I’m still trying to figure out exactly what is up with the Nader supporters. The ones I have met seem to be more annoying than conservative Christians.
I think the sterotype of a Nader supporter is an angry “artist” with a “Kill Corporate Coffee” T shirt whining about “Republocrats.” They’re against “Globalization.” Huh? They seem convinced Starbucks and Wal-Mart are evil.
Does this anger really accomplish anything? Do they really think that somehow these companies will be held “accountable” if they vote for Ralph?
In my experience, Naderites (or other extreme leftists, or extreme rightists, or whatever) are looking for purity in their politics, unclouded by compramise,and the give and take that generally keeps the wheels spinning. They want a Great Leader with a simple plan for everyone rather than dealing with the complexities associated with governing 300 million people. In order to make a symbolic statement, they are gambling on an all-or-nothing approach to the political process.
The sad part is, as a left-leaning Democrat, I get to share in their nothing when the Right wins the election. I imagine that Repulblicans had the same frustration with their third-party spin-offs until someone wised up.
And yes, most Greens that I know (as well as Libertarians) seem to be from upper class white families, have completed college, and are overwhelmingly straight males. This generally doesn’t impress me, as they are the group that usually has the least to lose in the event of a loss to their opposition.
I’m a lefty liberal, but Naderites are idiots of a different color. Ultimately, they’re reactionary iconoclasts with a destructive anarchical bent. Plus of course they’re attention whores.
They’d rather raise a ruckus than effect actual change.
I’d say Stonebow’s assesment is pretty good. I might go so far as to say that Naderites almost rely on their candidate losing: that way, they can continue to complain about the existing political establishment, and never have to see the policies they advocate tested.
Hi. I voted Nader in 2000. I work a full-time ($44K) job at the Federal Aviation Administration, I don’t drink coffee at all because I don’t like it, and I don’t shop Wal-Mart because they don’t sell the kind of clothes I like to wear, fuck you very much.
I’ve followed the policies of the Democrats and the Republicans for as long as I’ve been of voting age, and I find that neither of them, when they speak to the issues I’m concerned about, I find their answers and opinions severely wanting. Why should I vote for either of them?
I would like to see the political arena opened up to other, smaller parties and get some real political debate going. If it takes a Nader campaign to do it (independent or otherwise), then so be it. I’d gladly vote for that.
The problem with your voting strategy is that with a candidate who cannot possibly ever get the minimum number of votes or percentage of votes for a third party, you’re only hurting others. So Nader won’t be successful, won’t get his 3rd party any money, and will just split votes. I know it sounds selfish as hell, and I understand that it is your constitutional right to vote for who and whomever you wish. Unfortunately, Nader is a bean-head with something to prove to the people of America, that he can successfully run and get exactly %.05 of the vote(or some other small percentage).
Since Nader is an extreme liberal, and you will be voting for him, you only hurt the closest party to your political bend, the Democrats. The Republicans will be counting on this, although it will affect their vote as well, though not as much.
I really think divisiveness is a problem right now. Bush divides the country along the anti- and pro-gay issues, the Democrats divide on Kerry v. Edwards, and disenfranchised Dems, lefties and Independents divide yet again and give their votes to the 3rd party.
I think the troops should be withdrawn from Iraq and the only US involvement should be direct humanitarian assistance. Kerry wants to continue the occupation and predicts the US will have to send troops into (North) Korea and Africa.
I think gay marriage should be dealt with at the federal level, since it’s a civil rights issue. Kerry merely says he’d oppose a constitutional amendment and leave it up to the individual states.
I think the death penalty should be abolished. I don’t think Kerry has even chosen to address the issue.
I think this country should have a universal health care program. Kerry supports further privatization of what still exists.
Don’t fucking try to tell me the Democrats are closer to my political bent when you don’t even know what my political bent is.
The Democrats don’t exactly live up to all of my expectations either, but I won’t go out and blow my fucking vote on some 3rd party weanie so the Incumbent warmonger, hatemonger Conservative can get re-elected and fuck my country up even more.
Say what?! No, I want to know where you think the Democrats’ opposition to the invasion of Iraq, the Patriot Act, this proposed anti-gay constitutional amendment, the ludicrous tax cuts, etc. etc. was. And if there wasn’t any, how can you justify voting for the Democrats because they’re not Bush or the Republicans? Why should I vote for the other mainstream party if their commitment to opposing the incumbent mainstream party is sketchy at best?
Olentzero- They’re politicians. Had the Democrats grown spines and stood up for any sort of ideals regarding Iraq, or terrorism and anything opposite of what public opinion at the time dictated, I firmly believe a majority of Americans, even Democrats, would have had the Democratic congresspeople for lunch.
So yes, think about American politics as a whole, and how public opinion and the media work and get back to me with an answer about why they didn’t stand up, or against any sort of Iraq action, or the PA or any other countless issues that you are at odds with the Dems for. They would have been villified had they acted like peaceniks and not vote the way they did.
They simply acted as their constituency would have them act for the most part.
Sam
P.S.- I have yet to tell you who to vote for, I simply explained why a 3rd party candidte isn’t a good choice, IMO.
I completely disagree. I think one of the reasons the Republicans do well is because they consistently defend conservative ideals even when they don’t have popular support. This makes them look dedicated to their principles. Conversely, politicians who won’t take a stand, or who say whatever they think people want to hear at that moment come across as slippery and untrustworthy, and I think this has been the Democrats biggest problem in recent years.
I voted for Nader in 2000, almost entirely out of disgust with the Democratic party trying to cast itself as Republican Lite. I don’t expect my leaders to be idealistic hippies, but I do expect them to be leaders. I won’t vote for Nader this time around, as I think it’s more important to get Bush out of office now that he’s turned out to be such a disaster, but I think the problem remains. If it wasn’t for Howard Dean, we’d have a repeat of the 2002 elections, whereby Democrats would try to win the election by agreeing with everything the president says although suggesting that perhaps a few of the details could be changed. Ugh.
I voted for Nader in 2000. I was in Kentucky, which was a solid lock for a Bush victory. By the logic of the Nader bashers–namely, I shouldn’t have voted for Nader because he had no chance of winning–I also would have been throwing my vote away by voting for Gore, as he also had no chance of winning.
Had I been in a state that was in play, it might have been different. I don’t know. All I know was that I was tired of watching them argue over how vehemently they supported things I opposed (say, the death penalty) or opposed the thing I supported (say, universal health coverage).
And yeah, I’m a college-educated, middle-class white male. Sorry about that.
Ralph Nader insists that anyone who follows him must worship him…the man has an enormous ego. Not only is he right about everything, but he is also NOT TO BE CHALLENGED-doing so will get you excommunicated!
An illustration of this: Nader keeps his office locked when he is away…one time, and young female staffer made the mistake of opening the office to tidy up and open his mail. Upon his return, he administered a tongue lashing to the poor girl, that rendered her mute…the master brooks NO disobedience.
Nader is so proud ofhis “genius”(he is said tohave an IQ of 155), that to challenge himon anything is not done.
The other beef I have with the guy…he manufactures “crises” out ofthin air…like the hatchet job he did on the Corvair (he was preparing a similar attack on the VW Beetle, but had to abandon the project because too many ofhis disciples drove them).
The man is a total fraud!
Nothing to apologize for- part of me envies the luxury that you have in making the election more of an intellectual exercise than a serious drive at impacting policy.
I just hope that you understand that for some, the election process has a bit more urgency than it holds for you. Quite often, national elections are referendums on the civil rights of minority groups- and fringe voting seldom serves those groups well.
If Nader (or the Libertarians, or whoever) wants to know why their voting pool looks the way it does time after time, it’s because most groups that see themselves in real danger will make the vote that both advances their position (even if it is sometimes only by a small margin) and blocks the actions of their opposition.
