tell me what ralph nader's deal is and i'll mail you a cookie.

All three. I think to him the importance of change within the current party system trumps everything. Can't back down now!!!..or something.

Well, I don't think he's demented or being blackmailed. It's just a combination of egotism and the ever popular 'groupthink' getting the better of him.

X-post.

Maybe the real deal is that he expected the Dems to come to him on their knees after the last debacle and they didn't, so he's pissed.

AFAIC, i'm more interested in why an individual as personally unappealing on so many levels as ralph nader has commanded any degree of loyalty in this election (not to mention election 2000). i think that this says as much (if not more) about his supporters and the american left than it does about nader himself.

gabbneb that looks like a strange/fascinating link! will read it now

i wouldn't be so sure about that one if i were you. just b/c he's not a very GOOD machiavellian (or that he's being jerked around by other machiavellians as much as he's trying to jerk them around) doesn't mean that he's not machiavellian.

XPOST.

i kinda agree w/ you here -- i'm not so big on armchair psychoanalysis either. it was one of the things that drove up the wall during the clinton impeachment.

but at this point, psychology may be the ONLY thing to explain nader's behavior. lord knows that i can't think of any compelling, overarching socioeconomic or political-playa reason for his recent actions!

Nader in previous siding-with-the-Republican-Tactics SHOCKAH!!!

i know i'm going to regret posting to this thread but WHAT THE FUCK is so "personally unappealing" about ralph nader? as compared to, you know, everyone else in politics?

I hate Bush as much as anyone, but I have no faith in what people see as their only other option. Even more so than Britain with the Tories/New Labour, the US needs to expand its choices by supporting people like Nader.

I don't know.

petty ego gratification?

gee, maybe the rancid smugness of statements like this has something to do with it?

you said it

Absolutely

if's funny how no Nader supporters are ever willing to admit that at least 528 of the 90,000 who voted for him would have voted for Gore if Nader hadn't been on the ballot

you accuse amateurist of smugness, and yet YOU can make the above comment?

where to start w/ ralphie? let's begin w/ hypocrisy -- (a) passing yerself off as a friend to the workers -- when you've allegedly busted a nascent union in yer own shop, make yer workers slave away at sweatshop wages and hours, and the very causes that you've built yer name on are in conflict w/ workers' interests (e.g., advocating during the 70s and 80s that consumers purchase foreign-made cars instead of american-made ones); (b) claiming to be for "the little guy" and the dispossessed -- while stiffing urban homeless people you've hired to collect petition signatures; (c) taking the democrats to task for allegedly being in cahoots w/ big business and conservatives -- all the while consorting w/ pat buchanan and lyndon larouche, accepting financial and in-kind support (e.g., petition drives and court challenges to ballot access decisions) from republicans and conservatives; (d) claiming to support 3d parties for their alleged benefits in spurring democracy and expanding political discourse -- while strong-arming the 3d party who nominated you (while not even bothering to join it).

shall i go on? there's much more, even if i limit this to the charge of hypocrisy.

you're right, tad - i apologize for coming off like that. i guess the one-sidedness of these nader threads just pisses me off.

Is the problem here a disagreement with strategy, or is it his apparently way-out extreme left politics? I always get so confused on these threads - the yellow dogs are never very clear where they stand on anything.

As for the "Democrat are like Republicans", does anyone believe that? Aside from the total imposibility of two people making the exact same decisions in office, Bush is peculiar even by Republican standards. If you think that Bush and Kerry will do exactly the same thing on everything except one tiny issue, you have to vote for who would do the best on that issue, unfortunately. Fortunately, the idea that Gore would have acted as Bush has is rediculous, and it's safe to assume that it's equally rediculous that Bush will behave the same as Gore.

Whoa.

i won't vote because of how palatable i find the democrats' political tactics, or whether i find kerry smug, or whether i find ralph nader smug, or whether i find democrats' attitude to nader supporters smug, or whether i find nader advocates' attitude to democrats smug. i will vote for a candidate who stands a chance of winning and who will make things better (relatively speaking) for americans and those who are affected by american policy abroad.

i find amazing that i am expected to argue, again, why there is a significant difference between the republican and democrat candidates in this election, their proposals and likely actions in office. we've had this argument umpteen times. i find myself flabbergasted that people can continue to harbor the "tweedledee / tweedledum" illusion even after four years of the bush administration's iraq war, patriot act, appointing of right-wing federal judges, obfuscation surrounding abu ghraib, placing reactionaries in charge of the justice department, weakening the nlrb's advocacy for embattled unions, etc. if this is "the same" to you as kerry's admittedly severely compromised but fairly obviously difference rhetoric and voting record (and the rhetoric and political history of those likely to run the executive branch when kerry's in office), then i have to ask what sort of proverbial blinders you've put on.

i will not be happy under a second bush term. i will be more fearful, more concerned for my civil liberties and those of others, more concerned for a worker's right to organize and a woman's right to choose, more concerned for the people of the middle east whose countries bush administration policymakers have considered invading. if you choose to vote for ralph nader in a state such as florida, then you are effectively contributing to a bush victory. i do not wish to impede nader's landing on the ballot, but i do wonder about the motives and real-life concerns and political sense of the man himself and those who would support him. hence this thread.

end of story.

i get really angry when i hear statements such as, "i'm going to vote bush to piss off barbara streisand" (or whatever that thread was), "maybe people vote for nader because of the smugness of the democratic party," etc. none of that matters. voting is not like wearing a slipknot t-shirt vs. a joy division t-shirt, it's not "sticking it to" anyone, it's not voting for someone you find personally palatable and would like to have over for dinner. it's about real-world policies and events.

okay, I don't agree with this. Almost everything that the current Republican party does in terms of electoral tactics and strategy, not to mention a lot of the actual proposed policy, comes out of the Reagan era. I don't think the Democrats were in nearly as much disarray then as they are now, though I could definitely be wrong.

Emily -- stop talking rubbish and stop being insulting.

xpost - yeah, see I think the Dems clearly offered alternatives to Reagan back in the day, but they got beat so bad (Mondale '84! - I saw some of the DNC that year not too long ago on C-Span and Fritz was seriously progressive compared to what we're getting now) that they've just been tentative ever since. Clinton winning on a center-right platform didn't help, but neither did progressive candidates getting beat either!

I wonder if Nader had gotten that 5% whether these discussions would have the same tenor. Because I for one would prolly respect him a lot more.

yes it is a loaded question. (i've never understood that term "loaded question", how is a question ever not loaded?) i worded it badly too, i was really picking holes in the democratic process. from what i understand it seems like a first-past-the-post type system (please excuse me i know that is reductive) and i fail to see how such a system can be representative of american people. well granted i can't think of ANY "democratic process" which is truly representative of the people it is supposed to serve, and i am sure it must be a very difficult process to get it changed (this is something i would like to know more about too). i just have this nice fuzzy wuzzy idea, wouldn't it be good if the nader fans and the kerry fans didn't feel the need to scream at each other any more? what if there were like HEAPS of parties instead of just 2? would some kind of proportional representation system (for example,in which two parties could form a coalition where the two could maintain some autonomy but work together when they have common ground) help? would it even be workable in a country as huge as the states? look i know this is probably REALLY naive. its so easy for me to be idealistic, i live in a country where i can vote for the green party and not get screamed at by labour supporters. here the greens can actually have a say in the running of this country if they get 5% of votes. and they usually do. (i like MMP, please don't laugh me off the board)

Example:

How do you feel about me? == neutral
Why do you hate me so much? == loaded

here, i totally disagree w/ you (and go further than hstencil did upthread). why is it that the other 3d parties (the libertarians, the socialists, etc.) can follow the rules for ballot access -- that is, play by the rules -- but nader can't? this goes to the issue of nader's hypocrisy that i mentioned upthread. everyone can play by the rules, except ralph b/c he's, well, ralph. he's done THIS SORTA THING HIS ENTIRE LIFE -- he doesn't release his financial records (or those of the non-profits he runs), he busts unions at his organizations, he invests in companies w/ shady and/or immoral practices; and he yells and screams at anyone else who does the same. and his supporters all look the other way, or deny (in the face of any and all evidence) that "saint ralph" has feet of clay.

actually, i thought that that person was jamie farr ... or our own nickalicious!

Don't they? You try to shout down the people you think are shouting down. Do you feel silenced?

As far as I am concerned, I am neither a Kerry nor a Nader fan. I am a fan of well-run, fair and just government. The big question is how to apply one's efforts to get the closest approximation to this as possible.

Most citizens understand voting as a means to this end. Many of them understand the need to lobby. Very, very few of them, apart from the insider elite, understand the political parties - how they do work, how they could work and how they fail as instruments for obtaining well-run, fair and just government. That suits the insider elite just fine.

The whole Nader/Greens vs. the Democrats argument turns on the question of how to reform the parties in the best interests of the nation. The best solution isn't obvious. What is obvious is that, as presently constituted, the Democratic party shuns democracy. That must be fixed. It is key and urgent.

As for me, I don't care how that end is achieved. But the Nader-bashing, Green-bashing, and strident demands for lockstep loyalty to the Democrats that I've seen in this election (and the last) are tremendously reminiscent of Stalinism. This may appear to have a whiff of hyperbole and overstrained rhetoric about it. I can assure you, it is merely a statement of fact.

Just think a moment. The 'democratic' solution to bringing Nader and the Greens back into the tent is simple. It is so stupefyingly simple, you must wonder why it isn't being tried. It is compromise. Duh! Give them something they want and they will give you their support. Contrast this elementary bit of democracy with the preferred 'Democratic' solution - which has been to conduct a cattle drive, complete with yells, whips and cattle prods.

The repeated emphasis on "loyalty" is especially Stalinist or McCarthyite in tone. Aren't we supposed to notice this? Or are we just cattle?

are you sure you're not building a straw man here?

Of course, part of my pro-Democratic party-ness is ideological - they represent me better than Nader or any other third parties. This may not be true of you. So if you want to speak in terms of 'loyalty', I respond that we are seeking one another's adherence to competing parties to the left of the Republicans. It's fairly obvious to me that Democrats are winning not because they are better at 'loyalty' but because ten times as many people prefer their program to the alternative. Is there any reason I should believe otherwise?

Is being a joiner (and I'm so not, but this strikes me as a potentially applicable metaphor) really support for fascism?

As for not seeing the great benefits of parliamentary democracy, I prefer the moderating incentives of the two-party system.

My comments were not aimed at you, amateur!!st, so your personal words and actions are not at issue. My own argument for supporting Kerry is equally pragmatic and very similar to yours.

I cannot believe you have not read the attacks that have been directed at Nader. Nowhere do they address the issues Nader speaks to. They are entirely couched in emotional terms - that Nader is a dupe and a tool of the evil forces - that all good liberals must maintain a united front against Bush, but Nader is a selfish renegade who has broken ranks and may destroy us - that Nader must be feared. Right.

The entire effort is a misdirection away from the fundamantal debate over the issues that Nader is attempting to provoke. Remember the stirring and profound national debate we've been having this election year? No? Me neither. But surely you recall the olive branch that was offered, the seat at the table, the negotiations for Nader's endorsement, the new planks designed to attract Nader voters? No? Me neither.

The shunning of democracy by the two main political parties is so normal, so usual, so expected, that it blends into the background of politics and isn't even noticed any more. We aren't supposed to notice.

Straw man? I think not.

I mean, it's fine if people who support them wished the Democrats courted them, but don't say it's all the Dems fault because they haven't, when Nader's been saying all along he doesn't want the Dems to court him.

aren't Democrats merely recognizing, from the first, that Nader supporters disagree with them?

Nader must be feared

are we not allowed to fear him?

ha, try three years

fuck me

... If I hear one more person tell me how lousy a candidate Kerry is and how he can't win... Dammit, of COURSE he's a lousy candidate -- he's a Democrat, for heavens sake! That party is so pathetic, they even lose the elections they win! What were you expecting, Bruce Springsteen heading up the ticket? Bruce would make a helluva president, but guys like him don't run -- and neither do you or I. People like Kerry run. ...MORE...

(a) sugar
(b) oatmeal-raisin
(c) macadamia nut
(d) bootyflake

Ralph's top muckraking books of '09:

http://counterpunch.org/nader12252009.html