Most Popular This Week
- Not to Worry, Rape Victims Who Want An Abortion: We Won't Charge You With Felony Tampering With Evidence, Just Your Doctor
- Frontline Gets Its Man: Lanny Breuer Leaves DOJ After Exposé
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- The Right of the People, Even At the Airport
- To End Extreme Poverty, Let’s Try Ending Extreme Wealth
Popular content
Today's Top News
Gibbs' Attack on Progressives Misses the Point Entirely
"They will be satisfied when we have Canadian health care and we've eliminated the Pentagon,'' he told The Hill, a Washington publication. "That's not reality.''
Later, Gibbs apologized for losing his cool. "I watch too much cable, I admit,'' he wrote. "Day after day it gets frustrating.''
Who got under Gibbs's skin? The White House expects liberals to be Obama allies. Yet left-of-center cable TV commentators like MSNBC's Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and contributors to the Huffington Post among others, have been scathingly critical on issues from Afghanistan and civil liberties to the economy.
As co-editor of a liberal magazine whose stance has ranged from polite pleading to occasional exasperation, I have to say that Gibbs misses the point entirely. Few liberals are critical of this president out of ideological purity. Even fewer want to eliminate the Pentagon.
Most progressives fervently supported Obama. Many of us imagined a rendezvous between a brilliant outsider politician and a practical crisis rooted in failed conservative ideology - a Roosevelt moment.
The George W. Bush view that the private sector can do nothing wrong and government nothing right crashed the economy. In repairing the damage, Obama had an opportunity to restore a more balanced form of capitalism and to make it a governing philosophy shared by a majority of Americans, just as FDR did.
Liberals have criticized Obama mainly because he is bungling this opportunity, not because he isn't as leftwing as some might like.
If his governing style and legislative achievements were producing either an economic recovery, or a sense on the part of distressed voters that he is their champion even if Republicans block his efforts, we would be cheering, never mind the details of his health reform.
Politics is the art of the possible, but also the art of leadership. President Roosevelt's Democratic Party gained seats in Congress in 1934, the first mid-term election after Roosevelt took office, despite unemployment exceeding 15 percent. Ordinary Americans knew Roosevelt was on their side.
And rather than seeking illusory common ground with Republicans or with Wall Street, Roosevelt was eloquent in naming and shaming his opposition.
By contrast, Obama has not convinced regular citizens that his primary goal is an economic recovery for Main Street. His economic team is far too close to Wall Street.
He has sent mixed messages on whether his top priority is restoring jobs or reassuring financial markets about reducing deficits.
With his temporizing, Obama has left independent voters perplexed and the Democratic base dispirited. Democrats are now at risk of an epic legislative defeat this November, leaving Obama with even less running room to provide the recovery program that the country needs.
Obama's failure to rise to the moment seems more characterological than ideological. He has the temperament of a conciliator, at a time when his opposition wants mainly to destroy him.
Why isn't Obama behaving more like Harry Truman in 1948? Truman pulled off one of the great upsets of American political history, winning his own election and flipping 75 House seats from Republican to Democrat.
Even though Republicans, who controlled Congress in 1948, were certain to block his program, Truman sent Congress the legislation he wanted and dared Republicans to vote it down - rather than starting with half a loaf, ending with crumbs, and blurring differences.
Rather than turning obstructionism around on the Republicans, Obama seems to fear looking weak. But that reticence isn't working.
So for the most part, liberals are criticizing our president out of tough love. We dearly want him to succeed. For if he fails, we fail.
And if Robert Gibbs, and the rest of Obama's too-small insider circle mistake this benign exasperation for ideological purity, they are passing up a chance to rekindle the groundswell of enthusiasm that elected this president. It wouldn't take all that much.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
164 Comments so far
Show AllThanks for the mea culpa BillyD and welcome aboard. During the last election, I called Obama the consummate con man, but the great pretender works well also. Maybe that old Platters song: YES, I AM THE GREAT PRETENDER would be a good theme song for him now!
Indeed I was late with my boarding pass, but even I have been onboard since about 6 months into his term. First I was perplexed with his policies, then frustrated, then annoyed, then ultimately just plain furious. But after 6 months of his term I realized it all only makes sense if you toss out the assumption that he's a liberal. Once you accept that he's not even remotely a liberal then everything he does falls into place in a logical and orderly fashion, unfortunately though, not at all the fashion we on the left voted for.
BillyD1953: From my perspective, one of the most egregious things about Obama is that he took advantage of so many well meaning people like you and millions more, but there are still a lot of sheeple like sheephearder in the above post, that are still falling for the great pretenders con. Maybe you can help him, since you voted Obama.
KUCINICH-DEAN 2012
There is much to like about Kucinich, but ultimately I just can't vote for a Dem again. I always get the same stupid result no matter which Dem I vote for.
Vote Socialist! Bernie Sanders would make an excellent president, only thing is, the MACHINE would never allow him on the ticket, just like they pushed Kucinich out! We must do something to break the strangle hold of the two party system!
Bernie is an independent - he runs on his own ticket ....
Kucinich and Dean are just as bad. They only know how to "go along to get along".
DRAFT/WRITE IN GLENN GREENWALD FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY 2012.
Why does he have to run as a Dem?
Kucinich said this past week that he won't challenge Obama in 2012.
Nader is god. Dean is a traitor. Kucinich is a sellout. Barbara Lee is an Auntie Tami. Gore was a Republican spy. Carter was a failure and corrupted by power. Both Clintons are Nazis. Obama is a country club Repug. Kennedy was a CIA plant in Congress. Sanders is a moderate. Up is down. Right is left. Left is right. Independents are visionary brujos of the 21st Century. Nixon didn't start the VNW, he ended it by really listening to hippies. My cat speaks in tongues. My dog is a stenographer writing down my deepest thoughts. Yada, Yada, Yada. Please, a moment of silence for balance vs. b.s.
Caricature is often useful when it is done well, unfortunately in this case ...
The ideological purity test of the prior post is b.s. The only purity test in politics is results. To make these childish claims about Dean, Kucinich, etc is a disservice to any thinking person. Politicians walking around America singing from a manifesto hymnal is really a pipe dream. The way it ought to be is not a political calculation it is moral longing for a time that never was. Dreaming of Empire is a weakness of the left as well as a delusion of the right.
Are you sure you want to go there? If we should judge people by results, as you say, that seems more damning to the Democrats than anything the previous poster said, including more damning of the "progressive" heroes in whom people place so much faith.
People are not applying an "ideological purity test" to the politicians any more than you are to them. Claiming that those who analyze the system in a comprehensive way and see that all of the politicians are part of the system, and that the system has gone seriously haywire, are using an "ideological purity test" is simply a way to discredit and malign those with whom you disagree. The disagreement is about the severity of the criticism not about the approach or rhetoric people are using. Different rhetoric about the danger of fire is required and warranted when the house is burning down than when it isn't.
One of two things is true: either there are some people who are in fact purists, who are being far too critical, who are finding fault with all politicians and with the entire system without justification for that, or things really are so bad that no sane and rational person should be happy with anything that is happening. The objective evidence that the latter rather than the former is closer to the truth is massive and growing everyday. You are arguing in support of the first view. But let's debate that out in the open.
One of two things are true: either we have too many people criticizing and dissenting, and that is a problem, or we have too many people in denial and complacency. You are arguing in support of the first view.
Arguing in support of the first view in each of those instances - and I do think I have accurately characterized the debate here - is to argue in support of the existing conditions and against change. Can you see how that could be?
If we are arguing that people are being too "purist," too critical, that obviously strongly implies that things are not so bad, and that the "purist" and critical views are therefore not warranted or go too far. We can't possibly know if someone is being too much of a "purist" without discussing just how impure things are. So let's debate just how impure things are. I say that they are so impure, that we have far too few purists, far too little social criticism and dissent.
We cannot assess whether there is too much or too little criticism, too much or too little purism, without coming to agreement as to just how bad things are. I say we are chronically underestimating the depth and scope of the emergency, minimizing the risks and dangers, and not overstating the case or exaggerating it.
the more of these articles I read, the ones that take politics seriously, and ignore the crime behind, the more I understand how we got where we are...
do these authors believe what they write so fervently that no other possibilities are given credence? how did they develop such beliefs, and do they not know how such beliefs hinder their own observation and learning?
can Mr. Kuttner, for example, ever look at the government and see criminals lying to him as they do whatever they like via violent and 'legal' means, rather than his own projected reality of some sort of struggle to lead on behalf of the people?
lead people? these folks lead (the metal) people...
or, rather, they Depleted Uranium people...
A funnel, like the only megaphone at a peace rally, is a powerful thing. The holder of each thinks he knows how best to guide the flow of things. What he or she sees as the answer is what everyone concerned wants, right? To bad the " flowmasters " of the left cannot get beyond their own messaging. The people are much more radical in their desire for change than the leaders. Same as it ever was on the left in America. You can thank human frailness and cowardness for most of this shortfall. The social chairperson decides what gets served at the banquet, not the policy writers. Just sayin'.
Gibbs comments are part of a larger election strategy. The White House was trying to distance themselves from the left. This was accomplished by some harsh rhetoric that spread like wild fire through the corporate press.
Their electoral strategy is to gain "independent" and right of center votes. They also want to show the real power(ceo's, wall street, multinational corporations) in this country that they are on their side. They are going to need their monetary support to win elections.
They know the "left" has nowhere to go. They also know the "left" is pathetic and will do a little whining ("Gibbs is a jerk") but beyond that they will line up and vote for Democrats in the election.
We on the "left" are suckers. Articles like this that try to explain why we are critical with out fighting back proves the left is pathetic. This is also why the "left" is not pushing anyone anywhere.
Unless Obama is a secret socialist and in his second term he is going to drop the hammer (and sickle) on the rich and multinationals, we have been fooled again.
Maybe the usual pseudo-liberal suspects will line up and vote for Obama and the Dems, but nobody I know has any plans to vote for Obama (or the Dems) again. We've been burned way too badly way too many times. Even if it means a lunatic like Gingrich or a goofball like Palin becomes Prez, I have no intention of preventing that by voting for Obama or any other Dem. Voting for these jerks just lends credibility to our two-party-all-pro-war system. If nothing else we should abstain and reduce the turnout so as to delegitimize the whole corrupt system. In fact, that might be the most effective move of all. Get as many people as you can to just stay home. I'd love to see the mainstream corporate-owned media have to report a voter turnout of 20% and still somehow try to claim we have a functioning democracy.
I'm with you Billy D. Don't vote it just encourages them.
Nevertheless, I understand that there is a pull to vote for the lesser evil. Obama will do next to nothing for progressives. There is a two party consensus on war and capitalism. There is a part of me, however, that thinks that we should prevent the far right from accessing more power. I'm sickened by the nativist, anti-immigrant rhetoric that passes for news these days. I'm afraid of white-Christian fascism.
That being said, I wont give my time or energies to a party that promotes the savage, imperialist war in Afghanistan, allies itself so closely with Israel, and watches everyday Americans go jobless and riddled with debt, while the elite continue to profit.
Do any of you guys remember the 2000 election? If it hadn't been for the jerks who voted for Nader, we would not have had eight years of Cheney/Bush. Gore might not have been a strong President, but what could have been worse than Cheney/Bush?
I will answer my own question: Palin or Gingrich.
I voted for Nader in 2000. I did so in large part because I thought Clinton had taken the democratic party to the right and sold working Americans downstream. I also like Ralph Nader and hoped his campaign might ignite a progressive movement. In fact it marked the beginning of my transition from a liberal to a progressive socialist.
Do I think Gore would have been a better president than Bush. On the surface, I'd say yes. But is Obama really better than Bush. Not much. The imperialist/capitalist machine is not driven by the republican party. Rather, it drives both parties.
Nader did not cause Gore to lose.
Gore was such a limp candidate that he was one of few candidates to ever lose his own state (Tennessee) where Nader was not a factor.
Gore lost Florida because the DNC decided not to prove that Gore got more votes than Dubya in Florida because the DNC knew they could blame Nader.
The infamous "Butterfly Ballot" where thousands of Jewish Dems in West Palm accidentally voted for Buchanan didn't help.
Correct on lesser evilism but how do we convince everyone to overcome lesser evilism. Calling them jerks is just as bad as calling the Nader 2000 voters jerks. If we can't have a third party ready to break the duopoly, then we have no business throwing stones at the Democrats and Republicans.
duplicate post
Voting is no where near as powerful as all of the talk about voting between elections is. All discussions are dominated by this one very narrow issue. Few things work against any change as effectively as having us all talking about voting constantly. elections are an effect of the political process, anyway, they are not a cause. The reflect social and political change, they cannot make change happen. Thinking they can is like taking the final exam first and thinking that you will learn the subject material that way, and then wondering why you fail all the time. Elections are the exam that show us how we have been doing, not where we are going.
Try these arguments:
- A third party does not have to win to still have an enormous impact. The Socialists getting 5-8% of the vote during the FDR administration influenced that administration.
- Don't fear Palin or whatever. It is better for the Left when the Republicans are in power. Look at all of the participation and enthusiasm before the Obama election and then compare that to after the election. Nothing could have killed the newly forming Left faster than the election of Obama did.
- Simple logic will demonstrate that "lesser of two evils" thinking is what caused the problems we face now. Let's say that "10" represents what the people need, and the owners are offering zero. Do we then ask for five? We will then wind up with 2 and a half. Then the next time we ask for two and a half, and the owners are still offering zero. We wind up with one and a quarter. This is how we are being led step by step to settling for a lesser of two evils that is lesser and lesser and more and more evil. Now, those of us saying we should demand 10 and not stop demanding 10 are attacked for being unrealistic, impractical, purists, dangerous, too radical, doctrinaire, dreamers, dogmatic, deluded... So we ask for five. And we get two and a half. Then we ask for two and a half the next time, and we get one and a quarter. Then we ask for one and a quarter the next time (hey! It is better than Palin! She would be a zero!!!) etc., etc., etc.
- Democrats are not "closer to your views" than the Republicans - that is all an illusion. They merely represent a different style and fashion statement for promoting the same program as the Republicans.
- If you vote third party - or say you are going to, since this whole discussion is not really about voting but rather it is about endlessly talking about voting - that is a starting point for much more powerful and productive political discussions than would otherwise happen.
Good arguments - for voting as an agent of change ....
Not quite.
It is not an argument for voting as an agent of change. It is an argument for using the discussion about voting - that is what we really are talking about, the discussion about voting rather than voting itself - as an agent of change.
The question was about breaking the hold the duopoly has on us. That hold is in our minds, not in the voting booth.
If talking about voting third party is being used as an entry point for a larger discussion for the purpose of radicalizing people, then it can be valuable. If it is used to endlessly sell and market a certain "choice" over another "choice" and perpetuate the myth that we can vote in serious change, then it is destructive.
Successful political action is based on criticism, not sales and marketing.
In think that we need to see the chains that bind us clearly and stop deluding ourselves about that, and then burn with a fever for freedom. Freedom is what this is about, and we are in chains. People can imagine freedom for themselves, they don't need a plan, or a program, or an alternative system, or a platform dictated to them, or another choice. They need to be free, and then they can create alternatives. As it is now, people have no power, no access to resources, no self-determination.
Break the chains. That is the task in front of us.
Ok, so if the discussion about voting can be used for purposes that you think are beneficial, then why boycott it?
So you advocate discussing it as an agent of change, but not actually doing it as an agent of change. If doing it has no useful purpose, then why discuss it? How can discussing a useless activity be an agent of change unless the purpose is to change one's mind about doing it?
Sorry, you lost me there.
As far as it being a discussion about one choice over another, isn't that what voting is? The last time I looked, by and large, ballots have people's names on them. Seldom do we get to vote on a specific issue, and even when we do, the proposition is worded in such a convoluted way that nobody really knows what a "Yes" or "NO really means.
I use Nader as an example a lot, because he's pretty much the only fellow, at least from the left side of the spectrum, who's actually been able to clear the enormous hurdles to ballot access placed in an indys way to the point where he actually, in theory, could have picked up enough votes to win, in other words an "electable" candidate who didn't get elected. But it could be anybody.
I surmise, from your reticence to discuss your own electoral choices, that perhaps you may regret them. But regret or take pride in, discussing those choices is, indeed, a useful way to have a political discussion. It helps to clarify one's thinking - explaining why one voted the way one did and how one's thinking may have been changed or reinforced, forces us to examine many assumptions or tenets of one's belief system - and yes, belief systems ARE intimately involved in one's politics ....
I advocate discussing everything within the context of the ongoing class struggle, and oppose any discussion that is in opposition to that or that is presented as a replacement for that.
Regret how I voted? LOL. No, I don't regret any votes. I had no expectations. I have worked on dozens of political campaigns over a period of decades. I never had any illusions about it.
Belief systems have nothing to do with politics and are more properly the domain of religion and spirituality. Politics has always been about power and economics - who does and who does not have access to resources, and how and why.
How a person voted, and their explanations of why they voted the way they did, tell us virtually nothing about the person. There isn't any "thinking" going on there, because there is nothing to think about.
Talking to people about how they voted is only important if we assume that how people voted is important.
"Successful political action is based on criticism, not sales and marketing."
I disagree. Criticism is ok but without convincing them to join that new party which will require sales and marketing just to compete, there is no political action to make a dent.
Sure. If the goal is to get people to join a new party - whatever that even means. Is a party a religious movement? A cult? The marketing of a product?
Sales and marketing are not neutral tools. Americans think it is the only way to get anything done, because they are so immersed in a commercialized culture.
A true working class movement would not need o be sold or marketed. A true democratic movement would have no higher-ups to be selling and marketing things. Sales and marketing inherently require a dichotomy - a con man and marks; shills and rubes; a predator and prey; a seller and consumers; haves and have-nots; controllers and the controlled.
I don't recall a single party in history that ever came to power based on only criticizing their rivals without giving us an any idea as to what they would do differently to deserve getting elected. Republicans were third parties too but they came to power not by only criticizing their rivals. A true working class movement is needed, no argument there. But the burden of proof still rests on any outsider party to convince the movement that they are really one of them. If we had a working class movement, then we could have as many as 4 parties trying to win our voters and they would require more skills and sales and marketing to win more votes.
That may be. But again, we are being asked to assume that bringing political parties to power is the goal.
This is, to me, an odd way to look at politics. A party puts out a "positive" message about what they are going to do differently, and then voters decide whether they "deserve" to be elected. That sounds like corporate sales and marketing, and consumerism, not politics. It also is geared to sixth graders. I saw that start around 1970 - liberal messages became infantile and simple minded. "War is not healthy for children and other living things!" Today we have "be th4e change you wish to see" and "speaking truth to power" and all of the "little engine that could" exhortations. I think it is weak and condescending. In the view of many educated liberals, the general public is stupid, and so they think people need to be lectured and spoken to in simple and demeaning terms.
The burden of proof is always on those in power. Most of the public is already there. Why would we want to go backward and now ask outsiders to shoulder the burden of proof? Shift the burden of proof back where it belongs - on those in power.
Yes, the Republican party did come to power in the 1850's mostly by criticizing their rivals and criticizing slavery. Before the Republicans ever could have come to power, there were people doing nothing but criticizing slavery and the compromising politicians that continued to roll over to the slavery power. Parties did not sell and market themselves then as they do now. Candidates did not even campaign for the presidency. They did debate, for hours and in great depth, and they wrote, and they met.
But I was not talking about promoting a political party, I was talking about political action in general.
"A third party does not have to win to still have an enormous impact. The Socialists getting 5-8% of the vote during the FDR administration influenced that administration."
That argument doesn't work when you bring in Ross Perot's 19% vote. He was against free trade and wanted to cut the deficits but Congress passed free trade anyway and only cut the deficits some anyway.
"Don't fear Palin or whatever. It is better for the Left when the Republicans are in power. Look at all of the participation and enthusiasm before the Obama election and then compare that to after the election. Nothing could have killed the newly forming Left faster than the election of Obama did. "
That doesn't encourage anyone to vote third party. Such an argument is good as begging someone to vote Republican. While you may not be a Republican voter, that argument only turns off Democratic voters. Avoid it and focus more on why you are right to recommend the third party of your choice.
"Simple logic will demonstrate that "lesser of two evils" thinking is what caused the problems we face now. Let's say that "10" represents what the people need, and the owners are offering zero. Do we then ask for five? We will then wind up with 2 and a half. Then the next time we ask for two and a half, and the owners are still offering zero. We wind up with one and a quarter. This is how we are being led step by step to settling for a lesser of two evils that is lesser and lesser and more and more evil. Now, those of us saying we should demand 10 and not stop demanding 10 are attacked for being unrealistic, impractical, purists, dangerous, too radical, doctrinaire, dreamers, dogmatic, deluded... So we ask for five. And we get two and a half. Then we ask for two and a half the next time, and we get one and a quarter. Then we ask for one and a quarter the next time (hey! It is better than Palin! She would be a zero!!!) etc., etc., etc."
Good argument. Now apply that to each issue and convince people to spontaneously support that new party. They need to be the ones to say "Yes, it is time !".
"Democrats are not "closer to your views" than the Republicans - that is all an illusion. They merely represent a different style and fashion statement for promoting the same program as the Republicans."
Perhaps a somewhat good argument but you had better tell them what better views your third party has that makes them a better choice. It's not enough to say that "we're not Republicans or Democrats". The burden of proof lies on the outsider to conquer the established insiders. When the outsider wins, then the insider is out and the burden of proof shifts.
"If you vote third party - or say you are going to, since this whole discussion is not really about voting but rather it is about endlessly talking about voting - that is a starting point for much more powerful and productive political discussions than would otherwise happen."
Again, instead of getting big on third parties, focus on substance and say what your party would do differently on the issues. Just saying "See what happened? Vote third party and gnash your teeth" won't fly.
Fair enough comment. If we can combine all the good arguments made by a number of folks and work them out in a constructive manner, we might just get somewhere.
Your point about Perot is a good one, but, and I think others with better historical backgrounds could argue this better than I, I think the 30's Socialists had more wind behind their sails than Perot did, FDR knew that this was a growing movement for the simple reason that the problems the Socialists were advocating solutions to were very real and widely felt. Perot was ahead of his time in attacking NAFTA, it wasn't a reality yet and most people hadn't felt the effects of what "free trade" really meant. Perot was too easily marginalized by ridicule, he couldn't point to the actual effects and say "See, I told you so!" He could now, of course, which is what others are doing and which is what makes it so frustrating when Big Labor sells out its members by continuing to fill the free trade Dems coffers. Also, although his vote might not have influenced the eventual legislation, for the reason above, It scared the pants off the political establishment. I realize this is an assertion on my part that might be difficult to prove, but i offer the following by way of attempt;
Perot wound up being excoriated and ridiculed in the press; this savvy, shrewd, successful multimillionaire business man was made to look like an idiot. I'm no Perot fan, and I think he didn't help his case any, but this attack was a pointed, deliberate and successful character assassination designed to render him politically impotent, and the Reform Party couldn't pick up the pieces. The establishment figured it had washed its hands of that problem. In '96, when Nader picked up the ball on NAFTA, and I first voted for him, primarily on that basis, its effects still weren't obvious, especially to those benefitting from the new found "wealth" to be had from the stock market tech bubble and the "common wisdom" that any "blue collar" workers who lost their jobs could easily retrain and join the wonderful new, "post industrial" white collar economy.
By 2000, it was becoming more obvious what this free trade regime was doing to growing numbers of people and Labor finally marched in Seattle, but then promptly backed free trader Gore for reasons which could be discussed, and no doubt have been, elsewhere. However, although Nader's 2%, or whatever it was, wasn't spectacular, it did indicate there might be a growing threat that needed to be nipped in the bud IMMEDIATELY. Hence, because it wasn't as easy to ridicule Ralph's character as it was Perot's, a new tactic was needed and the "spoiler" image, Nader costing Gore the election, served very well. It was nonsense, of course, but it worked.
When Nader refused to go away, the next phase, as backup, just in case the "spoiler" thing wasn't entirely effective, was to keep him off the ballot. (If you want to explore the lengths the Dem party went to to accomplish this, check out Theresa Amato's book, The Grand Illusion, a must read for anyone who wants to understand the nitty gritty of how the political machine, at least the Dems, attempts to insulate itself from threat.) The spoiler image was still strong in people's minds, however, and many folks I know voted for Kerry just to get rid of Bush. But nobody could claim, after the election, that Nader cost Kerry the election, one silver lining of the low % for Nader.
In '08, the overwhelming cache of Obama was too strong for any one to consider actually paying attention to what anybody was actually saying, and though few could have seriously argued the superiority of Obama's positions over Nader's, the thought of voting for "an old white guy" when you could have a "young charismatic black guy" was not something any "true Liberal" could countenance.
But Nader's like the energizer bunny, he keeps going and going, so now what you will see is a combination of the "spoiler" though, hopefully, it will not have the "credibility" it once had, the "can't win" which is a perennial favorite, and still, to my everlasting consternation, has too much power over people's minds, and the increasing attack on ballot access. Witness what's happened in CA, the two parties, fearing a growing strength by 3rd parties, teamed up in their latest prop to virtually insure no 3rd party will have access to the ballot. It's blatant, check it out.
All this is by way of saying that the duopoly fears the potential of indy candidates greatly, and will pull every trick it can to make sure we, the people, don't have access to them. This is why i spend so much time desperately trying to debunk the "can't win" myth. If that can be debunked, people would actually start seriously considering indy candidates. Of course the issue of "spreading" the word in a corp saturated media is still a major chore, but when people won't even take the time to consider the merits because "it doesn't matter how good he/she is, they can't win", i suggest that is the 800 lb gorilla in the room ....
"However, although Nader's 2%, or whatever it was, wasn't spectacular, it did indicate there might be a growing threat that needed to be nipped in the bud IMMEDIATELY."
While I voted for Gore, I thought Nader would blossom. He left the Green Party when he could have used his support to help the party grow.
"But Nader's like the energizer bunny, he keeps going and going, so now what you will see is a combination of the "spoiler" though, hopefully, it will not have the "credibility" it once had, the "can't win" which is a perennial favorite, and still, to my everlasting consternation, has too much power over people's minds, and the increasing attack on ballot access."
That's where his supporters are making a huge mistake. He's not GOD and he's only human. Raising the bar for expectations too far and expecting miracles from anyone never works. His support will have to come and grow from many sources and that would include the self-righteous conservative Republicans and I'm not talking about money. I seriously doubt that he will run in 2012 but even if he does, we can't just rally around one man for everything. The less support any third party candidate has and the closer any election gets, the more he or she will be mistaken as a "spoiler".
Good comments. I am not big on third parties, nor on the elections, but I threw out some possible reasons for voting third party,and advocating voting third party.
You are right about Perot having no effect. It could be that voting third party no longer has any effect of any kind. It has been amazing to watch how little the politicians worry about what the people think anymore. Voting does not seem to have any effect at all.
I don't agree with this:
"That doesn't encourage anyone to vote third party. Such an argument is good as begging someone to vote Republican. While you may not be a Republican voter, that argument only turns off Democratic voters. Avoid it and focus more on why you are right to recommend the third party of your choice."
I don't agree with approaching politics as sales and marketing at all. I don't think it works.
Know what..besides the fact that you are stating a proven myth about Ralph Nader's part in the 2000 presidential election, in the future I won't be voting for a candidate that desires escalation of wars, taking away privacy rights and execution of U.S. citizens by labeling them "terrorists", tax cuts for the wealthy, bailing out Wall Street (where record bonuses are now being handed out) while failing to address head on the issues of the remainder of the country, and many other issues. Ask yourself, for any of the above issues, would a Republican candidate have handled it any differently? From now on I am voting my conscience...if a Democrat can show at the local level for example that they share some of my basic values of helping the citizens of our society first, they may get my vote. If not, it will be a third party. If no third party candidate is running for an election and I have no real choice, I will write-in "none of the above" on the ballot. One of the biggest problems I see today is how few people with any morality and compassion for "we the people" even RUN for office. In the meantime, from now on it's vote my conscience and maybe if others began to do the same, we could get better candidates.
Palin or Gingrich would be worse than Bush or Obama but people won't see that if Obama keeps lowering the bar on expectations. I'd like to blame Nader too but we have Obama who we had some expectations of undoing Bush's mess and he's not living up to the expectations. He may be trying to placate the GOP who will never be placated but he's losing support for this. He doesn't have to do everything for us but doing nothing for us and everything for his rivals who won't support him anyway is wrong. If Obama can't do anything significant for us, we have no business blaming the Nader 2000 voters.
As one of those "jerks", I maintain he was the only decent choice in '96, '00, '04, '08 and, who knows, in '12 ....
I sure hope that Ralph has one more run for Prez in him. He sure would get my vote.
I have been predicting that it will be Gingrich/Palin in 2012.
That ticket would be too easy to defeat. Obama could easily use Palin against Newt Gingrich and the Clintons and other centrist Democrats would come out reminding the public of Newt Gingrich in the 90s. Gingrich has too many controversies and contradictions to keep him from winning. A low key Republican ticket will be needed to win.
I voted for Nader in 2000 and admit now that it was a mistake. Even if Gore was a worse choice, we ended up with Bush which was terrible.
Not voting at this point would be a huge mistake because it will only make the republicans that much stronger. If you want to conclude that the democrats are just as bad as the republicans then you are deluding your selves. Both side are corrupt, but the republicans are much, much worse than the democrats. This is a no brainer, at least for anyone with some sense of value and the ability to count. Can anyone honestly say that a republican replacement for Obama in 2012 would select better supreme court nominees than the democrats? Would republican majorities in the house and/or senate make healthcare, unemployment, financial regulation, consumer protection, education, etc. better or worse than would the democrats? Would republican majorities promote more or less warfare and death around the planet?
I find this "I won't vote for the lesser of two evils" mantra utterly irrational, especially given the circumstances in america today ( a corrupt media, the absence of viable third party option, the existing government structure, etc.) If you follow this desire not to vote, you will only make things worse. Given the circumstances we live in, the most powerful explanation for such an irrational belief is emotional: It feels good to think of ourselves as principled and courageous. And then we can congratulate ourselves while many voters suffer more than ever.
We didn't end up with Bush because of Nader and you know that very well, that chestnut is right up there with Sadam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction - the first lie advanced by the Dems, the second by the Reps.
I agree that not voting is a bad idea, but voting for either a Dem or a Rep is a worse one. If you cannot see by now that the only real difference is the lipstick on the pig or the sheepskin on the wolf then you are easily dazzled by fancy words and (ever less) nimble footwork.
"And then we can congratulate ourselves while many voters suffer more than ever."
Is that how you felt when Obama won?
Obama had a lot of us fooled big. But without a viable replacement, we're stuck again this year and in 2012 with either the Republicans or Democrats winning.
You quote me ""And then we can congratulate ourselves while many voters suffer more than ever."
and then ask: "Is that how you felt when Obama won?"
Sorry I can't answer your question because it makes little sense to me. I was talking about "not voting" and your question deals with voting. But to take a wild shot: yes, I would have felt proud that I voted for the better candidate (comparing Obama to mccain). Moral decision making has emotional as well as cognitive components, in case you never noticed.
The Democrats may not be as bad as the Republicans but for stooping to the Republican level is not good for the party. The Republicans will go as low as they can but if the Democrats keep chasing them to the bottom, then who will people take seriously anymore? Just because the Republicans regress 4x does not give the Democrats any moral right to regress at 2x. The Democrats should be progressing at 1x or higher. The lesser evils argument only goes so far before people will say screw it at that.
Not unreasonable, but I wouldn't characterize it as the dems chasing the reps to the bottom - rather the reps are dragging dems to the bottom (to the right) given their control of the media. Certainly, the dems should be progressing.
But as far as the lesser evils argument goes, not voting will allow the worse of two evils (republicans) to regress even further. Not voting will increase the point spread between republicans and democrats. Republicans will spin this as a mandate and the media will support them - things will get worse. And if more people vote, I don't see why (or know of any evidence that) most people will say "screw it" as things are progressively improved, even if this improvement is incremental and takes a relatively long time.