Left Flank

Two eponymous blog opinions about Ralph Nader entering the 2008 presidential race: Greg Laden's "worst fears"

Our worst fears have been realized. We finally have a chance to boot the Republicans out of the White House, and now Ralf Nader has announced his insane plans to do whatever he can to make sure that a Democrat does not take that position.

Nader announced his quixotic and potentially destructive plan, in which he will abuse his name recognition, manipulating legions of mindless, moronic Nader-Simps, and get his jollies telling us all how much the system is broken while he single handedly guarantees eight more years of economic strife and bloody warfare ... in a Sunday interview on Meet the Press.

Democrats: Pick the republican you hate least and start working for that candidate, because you don't get to have a Democrat in the White House. Thanks to Ralf.

Nader, who clearly intends to ruin everything, claims that Americans are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties. Apparently he has not noticed the throngs of Democrats and Independents, as well as numerous Republicans, swarming the Democratic Primaries and Caucasus. Clearly, he has no clue. But he does have a huge, overblown ego and a very loose grip on reality.

…vs. Matthew Yglesias' "Tweddlesomething":

After all, there's not a dime's worth of a difference between a candidate promising tax cuts, pushing more health risk onto individuals, a re-invigoration of George Bush's campaign to dominate the world through military force, and an industry-friendly approach to environmental issues and his rival who's promising substantial socialization of medical risk, a 80 percent reduction in carbon emissions, and end to the war in Iraq (and to the mindset that led to war!), universal preschool, etc. Well, sure, there's judicial appointments -- abortion, gay rights, etc. -- and some small fry stuff about whether or not the NSA will have unrestrained surveillance powers. But basically it's just the same two corporate clones running on virtually identical platforms.

Again, comments make the difference.

Pierce R, Butler:

This is an opportunity for derision, not panic (nor repeating simplistic charges that "Nader cost us the 2000 election" which serve more to obscure Democratic failures than to shed analytical light).

It's unlikely that even the Greens will accept Nader as their nominee this time around - maybe some of them will start to realize just how much harm he did to their party in '00 & '04.

The Nader threat has always been overblown, but this year it's not likely he'll make it onto many state ballots. In the meantime, the threat from the Supreme Court has only worsened, and the prospects for election-rigging (electronic & otherwise) are more worthy of alarm.

Guy in Jersey:

1) "Ralph Nader's ego is the reason we have George W. Bush in the White House. period."

Because without Nader, all those disaffected fringe voters would have voted for Gore/Lieberman. You've convinced me.

2) "Nader is the only thing that cost Gore the election"...."without Ralph Nader, Al Gore would be president."

The fallacy is that if Nader runs --> Bush wins. -Nader runs. -Bush wins. That's a common logical fallacy usually expressed as p --> q. -p, therefore -q.

Thomas:

I think Nader is smarter than you, Matt.

I mean, the Democrats ran on ending the Iraq war in 2006, and they didn't. From what I hear, they plan on running on the same issue in 2010.

Democrats have been promising a government takeover of health care for two generations. But this time it's right around the corner.

And Obama, unlike, say Bill Clinton, who didn't bother to submit Kyoto for ratification, is serious about reducing carbon emissions. That's why, when he won in Wisconsin he told the good folks of Texas that he was going to bring the price of gas down. That's the sort of thing we need to hear! Bringing the cost of energy down is surely the best way of reducing carbon emissions. Nader needs to be patient; this time it's different.

There is a candidate promising tax cuts. It's Obama, who tells seniors--who already receive disproportionate benefits from the federal government--that they'll pay less in tax. But those sort of small points shouldn't bother Nader. No, he should keep his eye on the big picture, like NSA surveillance, where Senate Democrats demonstrated just how different they are from Republicans.

R. Vangala:

Matt, this post is really disappointing. I too am concerned that in swing states, Nader could have a spoiler effect a la Florida in 2000. Still, for someone who is often critical of the Democratic Party's positions on a number of issues, you seem to be suggesting that such difficulties are irrelevant. I disagree. Our democracy can only be strengthened by widening the field of candidates for voters to choose from. The unfortunate truth is that a lot of voters in this country are seriously ignorant of U.S. policies that affect them and others around the world in terrible ways. Nader's presence in the election will help to bring criticisms of those policies into the mainstream, so that the Republican and Democratic candidates will be forced to respond to them. Ideally, Nader will run his campaign, raise issues that matter to progressives, challenge the two front-runners to take a progressive stand on those issues, etc., but then withdraw his name from the ballot in swing states prior to the election in November. This way, voters in locked down states can express support for him, thereby pressuring the two dominant parties to shift to the left, while voters in swing states cannot, thus eliminating the possibility of a spoiler effect. Should polls suggest that he will have a spoiler effect, and should he still insist upon remaining on the ballot in the relevant states, I will lose a lot of respect for him. Otherwise, I think his overall effect on the election will be positive (from the perspective of a progressive).

ly_nyg:

Do you guys realize how hypocritical it is to pressure third party candidates into not running?

Since when was it the position of the Democratic Party to disenfranchise voters? Because that is, in essence, what limiting them to one of two parties does.

The issue isn't whether third parties should be able to run or not - of course they should be able to! I mean, it was a third party that freed the slaves.

What the Democrats SHOULD be focused on is creating a system of voting that lets people express their preference for a third party without sabotaging their ability to affect the election. I think Instant Runoff Voting does this extremely well, but really, any sort of runoff would be nice. Even proportional allocation of electoral collage members would be a start.

I'm not sure people have really thought through the logical conclusion of all this Nader bashing - why not just limit the election to two parties? Or only to parties that either have more than 40% of the vote, or less than 2%? Why not just stay married to the Democrats and the Republicans for the rest of American history?

People focusing on whether Nader should run or not don't GET IT. What Nader's candidacy shows more than anything is the need for a new system of voting that allows people to express their frustration with the major parties, without wasting their vote.

I mean, my vote already doesn't count because I don't live in Ohio or Missouri. I might as well vote for the candidate who most effectively sums up my frustration with both Republicans AND Democrats.

For what it's worth, I'm voting for Obama in the general, unless by some freak chance Hillary pulls it out. In that case, I'm proudly voting for Nader.

Bal(t)imoron's take:

Firstly, the election is a non zero-sum game. The more people vote and the more platforms circulate, the stronger the republic is.

Secondly, the Democratic and Republican parties are not constitutionally mandated. As a matter of fact, they're necessary evils. So, appeals to party loyalty can only go so far before they become anti-republican.

Thirdly:

MR. RUSSERT:  You have five seconds, historian.  Have you ever seen a race like this?

MS. GOODWIN:  I love it.  It's the best.  No, you know, and it's exciting because people are involved with--we've been worrying for years about the fact that nobody's paying attention anymore, that it's a--you know, it's not a participant sport, that the declining polls are going down.  People are going to the voting booths; people are excited.  How can you not love it?

Who cares if the MSM wants max carnage on the road to the general election! Of course, these men and women are egomaniacal! Elections are like this blog: smash ideas and candidates in a cyclotron, and run with what's still living!

(Also, check out the Green Party's website!)