A Question for Nader Voters

Great Debates
21

Montfort wrote,

That’s interesting. In Oregon, it’s:
Buchanan and Foster - Independent
Hagelin and Goldhaber - Reform
Nader and LaDuke - Pacific Green
Phillips and Frazier - Constitution

No sign of the Socialists, and the Natural Law Party isn’t mentioned. I suspect it’s because somehow Hagelin got to be the Reform candidate and decided to use but one party label. This obviously wasn’t the choice of the local Greens, who chose to include the Pacific label (the Pacific Party is a local green-ish organization which has been around for a while).

I’m not just rambling, I’m pointing out that this is just another weird challenge minor parties face. I mean, Buchanan is the national Reform candidate, right? He needs 5% of the national popular vote to win matching funds. Which Oregon score would be added to his national total, the Reform datum or the Buchanan datum? After all, it’s not really Buchanan who wins the funds, it’s “his” party and whoever they nominate in 2004. Dang I’m confused.

I see. I guess maybe a lot of Socialist organizers have drifted to the Green Party this year. After all, this is the biggest effort a left-of-Democrats party has made in a long time. I reckon it is bigger than Lenora Fulani and the New Alliance in 1988, and probably most of Norman Thomas’ Socialist campaigns. The most recent effort of this magnitude is probably Henry Wallace 1948 bid with the League for Progressive Political Action.

Interesting thought. The people do react pretty explosively against a single party controlling all three elected bodies. I think the best bet for long-term one-party governance is to win the Presidency and one house of Congress - the Republicans did it for six years in the 1980s. But it appears now that they’ve overshot. If history is any guide, a Bush victory next month will result in a Democratic victory in at least one house in 2002.

22

Boris B wrote:

Actually, don’t the Democrats have a pretty good chance of taking the House back this year? At least, that’s how they’re billing it here in MD-8, where Lierman is running against Morella.

Morella is a very moderate Republican in a very liberal Democratic district (again, I’m surprised the Constitutionalists got on the ballot for this district’s House race). Except for a few issues, she’s basically a sheep in wolves clothing (hey, I’m a liberal). But, she’s a Republican, which means that she counts as an R when they tally up the House roster. Lierman is trying to get the Democrats in the district to support him, which is hard considering how popular Morella is, and how past efforts have failed. But, Lierman seems to be giving a harder fight than past candidates have, so I’m thinking the national party really thinks they can overtake control of the House.

Democrat control in the Senate, alas, is unlikely, due to the death of Missouri Gov. Carnahan, and Lieberman’s decision to stay in the Connecticut race. (If Gore wins the Presidency, and Lieberman wins the Senate race, the Republican governor of Connecticut will surely nominate a fellow elephant for the seat Lieberman will vacate.)

23

Oh yeah. The “Big Lie”. And then somebody starts listing all the differences between them: Bush has this positon, Gore on the other hand says this.

Nader isn’t saying they don’t have different platforms. But for some reason he’s more concerned with what will actually happen than what they talk about.

Is Gore really going to fight for those enviormental issues if it’s not expediant?
Does Bush really want to interfere with abortion rights, which most people support, any more than Gore does? (Conversely, will Gore fight for the less popular parts, like federal money for poor women, any more than Bush would? I don’t think so.)
Are they even making the decisions? or are the people who payed for them? And since they’re both owned by the same people…

24

Back to the OP for a sec…

Count me in among the “party builders.” I am voting for the Green Party because I want to see that party grow stronger.

I think that many of the political pundits and analysts find it very hard to believe that Americans are willing or able to think outside the parameters that have been set out for us. They see this race as being only about Gore and Bush. Therefore, all voters are voting for or against Gore and Bush. I suppose this is why third-party votes are portrayed as really being about the two major parties. Examples:

  1. A vote for Nader is a vote protesting the 2 major parties.
  2. A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush (i.e. against Gore)
    It seems that none of the talking heads can believe that some of us are voting for Nader and the Greens for the simple reason that we support their platform and their way of looking at things. They also can not believe that we are capable of sacrificing immediate gratification to work towards something that will take years or decades to pan out.

And betenoir makes a good point: The feeling that Bush and Gore are “the same” does not stem from what they are saying during this campaign season. It is about what they are likely to do once they are in office. This is why the “a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush” scare tactic has really fallen flat.

25

Nader supporters point to Gore and Bush’s political records as a reason to vote for him. Pretty safe thing to do when Nader does’t have a record to compare against them, isn’t it? We can’t point to his accomplishments, because he hasn’t had the guts to run for anything before. He can bray about everything he wants to accomplish, but he has absolutely no experience in government, and would have no allies in the Congress. Has anyone explained to him, or his disciples, that he is NOT running for Emperor? Has he ever explained how he intends to interact with Congress or the Supreme Court? Does anyone with knowledge of civil government believe that he would be anything more than a “lame duck” for his entire term?

26

Another thing that bothers me about Nader’s Raiders is their amazing ability to separate the purpose of their actions with the consequences of their actions. Reminds me of people who fire their guns into the air on the 4th of July and New Years, totally oblivious to the fact that the bullets are going to come back down.
If the Naderites swing the election towards Bush they, and they alone, should be held resposible for the consequences thereof, and the day after the election I plan on starting a “Thank You!” thread.
In the BBQ Pit. :frowning:

27

Does anyone know of any actual polls that indicate what the “Nader effect” may actually be in the upcoming election?

28

Right now, I’ve heard Bush and Gore both have less than 50% each! I think this speaks about how many people really want them for president, which has nothing to do with Ralph.

Though he has a funny t-shirt advertised: Gore and Bush make me want to Ralph! :slight_smile:

29

And what percentage does Nader have, vanilla?
Let’s try this one more time, o.k.? We do NOT have a Parlamentary system where you get a percentage of influence based on the percentage of votes gathered. The way we do it in this country is that one person wins and one person loses. Now, since Nader is not going to win, the winner will be either Gore or Bush.
My question to you, vanilla, is which one would you rather see as president? Do you truly believe that Nader’s agenda would do better with Gore, or with Bush?

Or are you another Naderite that will ignore the consequences of your actions “just to prove a point!”?

30

While I don’t consider myself a Nader Raider, I fully understand the consequences of my decision to vote for Nader. See my above posts for why. The consequence of my vote for Ralph is exactly my purpose for voting for him:

  1. To put Ralph Nader in the White House.
  2. To help a liberal party gain national support.
  3. To protest the two mainstream candidates.

The beauty of our electoral process is that it’s not always a binary system. I’m glad that there’s a third door to open.

31

slythe, to paraphrase Shakespeare, I think the world is more complicated than is dreamt of in your philosophies. There is more than this one election at stake…There is also the future of these two political parties, the political process in general, and the nature and breadth of political discourse in this country.

One could argue that although things will be marginally worse under Bush than Gore, the difference is not so large that it isn’t more important to affect these other issues. I’m not saying I fully believe this, which is why I subscribe to the Ivin’s rule and would beg those living in swing states to let those of us in non-swing states like here in New York vote our conscience while they vote for the lesser of the evils. But, I do think that the issues here are more complicated than you make them out to be.

And, by the way, since a Nader win is not really in the cards, I haven’t spent much time contemplating the issue of how he would govern. But, I think you are selling the guy short. He has made a career of winning real victories against powerful interests…He is in some sense a “David” who has successfully taken on many “Goliaths”. I don’t know what a Nader presidency would be like but I can guarantee it would be a lot more interesting than a Bush or Gore one! When Gore says he will fight for us against the special interests, I do believe that he at least believes this is what he should do (which is a step ahead of Bush who seems to view his job as fighting for the special interests), but in the end he is very captive to these interests. The same cannot be said about Nader!

32

The major consequence of Gore losing is not Nader or the Green Party gaining power-the major consequence is that George Bush will bcome president. There is a good chance that one or two Supreme Court judges will be picked by him, the separation of church and state will be weakened, abortion rights will be weakened, and enviromental laws will be weakened. Bush still doesn’t believe that global warming is a possibility!
Now tell me how a Bush presidency will strengthen the Green Party, because only a fool could believe that Nader has a chance in hell of winning. You may have principles, but try to remember that you are not voting for your own personal leader. You should be trying to vote in the person that will further your agenda, not throwing away your vote on someone that promises to give you everything you want, but dosn’t stand a chance of giving it to you.
My suggestion for Nader-start smaller. Try to become a mayor or a senator, show us what you are capable of, and build a political base, instead of asking that it be handed to you on a silver platter.

33

Sounds like a good reason not to vote for Gore!

Like I said, and like Ralph continues to say to everyone who interviews him (who, like Green Bean said, never seem to hear him) if we really thought the difference between what Gore and Bush WILL ACTUALLY DO, as opposed to what they talk about, was really that different, we might (might) be thinking differently.

34

Spoken like someone who doesn’t care to actually study the very real differences between the two candidates who stand a real chance at winning. I saw this same type of fanaticism at a Perot rally I attended a few years ago. He was making all sorts of promises that he couldn’t possibly fulfill, and all the fringe voters were lapping it up because they had no understanding of what a president can and cannot do without the cooperation of the Congress and the Supreme Court. They were even saying what you all are saying now about losing the election buy strengthening their political power.
The results of their efforts: Dole lost, Clinton won, and Perot’s party, built on the ego of one man, is in tatters.
Idealism without realism is at best a dream, and at worst a nightmare.

35

Then tell me about the very real differences. Without just resorting to their rheoric.

I have never heard Nader sound like a fanatical idealist. He has always sounded like a man who knows what he’s up against. Even when he’s explaining why he should run even though he’s “ruining it for Gore” for the fifty millointh time.

You talk about Bush the boeyman who will restrict abortion rights, and break down the wall between church and state, and then say of course Nader can’t do anything without the Congress and the Supreme Court. Neither can Bush. He won’t be Emporer either.

Nader isn’t making any kind of fanatical promises. He’s suggesting the possibility that politics-as-usual,oesn’t have to be. That it’s controlled by corporations. That it’s a contruction, and it isn’t, necessariy, how we have to run things in this counry. That things, could, in fact, be different then they are, does seem a rather heady prospect to me. But It doesn’t seem fanatical.

36

I don’t think he’s a fanatic, I think he’s a idealist with no track record to back him up. I think he’s a johnny-come-lately that entered the race without either the money or the political power needed for the American public to take him seriously. I think that he wants to declare himself non-political in a system, and that this alone should make him a candidate.

And for the umpteenth time, will one of you Naderites explain to the rest of us how a Bush presidency with further your cause better than a Gore presidency? This could be a direct consequence of Nader’s candidacy yet, like my earlier example of people firing their guns into the air, you think that this consequence can be ignored.

As far as the very real consequences of a Bush presidency-the Republican Congress and the right-wing “pro-life” Supreme Court judges he would appoint would provide no obstacle to any legislation he would support. Do you need a comprehensive list of bills Clinton has vetoed that Bush would support, or would a look-see through the front pages of any city’s newspapers for the last four years be enough?

37

I think Montofrt put it quite well.
No, I actually wish that Nader will win. Why would I vote for someone just cause they will probably win? If it were between Bush and say, Reagan (hypothetical of course) who would you vote for?
I am in Ohio, a close state, by all accounts.
If Bush wins, it won’t be My fault, it’ll be not enough people believing in Gore.
I will keep the faith, and hope he runs in 04.

38

I can only hope, however, that I am not giving Bush the win.
In church yesterday, the pastor said How can a christina vote for Gore? He’s for killing babies?
So I think I know how most of the churches over here will be voting. I think I’ll wear my Nader T-shirt next Sunday.

39

And we damn well should. It would make things a hell of a lot more interesting and definitely get a lot more people involved. What was the voter turnout in 1996? 50%? Ooh, a real mandate there.

Nader doesn’t have a record for political office, no. He does, however, have a long record of fighting corporate interests and fighting for reform on a number of issues. More importantly, he can claim a record of not being a corporate whore - something neither Bush nor Gore can do.

**

IIRC, some of the judges who wrote the majority opinion in Brown v. Board of Education were Eisenhower appointees. Nixon appointed justices who supported Roe v. Wade. Kennedy, OTOH, appointed a judge who’s consistenly been against abortion, against gay rights, and consistently argued for the conservative side. So the party affiliations of the nominating President don’t seem to be an indicator of what kind of judges they’ll pick. One more thing - Gore voted to confirm Anton Scalia. 'Nuff said.

Gore and Bush have received equal amounts of funding from some very big corporations so if either of them win, Big Business will have the President in its pocket. That’s shit I can’t take seriously.

**

Voting for someone just because they have a “real chance at winning” is about as cynical as you can get. “Yeah, this fellow stands for nothing I believe in and is probably not going to work in my interest, but he’s got a larger percent of the vote than the guy who might. Guess I’ll vote for him.”

Hel-LO!! Democracy is about voicing your opinions, not just pulling a switch every four years for whoever’s on the list.

Ultimately, the whole point is not who’s going to win Nov 7th, but what people are going to do if the next occupant of the White House starts pulling stunts they don’t approve of. The power of protest is the one weapon we have that, if done correctly, the politicians can’t ignore. Rest assured if Bush wins the Presidency I won’t be hiding under my bed, cowering and waiting for the jackbooted abortion police to come drag my wife away. I’ll be out in front of the White House, the Supreme Court, or the Capitol, doing my best to ensure that Bush knows we won’t let him get away with it if we can help it.

And I’m going in to that voting booth with my head held high, pull that switch for Nader (or write his name in if need be) and walk out with a big ol’ smile on my face. I’m not giving the election to Bush. It’s the Democrats who’ve proven they don’t have anything better to offer who are.

40

You’re right. I think he’s an idealist too. That doesn’t mean his irrational. He seems to have a pretty good idea about how hard it will be to challenge the status quo. Which is why he’s not imagining he’ll do it all in this election. No he doesn’t have the money or the political power, but since the way the other candidates aquired those things is one of the things he’s opposing, it’s not surprising. And I don’t think he’s non-political. He’s pretty politically astute for an idealist.

For the hundred and umteeth time will you explain how the Gore presidency will further our agenda? I think that’s the better question if you want us to vote for him.

Of course we’ve thought about the consequences of a Bush presidency. How could we not, IT’S ALL ANYBODY WILL TALK ABOUT. Sorry. I didn’t mean to shout.