Why not Kucinich?

Great Debates
1

Why not? On all of those online test thingies, he always matches me by 10-15% more than Kerry (Around 85% - 70% - I presume this is because he is a tad more to the “left”).

However, I’ve been unable to find an objective (or subjective that I trust) opinion of the man, or why he was not seriously discussed by the mainstream population as a choice. Since I know most of your biases pretty well (no way in hell I’m getting an objective opinion here! ;-), I figured I’d ask how you all view(ed) him.

I’ve read his website and his official bio. The largest bucking point I see is his “support for a national health care system,” but that is something I’m for anyway. Everything else, from his aggressive stance on human rights to industry accountability, appeals to me.

For what it is worth, it also appeals to me that he doesn’t come from big industry and especially old money.

So, what’s the catch?

2

I’ve been supporting Kucinich all year – technically I’m supporting him still, although of course I’ll vote for Kerry in November. I’m painfully aware of how little support DJK has managed to drum up this year, and why:

First, he’s a nerd. He looks like a middle-aged Alfred E. Neumann with dark hair. He’s a vegan, and that’s a little out there even for me. Some of his rhetoric is a little New Agey. (Not compared to, say, the people in the Natural Law Party, but who pays any attention to them?)

Second, he’s too far to the left. He represents the views of a minority wing of the Democratic Party – a very substantial minority, to be sure, possibly a large enough minority to split off and form its own party, but still a minority. And even that minority want an electable candidate, and we are painfully aware that we are far to the left of the mainstream of opinion among the American people at this period. No leftist, no liberal, no Democrat wants to risk losing this election.

When Kucinich started running, I remember thinking, “I like this guy, he would make the best president we’ve had since Truman, and I’m going to fight to get his message out there. But if he actually gets the nomination, he’ll lose as surely as McGovern lost in 1972, and for the same reason: Because the American people are not ready for a sharp turn to the left.”

And then commentators started comparing that middle-of-the-road, pro-gun-rights, upper-crust preppie Dean to McGovern! Which shows just how conservative the political center-of-gravity is in the U.S. right now. Anyway, the Democratic voters in the early-primary states ultimately decided to, as one commentator put it, “Date a Dean, marry a Kerry.” I.e., start out with the dangerous, exciting guy, but settle down with a safe, solid one.

I just hope Kucinich stays in Congress for a long time to come.

3

Sigh. Yes, I guess this election is too important to trust to silly things like ideals, need to settle for cold, hard, reality.

Maybe Americans think his name is too hard to spell. “Nixon. Ford. Carter. Reagan. Bush. Clinton.” Sense a trend?

Ditto. This man is the first politician I think I’ve actually liked. Ever.

BTW, I count his “nerdiness” as a huge positive. Slick, sly people like Clinton are much more apt and able to lie their way out of situations. Kucinich seems like the type of guy who does a lot of explaining his way out. :wink: I’d like to hear him speak. :frowning:

4

I’ve heard him speak. There’s nothing slick about him, and nothing vague or meaningless or comforting or jovial. It’s all content. He’s like the anti-Reagan. All politicians should be like that, whatever their ideology.

5

BTW, his website is still up: http://www.kucinich.us/

6

Also this blog & news site: http://www.denniskucinich.us/

7

The bottom line is that Kucinich is a genuine liberal. Elections nowadays are always between a conservative and a moderate.

8

This is actually pretty close. The only thing I’d say different is that nowadays elections are between those just to the right of center vs those just to the left. Kucinich has no chance of being elected in the US for the same reason that Pat Buchanan has no chance…Americans prefer candidates that are close to our own center. Kucinich is no where near the center…so he has no chance in our current political structure. Buchanan is no where close to the center…so he doesn’t have a hope in hell either. Simple as that.

-XT

9

I don’t think being liberal is that big a drawback. I mean, it’s not like the Bushista attack machine is treating Kerry like a middle of the road Democrat. They would try to paint any Democratic nominee as a socialist. I think Kucinich’s biggest liablility is that he seems like a wimp. Talking content doesn’t hurt but most voters are amazingly ignorant of the fine points of policy. That’s why politicians seek attention with drama. I think if Kucinich talked tough more voters would take him seriously. People voted for Arnold, after all.

In politics issues often take a backseat to personalities. Americans love a scrappy underdog. If Cassius Clay could bluster, threaten, and maul his way to political relevance in antebellum Kentucky despite his violent anti-slavery rhetoric then I have to think that a pugnacious progressive politician can possibly achieve popularity today.

10

Originally Posted by Little Nemo:

You are right, xtisme, except that the “center” is actually *waaay * to the right in the USA, so basically **Little Nemo ** was pretty much correct.

11

ummmmmm… what about Dean? I guess he was “popular”, but not enough to be nominated.

12

Thats why I said OUR center. Personally I don’t think America is ‘way to the right’ nor Europe ‘way to the left’…they are what they are, and they are totally different. I don’t think comparisons between their relative political stances are worth anything.

-XT

13

Waaay to the right of What? Austria? France? Italy? Look at the recent success the right has had in those countries. We could be more like Italy if we elected Rupert Murdoch President. (Yes, yes I know he’s ineligible.)

When I think of “waaay” to the right I think of places like Saudi Arabia.

Kucinich had an uphill fight from the get go. He is odd looking. He has an eastern European name. He represents the left side of the Democratic party. Looks and ethnicity shouldn’t matter at all, but of course they do.

Our non-parliamentary system enforces moderation. Look at how Bush has been backpedalling on his positions this year in order to make himself look more moderate. Kucinich would have been killed in the general election. That would have gained liberals nothing. No points in the U.S. for second place (2000 election notwithstanding).

14

I don’t agree that he wasn’t popular enough to be nominated. I’d say he was… just not at the right time. If he hadn’t peaked just before Iowa he would have won there and probably be the presumptive nominee right now instead of Kerry. The Bush campaign certainly thought Dean was going to be the nominee. That’s why they had already started the effort to paint him as a liberal, which of course he isn’t.

15

Well, I’ve heard he bankrupted Cleveland.

Sad, really, because his views match up pretty well with mine, too (except on free trade).

16

That’s exactly right. The mainstream Democratic party keeps getting closer and closer to the Republican party. A true liberal just isn’t politically viable. And really, some of his ideas are pretty far left, like the Department of Peace. He also has a no-nonsense manner of speaking, and frankly, I think most people like to hear nonsense. Personally, I like Kucinich, and I voted for him in the primaries.

17

I’d written him off as a loser when I heard him on a local talk show before our primary. By the end of the hour, I was amazed at how well he had his replies thought out. It sounded more like a business plan to me than a political platform. Probably the most concise platform I’ve ever heard. Every position seemed to support the others, mainly I think because he had a moral vision he starts with and everything has to fit within that framework. Even some of his more extreme ideas have plausibility when looked at within the whole.

Unfortunately, I think that soundbites work against him. Taken individually his talking points will sound a bit extreme to average Americans out of their full context. But I bet that even many who would strongly disagree with him, and I do on a couple points, would admit upon hearing him at length that he knows how to present a solid case.

Anyway, I don’t think we’ve heard the last of him. The guy is so tenacious that he’s likely to be around for a while. He’s going down fighting, and I think the DNC will have to let him have a little time to speak at least out of courtesy. More importantly, he’s the best chance the Democrats have to pull some votes away from Ralph Nader, if Kucinich can get Kerry to make some concessions. It could be some good theater if the Dems play it right. And he may be lucky to make a name for himself in the process.

18

That doesn’t resonate “wimp” to me O_o

19

He’s like any other fringe pol - without any real chance of winning, he’s free to take purely ideological positions that give him the air of principledness. He isn’t going to get held to any promises, or even get tough questions. Sure, he’ll look “better” than the rest. There’s a few of those every election.

You want more specifics, though? Reasons to doubt his ability to be a good chief executive? Some of us remember, quite well and quite painfully, his time as “Boy Mayor” of Cleveland in the Seventies. Nobody could tell him the time of day without getting an argument. No issue could be brought up that he wouldn’t make worse, by exacerbating tensions and making agreements impossible. The city was soon in receivership, with “unauditable” books. Sure, he’s probably matured a lot since then, but his record isn’t a good one to run on.

20

Here’s how it happened (from the DJK campaign website – http://www.kucinich.us/about.php):