arguing that the Nation and others were attempting censorship by asking him to use some prudence in his application of his first amendment rights (and thereby chastising them for exercising thier first amendment rights).
I think the 2 biggest lies repeated by today's media are:
1. Record companies are making lower profits because of illegal music via the internet.
2. Nader caused Gore to lose.
I personally only know of 2 people who voted for Nader in 2000. I was one of them. Neither of us would have voted for Gore if we had not voted for Nader. That's right, amazingly enough, that myth you hear tossed around as fact (by people like you, I am saddened to see) is simply not true. A vote for Nader was not simply a vote stolen from Gore. I would have voted Bush and so would the other person I know of who voted for Nader.
Please, don't bother showing me statistics and exit polls and whatever else you feel like warping to use against my facts. I do not think Bush would have won if every vote cast was counted but I KNOW that my vote for Nader would not have been cast for Gore under any circumstances.
Please, Nader is responsible for Bush? Gore deserves most of the credit for that, for being a weak and ineffective opponent, for being unwilling to point out what a horrible, horrible choice Bush is for this country. Bush's effectiveness as a bad president was unexpected, but his lack of personal integrity and his alignment with the wealthy and disalignment with the good of this nation and world was obvious. Nader didn't drop the ball, Gore did.
But certainly Gore wasn't the only one at fault. The media lied incessantly about Gore, whether through conspiracy or because they were too easily influenced by right wing conspirators who had their ear. And it's hard not to see conspiracy in the lies about Gore -- insubstantial as they were, they still attacked his character effectively (saying that he claimed to have invented the internet, etc). And there's the election fraud in Florida -- not the hanging chads, but the gross denial of voting rights for black people in that state. And Gore wimped out *again* on that count, which is disgraceful for more reasons than merely the outcome of the election.
Gore and the Democratic establishment fucked up, and I still don't know if they learned anything from it. Now it looks like Kerry will run, and I seriously fear he will lead as ineffective a campaign as Gore (when you are up against liars and thieves, running a "positive" campaign is unacceptable).
People are trying to give Nader, and by association all third party politics in the US, the full blame for Bush. That's bullshit, and Nader can't accept that. Unlike some who have flirted with third parties, he actually has the integrity to stand by his beliefs and stand by his party. Part of that is refusing to accept this blame, no matter how persistently liberals try to place it on him and on the Greens. Half-hearted liberals -- not the committed left -- are to blame for Bush's win.
And despite that, Bush and the neo-conservatives are to blame for what they in turn do, not the liberals. It's disingenuous to blame people for every indirect consequence of their actions. People should take responsibility for their actions, not for other people's reactions. Nader made an honest attempt to participate in democracy. It was democracy that failed.
I couldn't agree with you more.
Many straws go into breaking a camel's back. And each individual straw can say:
"Who me? Wasn't me. I'm just one straw! What sort of a big strong camel is this, if he can't deal with one more straw on his back? The solution is to get a better camel!"
Media smears such as the Al Gore "invented the Internet" fabrication were one straw. ChoicePoint was another straw. And Ralph Nader was yet another straw.
In collective action, how do you allocate responsibility for the end result?
It's certainly true that *some* Nader voters wouldn't be Gore voters, or voters at all. But I think it strains credibility to argue that overall, Nader voters would prefer Bush over Gore!
Your right Larry. I liked Nader once too, but this just makes me ill. After everything we've suffered over the last 3 years under Bush makes Nader's behavior even more obnoxious. What a narcisstic ass.
Well the good thing is even though some people are stupid enough to believe Janet's flash was an accident, most people are not really stupid. And they don't like to be fooled twice.
In future when 5 guys try to control 200 airline passengers with box cutters they will not find it so easy to fly the planes into buildings. The best the hijackers can hope for is the Flight 93 scenario.
If Ralph runs again it won't matter because he will get a fraction of the votes he got last time.
There's something fundamentally wrong with the way our democracy works when the best solution for that democracy is for fewer candidates to stand for election, don't you think?
In case it matters: I think that Gore would won by a greater margin and indeed would have taken office if Nader had dropped out that the last minute. However, Nader is not responsible for Bush. Corruption, apathy, Bush, and Democratic impotence are responsible for Bush.
So, sirshannon doesn't want anyone to quote exit polls or statistics because that would be "warping" his "facts" but it's quite OK to accept his stats with a sample size of... how many was it? Oh, 2.
Excellent.
Is Nader really to blame for producing a Bush Presidency? I'd say the Republicans are to blame producing a Bush candidacy.
I think that if Nader sees something wrong, and doesn't see any worthwhile candidates among the alternatives, he should run (if he wants). Perhaps not running would be a good strategic calculation on his part, but that's up to him. This is the problem with the popular approach to politics: we never get the good guys because we keep turfing them out in favour of whoever we think can beat the other guy that we can't stand.
This is what is so frustrating about the ongoing Democratic primaries. There is Dean, with great original ideas and ethics. For the first time in my life I can believe in a politician. But instead everyone (particularly the DNC) wants get behind Kerry. Kerry who supported the war on Iraq (now claiming he's anti-war) and hasn't really been a Democrat for the past four years. The Dems should be turfed out of congress wholesale this year. They've been going along with everything Bush wants from Iraq to tax cuts to the Patriot Act. At some point they have to learn that they can’t just behave like pushovers and then expect to get re-elected “because the alternative is worse.” Would the world really be any worse off if there hadn't been any Democrats in congress for the past four years? I doubt it. Perhaps in the sense that democracy doesn't work if there are no opposition parties then we still need the Dems. But they haven't really been an opposition party.
In the end, we're all to blame for letting this happen.
Well, I'm fairly conservative, so I can't agree with you that Bush has done harm, etc.
But neither can I agree with you that just because you want Bush out you should not support Nader's freedom to run. You know, I don't like either of these parties and the reason they are so horrible is because we're all stuck in a local minimum here. Everyone just thinks about getting the other party out, which prevents the introduction of any better platforms or candidates.
I personally think that exit polls should be outlawed, and debates should be open to every runner in an elimination scheme... We need more parties and candidates. It can only benefit our country in the long run. I'm amazed how many people including myself are now effectively disenfranchised because of this problem... This is just about the only really horrible problem I see with this country right now, besides the woeful state of the schools...
I'm amazed that Progressives are so easily convinced to believe such nonsence. Nader is a progressive candidate and he should be supported. That your country doesn't have a true Democracy is your problem, not Nader. That your country doesn't have the guts or brains to support a true progressive candidate is your problem, not Nader. If a progressive running for office is a bad thing, what's the point of Democracy? Why not do away with voting completely and campain for perpetual Democratic Party Dictatorship then? A One Party USA! Even that wouldn't work, because then people would blame Kucinich for sabotaging Dean or Dean for sabotaging Edwards. The slippery slope of "Strategic Voting" leads to the Totalitarianism of the Lesser Evil. Blaming Nader for the crimes of Bush is rediculous, Nader ran *against* Bush, and both he and his supporters promote quite different policies, blaming them for policies they are pationately against is down right stupid and offensive. This is sloppy thinking of the worst kind. By the way, more people died in the Democrat's war against Yugoslavia than from the Corsair too, and even more people die or face oppression keeping Billionaires like Bush and Kerry rich and American consumer goods cheap. I'm quite shocked to find such reactionary bunk here.
"When I hear you explain why you did not cause the election of George Bush, you sound like a tobacco executive."
You must still be mad that Bush won the election in 2000. It was not Nader's fault that Gore lost. It was Gore's fault. I would have voted for Gore in 2000 had he represented the people (like myself) rather than the interests of big business. He didn't, so I voted for Nader. How's that Nader's fault?
Besides, I probably wouldn't have voted for Gore even if Nader didn't run in 2000.
I do, however, agree that Nader running now would be a bad idea. The main objective should be to get Bush out of D.C.
Add to that another myth: the Corvair was a horribly dangerous car with a fundamentally flawed design.
Actually, after the firestorm was over, GM fixed the problems with the suspension, and late model Corvairs are desired collectors items today. Did the auto industry need a wake-up call on not sweeping safety problems under the rug? Yes. Was it worth closing off all rear-engine design development, basically forever, to achieve that wake-up call? Seeing what happened to the US auto industry in the 1970s and 1980s makes the answer to that question not quite so clear.
Cranky
This was a very revealing interview.
I encourage people to listen to the NPR interview for themselves. Go to:
http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgDate=04-Feb-2004&prgId=2
Scroll down about 2/3 of the page to find the Nader interview.
After listening to Mr. Nader, my own belief is that he is so personally wrapped up in the issue that he will not make a rational decision based on what's best for his constituency. Furthermore, after hearing the way he spoke, I believe that the more his real friends try to convince him not to run, the more that will actually goad him on.
Listen to him in his own words and decide for yourself.
I wonder what Karl Rove thought when he heard it?
Nader might as well be on the payroll of the RNC. This isn't just about his out of control ego, the Greens also bear responsibility -- naïveté run amuck. Mature third parties in New York, for example, and elsewhere in the world have influence when they concentrate (1) on being selective about the elections in which they compete and (2) on maximizing the value of their endorsement for other elections. The Greens have not yet shown they're a mature third party.
To the Nader cheerleaders: before you can change policy you need to win elections. That idealism of yours just boggles the mind. Was it so much for Nader to compromise a little and endorse Gore? Look at what happened with GWB. I am not looking forward to 4 more years in the United States of Halliburton.
sirshannon: I just don't buy your story. Period. Bush doesn't have ONE policy in common with Nader. Quit your BS.
Should abolitionist candidates in the early 19th century not have run because they hurt mainstream Republican candidates' chances in close races? Should gay-rights candidates in the 21st century not run in elections if they compete with mainstream democrats? I'm sorry, Professor - the two-party machine needs competition. Over time, it hurts Dems and Republicans - but third-party candidates' voices should not be less important than the desire of the parties to stick the public with only two choices. Especially when both choices are fattened by money from powerful lobbies, especially when neither is much different from the other, especially when both are the product of a system that is uninterested in human dignity or social justice.
And by the way, Lincoln would not have become President, ended slavery and won the war were it not for a third-party candidate (John Breckinridge) in 1860 that lost the election for Democrat nominee Stephen Douglas.
In counterpoint, look what happened to personal privacy and copyright issues under the Clinton administration: big business got exactly what it wanted, and the "we'll shut up and vote for the Democratic candidate, then put the issuse back on the table after the election" faction got totally screwed over. I can easily see the same thing happening with Kerry - his statements on copyright and the RIAA are doubleplusungood.
I guess I would throw out this proposition: if it isn't on the table and discussed openly during the campaign, it isn't going to happen during the administration. And in the process of "rolling to the center", any hopes that those on the edges have will be rolled right over.
Cranky
PS To paraphrase Princess Bride, I don't think the HTML parser on this blog does what its designer thinks it does. Try using the P tag, particularly after a BLOCKQUOTE, and see what happens.
Lawrence, I'm dissapointed with your position on this.
If you're gonna blame someone, blame the 300,000 democrats
in Florida who voted for Bush in 2000.
"Al From, chair of the Democratic Leadership Council, wrote in
Blueprint Magazine (1-24-01) that according to their own exit polls,
Bush would have beat Gore by one percentage point if Nader
hadn’t run in 2000."
see http://www.gpus.org/organize/spoiled.html
I voted for Nader. If Nader had not run, I would have voted for Bush. I really disliked Gore, for a variety of reasons. I realize my vote was not the normal vote for Nader, but be careful about your assumptions about the ignorance of voters. Nader's platform was not "Gore amplified" as your post suggests. I'm happy he ran and I'm happy I voted for him.
Nader did not destroy Al Gore's chances of winning the presidency in 2000. Al Gore screwed himself over. He ran a lousy, focus-group-obsessed, bland and uninteresting campaign to begin with, and refused the campaign assistance of a fairly popular (despite scandals) sitting president. When he realized voters were defecting to Nader, he did not respond to this in an effective political fashion; he threw tantrums and his supporters attempted to bully, intimidate and terrorize (harsh words, perhaps, but the essence of the actions) Nader's supporters into jumping ship. (At the time most of this was wailing about Bush naming Supreme Court Justices and the demise of Roe v. Wade. The point, of course, is that the voting public did not know what would happen on September 11, 2001, and did not know what kind of consequences the event would stir up. Hindsight may be 20/20, but predicting the future remains an uncertain occupation. )
The effective, politically intelligent thing to do about Nader in 2000 would have been to find out why people were jumping ship from the Democrats, and absorb as much of what Nader was doing *right* as possible. In other words, Gore should have stolen Nader's message. Many Nader voters would not have voted for Gore anyway - possibly because not all Nader voters were escaped Democrats. But there were quite a few who were for Nader because he represented what they wanted out of a candidate, and if Gore had successfully stolen Nader's message, they would likely have gone over to him.
Florida was another issue, one that . Elian Gonzales (Miami, in particular, has an immense Cuban ex-pat community), Jeb Bush, Kathryn Harris, disenfranchised black voters, badly-maintained voting machines and butterfly ballots.
The final straw, of course, was the Supreme Court and the Electoral College.
And I would like to address a final point. Nader did not steal any votes from Gore. The only vote Gore possessed was his own; everyone else's votes he had to earn, by convincing the holders of those votes he was the best man for the job.
It's clear that their are serious flaws in our electoral system, but ironically the only way to fix them would be to convince the very parties that benefit from them, to change them.
Under a parliamentary system, if the Democrats wanted to really capture the liberal vote, they would have to band together with third parties (such as the Greens) and offer something more substantive than doubletalk in their run for office. And they would be held to those substantive promises once elected, or face losing their coalition-based majority. It would end the era of leftist (or rightist) drum-beating during the primary season followed by a race to the middle come the election.
What the Nader factor should have done was to demonstrate a painful lesson to the Democratic party: those of us on the left feel betrayed, abandoned, and utterly unrepresented.
I refuse to turn the act of voting into a choice between the lesser of two evils. That's exactly what the 2000 elections appeared to be, and I pray that the 2004 elections will be different.
Well, I voted for Nader in 2000, but he didn't "steal" my vote from either
of the major candidates. If either major candidate had made a compelling
case for their presidency, I would have voted for them. I'm sure
that's true for many of the much larger pool of people, who rather than
voting for Nader, Buchanan,
Gore, *or* Bush, simply stayed home and didn't bother
to vote. Somehow, though, they get much less flak than the Nader
voters did.
You might as well blame Gore's loss on the Worker's World Party
(who also got significantly more votes in Florida than the official
margin of Bush over Gore in that state) as blame it on Nader. The
fact is, Gore ran a bad campaign, and he should be first in any
line of blame for his loss.
While I don't regret my vote in 2000, I don't plan on voting Nader
again in 2004, because this time there is a clear advantage to any of
the major Democratic candidates over Bush, based on his track
record, even though Kerry, now the presumed front-runner,
disappoints me in a number of respects. And I do think Nader
has lost it if he really claims that saying campaigning or saying
something isn't a good idea is the same thing as censoring that campaign
or speech.
If he wants to run, that's his business, and he's
entitled to whatever votes he earns. They just won't include my vote
this time around, and I don't think he deserves to earn many others.
I think it's anti democratic to say that Nader shouldn't run and I think it is censorship. The real reason Gore didn't win, and the reason Bush will win again against someone like Kerry, is that they are too close to republicans (or republicans are too close to democrats). Nader has different ideas. Someone that agrees with Nader, shouldn't agree with Gore. Agreeing with Gore is very close to agreeing with Bush.
Nader didn't make Gore lose the 2000 elections... Gore lost that all by himself...
Let Nader run. he has a right to do so. Win the election by being better than the opposition, not less worse...
Not to mention (a) Gore's inability to carry his home state (b) Gore's failure to sit down no later than that Thursday night and sign a letter to all 100 county election officials formally requesting a full recount.
Cranky Observer
Petronius Arbiter, I am a lot of things but "liar" is not one of them. I voted for Nader. If Nader had not been an option, I would have voted for Bush. That is the truth and the truth doesn't care what you think.
I wouldn't vote for Bush now because he now has a record I dislike (as Gore did 4 years ago). I refuse to cast a vote due to "electability" or "lesser of evils", I voted for the person I thought was the best man running for the office: Ralph Nader. I will not be voting for him in the next election regardless of his decision to run. But none of this has anything to do with the misrepresentation of Nader votes as being stolen from Gore.
I have a problem with blaming Nader for Bush's victory (or more acurately Gore's loss). If democracy in the United States has been interminablly reduced to the choice of two candidates than we're losing something that I hold dear. What we're actually talking about here is blaming Nader for is being a good third party candidate! How dare someone run on a third party ticket and *gasp* actually appeal to voters!
If we want to blame someone for letting Bush get elected how about blaming roughly half the eligible voters for not bothering to vote and Gore for not mobilizing those voters. Gore took votes for granted and didn't bother trying to earn them back from Nader's supporters. He did not deserve those votes by default.
Blaming Nader is a cop out, it's an understandable one because it's easy, but in the end I don't think it is valid.
Ok, so we have 90,000 registered Democrats who had their voting rights stripped by a Republican governor at the Florida tax payer's expense (Greg Palast's Best Democracy Money Can Buy). But of course in the Democratic mind, the ideals of white males far out weigh the rights of poor and mostly minority peoples. Democrats have been ignoring and marginalizing their own base for decades. The chickens have come home to roost.
Next we have 300,000 Democrats who actually voted for Bush. We also have a Democratic candidate who couldn't convince half the voting population to even show up in addition to not even inspiring his own party to show up. Then we have a repeated Democratic disaster in 2002- without Nader even.
If Democrats don't want to do the work and don't want to fight and further more don't even want to earn the votes of progressives, how is this Nader's fault? I'm going to agree with about accepting personal responsibility. Lets get some of that from the DNC and the local parties first .
It's is phenomenally näive for you to think Nader lost the election for Gore. You're wrongly assuming that Nader voters would have voted for Gore in his stead. Where do you get off saying who can and cannot run for president? Newsflash: 100s of people run for the presidency each cycle. Should they not run either, since they don't clear your definition of candidacy? Well, your way of telling them they're not fit in your mind is by not voting for them. Get off your high horse.
I am an independent who voted and campaigned for Nader in 2000 so that the Greens would clear 5% of the vote and qualify for federal funds. My intent was to break the duopoly hold on American politics, which can be done in no other fashion. Having two parties is hardly democracy in action, and we're practically the only "Western" nation to have just two. It's atrocious.
What would have gotten Gore into office? Well, no voter tampering, no Supreme Court interference, perhaps the passion he showed in 2003 speeches? It's a shame he woke up only after it counted.
What would have really helped? Preferential voting. The current voting system encouraged censorship and slandering of candidates, like you're attempting here. If we had preferential voting, people who voted for Nader, but also though Gore would be better than Bush, could state that. Only in our broken system can the clear majority vote for a (more) progressive President, and receive George the Second. This is one of Nader's biggest issues: voting reform.
Wake up people, it's not the candidates that are broken, it's the system.
FWIW, I wrote Nader last year to tell him that I am supporting Howard Dean in 2004, and that he, too should get involved with the grassroots efforts. There are many Greens and Green-leaning independents (like myself) for Dean, since he is socially and environmentally progressive, yet financially responsible, with results to prove it.
You must still be mad that Bush won the election in 2000.
As others have pointed out, the only election he appears to have won is the one held among the nine Supreme Court Justices.
I'm with those who believe much of Gore's defeat is Gore's fault--not only losing his home state, but also the traditional Democrat stronghold of West Virginia, among other key states. I think a reasonable argument could be made that Nader votes tipped the balance in Bush's favor in New Hampshire; although it also seems possible that some of those votes were from green conservatives who might otherwise have voted for Bush anyway, one suspects the majority identified as progressive. BUT...blaming Nader loud and long in my opinion does too much to distract from the real problem of the 2000 election: the irregularities in the Florida process without which, most analysts seem to agree, Gore would have squeaked by in a narrow but clean victory.
Yelling at Nader is easy; it also absolves us all from holding the political machine that ramrodded Bush's victory in Florida accountable for their actions. Instead "we" "came together" for "the good of the country," supporting a president who strongarmed his way into the Oval Office because Gore didn't have enough fight in him to stand up for what was right.
I don't believe Nader should run this year, not because I think he gave us Bush, but because I don't believe he is capable of running on the issues anymore. Any campaign will be turned into a referendum on Nader qua Nader by disgruntled liberals and a media that's all too happy to present politics as personality clash rather than substantive policy debate. Although he certainly has the right to run again, as a pragmatic matter I feel his activism would be more effective if channeled into other directions.
The real issue here is whether or not voting should be seen as an expression of political ideals, or treated as a tactical decision. When I think about who to vote for, should I ask myself, "which candidate shares my ideals?" Or should I ask, "which vote would be best for the country I live it?" I didn't cast a vote for president in 2000 because I felt at the time that there were no acceptable candidates, from an ideological perspective. Had I voted, it would have been for Nader. In retrospect, this was immature: Bush has violated every ideal I hold, and it was obvious at the time of the election that he would do so, though perhaps not to what extent. Was avoiding the dirty feeling I'd have felt had I voted for Gore worth four years of a Bush presidency? I think not; I think that sometimes the ethical thing to do isn't the same as publically proclaiming one's ideals and letting the bad guy win.
I face a similar dilemma this time around. When the Senate voted to abandon responsibility and hand Bush the authority to invade Iraq, I swore to myself I'd never vote for any of the dirty scum Democrats who'd voted in favor. Now it seems that one of them will be the only chance we have to unseat Bush.
The moral of the story, from my point of view? My moral indignation is less important that who lives and dies, how the money of the richest nation in the world is spent, and what freedoms I and my fellow citizens lose. And I probably ought to stop swearing to myself; it just makes it feel worse when voting for that dirty scum becomes the ethical thing to do.
As for Nader -- sure, he has the right to vote. And he ought not to. Standing up for what you believe in isn't always right -- not when doing so is likely to bolster the worst of your opponents, and not when the lives of real flesh-and-blood people are at stake. If Nader runs, the bulk of his victims will be those same downtrodden people we bleeding-heart liberals are always concerned with helping.
Candidates only get the support of the central party if the party knows that the candidate will put it's priorities in front of the country's (and I'm sure each party will say it's interests are those of the country - ha!). Gerrymandering has guaranteed that the election in your district (congressional) will not be a surprise. The controlling party has decided who will represent you - you only go to the polls to legitimize the process. As long as we discard all votes but for the winning candidate - our system will be binary. And that doesn't represent us well at all.
Keith
I would have no problem with Nader running if he actually had any intention of governing or any sort of plan on how to do so. His presidential campaign in 2000 sold out thousands of his idealistic supporters who really wanted to make a difference, but in the end, only helped Nader's onanistic and narcissistic drive for attention and self-promotion.
I don't think that asking him not to mount another vanity campaign is censorship, it's asking him to behave like an adult and responsible citizen. He has no intention of or ability to govern, and nothing to offer this country in the form of leadership.
Whether or not he helped BushCo win the election is immaterial- his motives for running are where the problems lie.
Nader has a right to run for president, and there are many people who would vote for him should he do so. It is simply not reasonable to ask him to stay out of the race.
Mr. Lessig, will you be so kind as to inform other parties when they may have the privilege of running candidates? And will you share your insight with Al From, co-founder of the Democratic Leadership Council, who noted that
So, for you, Mr. Lessig, having a choice on the ballot that might force the Democrats to compete on the issues is comparable to releasing a dangerous car. The two-party system must not be disturbed, no matter what it brings us? I think a false dichotomy is the real danger on these roads.
Larry Lessig and the rest of the world finds out a little more about who the readers of his blog are, to which I can only say: Go Ralph Nader!
I guess what I find truly sad about the state of U.S. politics is that in the 18 years that I have been an eligible voter in this country I have not once voted for a candidate for president that I really wanted to win. In each and every election I've voted for the Democratic candidate simply because I didn't want the Republican candidate to take the election. Never because I felt like the Dem. was the person that I really wanted in the job.
Consider for a moment the issue of gay marriage, something I very strongly support. So far not a single candidate that the Democrats have offered up has been in support of gay marriages. A few have given nods to civil unions but, unless we learned nothing from Brown v. Board of Ed. separate but equal just doesn't work.
Now, I'm not saying that I think Nader would have been able to make that change. What I am saying is that the reason that we see such close elections is that everyone is playing to the middle and no one is really willing to talk about change.
If you want to make a list of things that caused Gore to lose the election please include:
Colin, "So far not a single candidate that the Democrats have offered up has been in support of gay marriages." is untrue. From his issues page on "gay rights":
This sounds like fully equal marriage rights for homosexuals to me. Kucinich has publicly cited the inequity as a civil rights issue, which strikes me as a proper way to frame the issue. If taken on the issues and crowd response, Kucinich was the clear winner (possibly sharing that with Sharpton) at the HRC debate hosted by Sam Donaldson of ABC. You should read the websites of the candidates before you make statements like that, or back up your claim with something from a candidate's voting record to contradict what they claim on their platform.
Correction: this is the "gay rights" page from which I copied the quote.
I voted for Nader last time and I would vote for him again. No, I would not have voted for Gore, and no, I will not vote for Kerry. As bad as Bush is, it is wrong wrong wrong for Democrat apologists such as yourself to continue whining and crying about how your victory party was spoiled. Time for the Democrats to own up and just admit that they have shunned their progressive base.
It is the "defeat Bush at all costs" mantra that is allowing the Democratic party to slip further and further to the right... which allows the Republicans to do do the same. We are four years overdue. We deserve statesmen over politicians, philanthropists over war hawks, social reformers over board members.
I wrote about Nader a while ago, and why he shouldn't be blamed for Bush, you can read my post here.
Does anybody else remember 1998-2000? "Eco-terrorists"? Arrests of activists in Philadelphia for posession of weapons of mass free speech? Environmentalists stopped at the border? Seattle?
Really, it amazes me how short-sighted we are. While the Bush administration gets criticized for FBI investigation of activist groups, the FBI was allready collecting information on activists and sharing it with foreign law enforcement in 1999. The foreign press was reporting that the US was killing environmental treaties under a pile of red tape and unreasonable consessions in summer 2000. Clinton charged headlong into a trade war over what standards should be used for judging the safety of GMOs and chemical products.
I believe the original issue was whether or not it was "censorship" for one to discourage Ralph Nader from running. I completely agree with Prof. Lessig that Mr. Nader's comment was off-base, and I think that the point was well stated in the original post. When one private citizen asks another to sit down and shut up, it's not censorship.
I suppose that the rest of the post invited the above rants, so I'll add my voice to those who say that Nader is entitled to run for president and shouldn't be held responsible for Bush winning the 2000 election. It's rather arrogant to hold a political candidate responsible for the voting behavior of others. If people are really the type automaton sheep that such an assertion implies, why not prop up some rabid conservative to run for president and split the Bush vote. Further, as nearly everyone else on this post has said, if Al Gore wasn't such a horrible candidate, Nader would be completely irrelevant, more so than Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, and every other third-party candidate who has ever tossed a hat into the ring. If Bush is as horrible as you think he is, then the 2004 election shouldn't even be close.
Both the GOP and the Democrats have given us just cause to hate them and their candidates. And yet, I find the hatred of Bush, as evidenced in these columns, and in many of the responses, to be bordering on the pathological. I have questions about voting for W again in 2004 -- grave reservations. But one thing that spurs me on is the irrational seething hatred of the man. It almost insures my support of him in 2004, because I think your hatred is so off-the-wall and wrong-headed.
Bush is the first man in a long time willing to take charge and use the military for its intended purpose, to kill people and break things in defense of our country. Iraq was a state supporting terrorism. Its proven connections to Al-Qaeda grow every day as more evidence in Iraq is exhumed and examined. It exists no longer, and its evil ruler is staring at four walls of a prison cell, soon to be tried for his crimes. We have frightened other regimes into sensibility -- Libya, Pakistan, and so on. (If we keep it up, maybe even France will start acting as a responsible player on the world stage. Ha!) The thing that Bush should be most praised for is the thing the haters attack him for.
Bush's faults lay on the domestic side. But there, the Democrats, in thrall to their own special interests, cannot offer a credible alternative.
There are people here who just don't want the truth to be heard. Nader will speak dirty truths about both parties. So, at the heart of it, he really is correct that a desire for him not to run is a desire for censorship, for stifling and sweeping under the rug those nasty facts about the Democrats that the Bush-haters don't want the public to be reminded of.
It is a sin to hate. Rock on, Ralph Nader!
Well, this may be off topic… But I’ve had a Chevy Corvair. My very first car was a black 1963 Covair convertible with the ‘flash on the dash!’ I can say that it was a beastly vehicle until, with the help of my father; I spent a weekend installing suspension components that were not included in the original design. Then it was a fun, well mannered and relatively inexpensive car. The pity is Chevrolet chose to leave these parts off as a cost cutting measure and it honestly severely affected the handling of the car. I’ve never read the book, and as a teenager bore Nader no small resentment. The truth is, however, Chevrolet should have spent what I have been told was between 20 and 50 1960’s era dollars to make the car safe. But I have always thought that the Corvair got the black eye when it should have been Chevrolet.
Now that I’m older and have a fulltime job I’m not sure I’d buy a 2004 Corvair given the opportunity. I’d be to afraid current automobile regulations would ruin it sort of like the newer VW bug. The irony, though, is somewhat amusing.
If Nader doesn't run, I hope another viable 3rd party candidate does just in case Kerry gets the Democratic nomination. I'd rather use my vote to help break the deadlock of the 2-party system than to vote for a business-as-usual politician.
Look, we don't even have to get to the issue of whether Nader caused Gore to lose.
We only have to consider two things:
1) Many Nader voters, and Nader himself, said the main reason to vote for him was a "strategic vote", to punish the Democratic Party and force it to pay attention to its left. So for one, any Nader voter who now says it's not about strategic voting is basically just a liar. Or someone who didn't pay attention the first time around. As an extra bonus, both Nader voters and Ralph himself are anywhere from mildly to massively stupid in their calculation of such "strategic voting", e.g., in their evaluation of what would happen if the Democrats did in fact shift towards a Naderite base. Howard Dean, in fact, is finding that out right now: the fact is that base is small and however enthusiastic, cannot carry a general election without pleasing some other faction or voting bloc as well.
2) The only thing we really need to talk about with Ralph Nader is this: would you want him to be President? Seriously want him above all other people to be President? Seriously want one of the most humorless, self-involved, puritanical, politically hamfisted individuals in the history of the last 40 years to be President of the United States? If the answer is yes, then God bless you, and please be sure to let me know if you're in my neighborhood so I can keep an eye on you and make sure you don't harm yourself or anyone else I know while you are. If not, we're back to strategic voting again--or more sensibly, we're back to regarding a Nader candidacy as a Bad Idea. Not because of whether he cost anyone the election last time, but because he would make one of the worst Presidents imaginable on his own solitary merits or lack thereof--not because of his politics (which are debatable, but at least so) but because of his staggering lack of meaningful qualifications and appropriate talents.
Many Nader voters, and Nader himself, said the main reason to vote for him was a “strategic vote”, to punish the Democratic Party and force it to pay attention to its left. So for one, any Nader voter who now says it’s not about strategic voting is basically just a liar.
your logic is impeccable. many = all. nice.
If the answer is yes, then God bless you, and please be sure to let me know if you’re in my neighborhood so I can keep an eye on you and make sure you don’t harm yourself or anyone else I know while you are.
and ... now you've completely discredited anything you have to say. congrats! it's not easy to come off as a complete jackass in only 2 paragraphs.
you're one of those people who make me hope that Bush wins again (unfortunately, those thousands of victims in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere convince me otherwise). i'm still not voting for Kerry, though, or any Democrat.
is this guy a tool of the RNC too? Mr. Ockerboom (sp?) is spot on about the Workers World Party. damn those spoilers!
yes, the real problem is the electoral system. the Democrats and the Republicans will never do anything to fix it. why vote for them?
There was a significant reason to vote for Nader in 2000--to qualify for federal election funds. Eventually people are going to wake up and realize that the Green Party platform is sensible and viable. I mean, read it. Very beneficial for the people and community. Can't say the same for Gore, or Kerry for that matter. It's just Business As Usual. Of course without the lunacy
*sigh*
I'm disappointed. For one of the few able to discourse rationally about most anything, Professor Lessig shows his lawyer's bias here, I think. He argues the causality of Nadar's campaign in Gore's loss the way an ambulance-chaser would use ``but-for'' to show negligence. And he is wrong.
It is nearsighted to say that Nadar should not run because it increases the chances Bush will be reelected. And it makes little sense, besides; a friend of mine argued the same way that it is irresponsible of Dean to run, for fear he'll draw support from Kerry, who, my friend contends, is the one most likely to beat Bush. For that matter, is it not, then, irresponsible of all the other contenders to run, since they clutter the field with needless competition when the true enemy is Bush?
Of course, by that token, primaries make no sense at all; we should, rationally, all band together under the largest tent that can win. We should truly never have in-party dissent, since that hurts the party as a whole. Or in fact, dissent of any kind; if I agree with the goal of fighting terrorism, surely it is bad for the whole to argue against relatively minor points in the Patriot Act.
Point being that you, Professor Lessig, are perfectly happy with criticising the candidates over the issues you find important. When one takes a stand on intellectual property that you disagree with, will you hold back for fear of damaging his chances of election? After all, is not the ultimate goal to beat Bush? Or is it possible that there is some higher ideal which is worth more than the immediacy of reclaiming the White House?
Of course, as for me, I probably won't bother to vote either way. One vote has never made a difference in such a race, and likely never will.
So, Larry, according to you, demonstrating the irrationality of the electoral college system, the first-past-the-post single-member district, lack of runoff ballots, and all that, is not at all legitimate political expression? Or perhaps you think this demonstration is made by running and then dropping out (note that doesn't take your name off the ballot)? You think people change clearly wrong political systems (only Canada, UK, India, USA, have systems that fit the description I just made) without such experiences as four years of pain?
You may think so. But Nader isn't wrong to not think so.
I'm no fan of Nader, but if he doesn't run against Kerry in 2004, he has abandoned the part of Nader that I do respect--the Nader who opposes a politics of deep-pocketed special interests.
Kerry's not only tied to special interest by culture (the F in his name is Forbes and most of his 'blood' is Boston brahmim) and marriage (his second to a Heinz near-billionaire), he has a Senate history entering into just the sort of cozy relationships with them that Nadar rightly deplores.
If Democrats don't want who lose votes to Nader, they need to nominate someone who isn't beholden these special interests. Some candidates near the bottom of the pack fit that criteria.
But today's Democratic party doesn't stand for anything except abortion until birth for any reason. It will go with anyone it thinks will beat Bush.
--Mike Perry
What an alarmingly ignorant, cowardly, undemocratic webpage....My god professor you should be ashamed
I for one, will NEVER play lesser-evilism again. I will NOT vote for the candidate to the right of Nixon because some corporate media and sheep tell me the candidate to the right of Nixon is "electable" and we must beat the candidate to the right of Stalin.
Don't you know when you're being played ?They are going to continually present 2 corporate whore candidates, election after election, and use fear and lesser-evilism to force liberals to submit and play THEIR game.
I refuse to play.
If a candidate does NOT have a record and positions that are in line with my democratic ideals and values..then I will NOT support that candidate...no matter how many corporate polls scream and terrify the sheep with "electability" and other disgusting forms of corporate propaganda.
I've never been more ashamed of liberals. No wonder we have no power. What a bunch of cowards !
This FDR Democrat will support the only Democrat around in November...Ralph Nader
Shame on all of you cowards-selling out your beliefs so cheaply. You don't see their side doing that. THAT'S WHY THE 2 CHOICES ARE BOTH THEIRS...because they don't betray their beliefs at the drop of a hat.
"Oh we must support Clinton to stop evil Bush"...Yea I fall for it and Clinton gives us Welfare Deform, NAFTA, GATT, depleted uranium killing Yugoslavian children and a gap between rich and poor greater than the one created by RonOld RayGun.
When our side elects Republicans like Bill Clinton and John Kerry we don't win...THEY DO....because we no longer even support candidates who support the beliefs we pretend to cherish.
NEVER AGAIN !
I'll die before I support those bastards ever again.
OVERTHROW THE CORPORATE REICH
NADER 2004 !
Lance Del Goebel
22757 South Cedar Road
Manhattan, Illinois 60442
815-462-1961
LanceGoebel@direcway.com
It's really amazing to see how quickly we all simplify issues down to ideas like Nader caused Bush to be elected, or Nader didn't. Human decision making is a mass of complexity and future events are shrouded in a fog of general uncertainty... and yet, in this whirling mess of a system of INDIVIDUALS, it may seem that one person, one thing, one event, (or the lack thereof) may cause things to work out right or wrong.
This perception is usually held by one who has all of their eggs in one basket and is looking for something to blame or herald when things go right or wrong. And what about our own responsibilites?
At a blackjack table, the 7th player plays last before the dealer. Any player who can't afford to lose (financially or emotionally) will blame that player whenever the dealer wins. To them it seems as though their own choices could not have had any effect on the game. And they never even question what they're doing in the game in the first place.
In a democracy, we all have a chance to lay it down for our opinions. A democracy is in dire danger when we begin to vote AGAINST any one person. We become blind to the notion that anything or anyone could possibly be worse.
(And yes, things can be worse than George W Bush. And yes, even if a Democrat is elected.)
Spending time attacking an individual or party with our misdirected blame diverts effort and energy away from the one(s) we support. If you want the Democrats to win, champion their causes, volunteer, and vote for them.
If you build a party on the strength of how well you attack other contenders, you build a party that survives by attacking contenders. A party/person that champions healthy democracy encourages ALL alternative viewpoints. It survives through the esteem built upon standing true to its beliefs and ideals and weathers the attacks of the less scrupulous by developing integrity.
A democracy becomes healthy when we are willing to be proactive and vote FOR the ones we want. Inclusion of more choices on the ballot doesn't take votes away from anyone. Barely over 50% of people bothered to vote in the last election! Did Nader cause the rest to not vote against Bush?
Increase the number of names on the ballot >> increase the variety of opinions represented >> increase the voter turnout.
www.citizensassembly.bc.ca
For a professor your remarks are very dumb, not to say fascist. What makes you think that Nader should be kept from running? That's an Orewellian thought. If you remember Ross Perot kept Bush senior from winning the election against Clinton. I don't hear republicans ask other conservatives to be kept from running. Also remember, you had Nader on the left, but you had Buchanan on the right taking away votes from the main candidates. I hope you come back to your senses, cause exclamations like these are very dangerous. In Europe they led to a political murder recently. What if there is a democrat who is so passionate about defeating Bush, he hears your rational and decides to kill Nader, to make sure there are no candidates taking away votes from the left?
I voted for Nader in 2000 and will do the same if he runs in 2004. You "frightened liberals" are going to blow it again. The MINOR problem in 2000 was Nader and his 3 million plus voters. The MAJOR problem was 9 MILLION REGISTERED DEMS who opted for Jr Bush in 2000, including 300,000 in Florida. Oh, I forgot about the 100 million registered and nonregistered eligible voters who were not motivated enough by the democrats to even cast a ballot.
I love to witness the wringing of hands from you left wing elitists...particularly lawyers and academics or a combination of the two like this clown Lessig. What do you know about soldiers and their families. You and your type wouldn't know anything about them period because you don't have and would never have the balls to serve your country in that capacity. So just shut up on that point and leave the grieving to those of us that served in combat, have been chopped up physically/ mentally in combat and have children in the service (3 in my case) and are serving in combat. It's OK for you to blather about it behind your little desk all safe and sound..... but the alternative to a course people like you would have set would be to debate about 9/11 and do nothing but blather about until your little liberal faces all turn pink. Bush took action. So please....cool your self serving BS and speak to things you might know something about.
To the point you are making now that I've vented....why are you sooooo afraid of Nader????? Your reasons are stupid....again, period. I'm a conservative but would vote for Nader in a heart beat...again. He tells the truth and is the real deal. You and lawyers like you are incapable of the truth and fear it. I hope Nader runs, as is his right, and makes the real difference which is to take votes away from the pathetic little liberal the Dems put up this time. Cowards.
if nader runs for president he is a shill for the