<h>Nader brings on the ice age</h> So Nader's running and there's been a flood of anger from the left, curiously enough. It seems there's a lot more people than I thought that believe that a democracy can only be properly represented as a two-party system. <a href="http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17920" source="AlterNet">The Lone Ranger Of Righteousness</a> explains some of the current administration's misdeeds: <bq>...That doesn't even count global warming, which ... now brings the potential for melting polar ice caps to shutting down the Gulf Stream and plunging Europe and northeastern North America into a man-made ice age. ... How can Nader know this and still run?</bq> Woah. That's a pretty big leap in logic. What do melting polar ice caps have to do with Nader? Do people really believe that Kerry's going to "take on big business and do damned thing about the polar icecaps? Kerry's beholden to the same people that Bush is ... it's really cheap to buy a politician: invest a couple of million into both campaigns and reap billions in savings over the next four years. How could you <i>not</i> make that investment? <h>How can you lose?</h> <img href="{data}news/old_attachments/images/tr040228.gif" src="{data}news/old_attachments/images/tr040228_tn.gif" align="right" class="frame">If Bush is so terrible, pretty much <i>any</i> Democrat should be able to clinch it, no? How is it possible that Nader can even be a factor in this race? Do Democrats really expect to get only the 50.1% they got 4 years ago? Sounds like they've got a hell of a platform to offer. Look at it closely and you'll see it looks a lot like Bush's ... or Clinton's. If the Democrats were really addressing people's needs and desires --- hitting the issues that matter, this race should be a runaway win. Nader can run, afford us high-minded liberals a semblance of Democracy, maybe he'll get 10% this time around. Maybe not. Doesn't matter; running against Bush should be even easier this time around than last, when the Democrats failed to show America what kind of policies it could expect from a Bush white house. They failed to do so because they agreed on so many issues. Can't point out that your opponent is corporation-pandering slimeball; people might just be smart enough to notice that you're one too. So, even if Nader snags 10%, any reasonable candidate should be able to grab about 65% against the unparalleled horror of 4 more years of Bush. Somehow that Democratic Party doesn't see it that way (and note that none of the candidates have welcomed Nader into the race either). <bq>[Nader] can [run] without critiques of the "two-party duopoly" that may discourage some for voting for the Democratic nominee.</bq> So, we've got people so hell-bent on getting rid of Bush that they're pissed at Nader because, as quoted above, people might notice that Kerry's not going to give them a much better deal than Bush will. They literally defend their candidate, then admit he's part of the 'System', all in one breath. It sounds like Democrats are afraid that people will notice that Nader's right. I mean, how hard can it be to beat an administration with this kind of stuff coming out of it: <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0223-08.htm" title="Bush's Education Secretary Calls Teachers Union 'Terrorist Organization'" source="Common Dreams">Bush's Education Secretary Calls Teachers Union 'Terrorist Organization'</a>. Seriously, this beating Bush should be a cake-walk --- he and his people are just flat-out insane. <h>Bigger than Jesus</h> A running theme in the anti-Nader liberal press is that he's doing it out of pure egoism. <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/jackson02232004.html" title="George and Ralph: Is Nader as Evil as Bush?" source="Counterpunch" author="Bruce Jackson">Is Nader as Evil as Bush?</a> is another way over-the-top article about Nader, accusing him of messianism because he's running on a single-issue platform: elimination of the two-party system and corporate control over government. As expected, the hoary old numbers from 2000 are dragged out, showing how many votes Nader got and how many would probably have gone to Gore, blah blah blah ... Democrats can't convince more people that they really are the people's party because they <b>aren't</b>. That's why so many people voted for Bush, because they weren't given a reason not to, and $120 million were poured into the right channels to make sure their TVs were telling them to vote Bush. This year it will be $200 million doing the job --- that's about $4 for each vote Bush needs. Jackson acknowledges that: <bq>Of course large corporations exert undue power in Washington. Of course Republicans and Democrats suck up that money. Of course the two parties dominate politics in America. But is helping George W. Bush and John Ashcroft get four more years of nearly-unlimited power a rational way to deal with those problems?</bq> Isn't that a bit exaggerated? Just because he's not running Democrat and sacrificing himself to the primary process, he's just as bad as Bush? The Democrats really expect to pull out only barely 50% this year too? With all the shit Bush pulled? Democrats shouldn't have to spend any money at all! But they do, because they suck too. That's why Democrats get mad, because Nader exposes that nerve, pointing out that they're all just corporate whores. <bq>Nader is unmarried and he has no children, which perhaps explains his disinterest in education. ...[and is] ... disinterest[ed] in civil rights and health care, gender and environmental issues</bq> I think that's mis-stating the case; Nader has chosen to campaign against the fundamental cause of the lack of freedom in this country: subjugation of government process to corporations controlled by the elite. Sounds like conspiracy theory, but the reason most people aren't being served by their government isn't because of oversight, it's because they're not in the shareholders group. The board of directors takes care of itself. It takes care of the rest of us just enough to avoid revolution. I'm supposed to have more in common with John Kerry? His wife is heiress to the Heinz fortune! If elected he'll be one of the richest people ever to hit the Oval Office and we're all supposed to swallow that he's a populist --- really he is, though he never says anything populist. <bq>[Nader] still insists there would have been no difference in a Gore presidency and the Bush presidency he helped create.</bq> On the lowest level this is true --- perhaps liberal judges would have been appointed in place of <iq>Charles Pickering and William Prior</iq>, but those are just small details. The important issues that affect everyone are handles in the same way, whether under Democratic or Republican leadership (go take a look at Clinton's record). <h>Overseas opinions</h> Here's a comment (<a href="http://www.plastic.com/comments.html;sid=04/02/22/11473677;cid=109" source="Plastic">An open letter to all American voters.</a>) on a discussion about Nader's candidacy, succinctly summing up the danger in this coming election: <bq>Just not W, OK? Once, we could put down to a simple mistake. I mean, nobody knew back then how it was going to turn out, did they? Twice? That would mean you guys agreed with what has been going on for the last four years, that you wanted four more of the same, and more. ... Well that would be the biggest bird anyone could ever flip the rest of the world.</bq> That's exactly it; we should be terrified that the Democrats are trundling out such crap for us; terrified that it's really going to be close; embarrassed that it's going to be so close; mad as hell that it's going to be so close. Think international travel is uncomfortable now? Wait 'til Bush gets 4 more. Another comment noted: <iq>I don't think [Nader] has any prospects in the coming election.</iq> No shit, Mr. Obvious. And here's my comment, <a href="http://www.plastic.com/comments.html;sid=04/02/22/11473677;cid=94" source="Plastic">There is no difference</a>: <bq>By the time the primaries have concluded, the Democratic party will have shaken itself loose from every last progressive or populist idea any of its candidates may have had. The Democrats will simply come up with a 'not Bush'. The current front-runner agrees (albeit reluctantly, to maintain the proper image) with Bush on most major issues, including the war in Iraq (sure he disagrees now, but his vote was cast for it ... spineless), the Patriot Act (we didn't know what we were doing ...) and the economy (tax cuts rock ...). So, if, by some miracle, the Rove slime machine doesn't work, and people vote in a Democratic version of Bush, who's a bit warmer and a bit fuzzier, what's the gain? I know, I know, people just to love to have voted for the winner ? principles and issues be damned. What exactly is a wasted vote?</bq> So why are we letting ourselves be intimidated into a strict two-party system? Other democratic countries don't do that. I live in Switzerland and there are dozens of parties, several with lots of seats in the Parliament and representation in local councils, etc. <h>Mis-using Chomsky</h> <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-13.htm" author="Norman Solomon" source="Common Dreams">Nader's Tin Ear</a> jumps in with yet another carefully constructed article intended to tell us that more candidates are good, but just not this year, when the overriding goal is to simply get rid of Bush. He ever quotes Chomsky as supporting his point: <bq>The current incumbents may do severe, perhaps irreparable, damage if given another hold on power?a very slim hold, but one they will use to achieve very ugly and dangerous ends. In a very powerful state, small differences may translate into very substantial effects on the victims, at home and abroad. It is no favor to those who are suffering, and may face much worse ahead, to overlook these facts.</bq> That's right: the Bush cabal is quite dangerous and has already hurt millions with its policies, both at home and much more abroad. However, they do have to be voted out in a democratic way. The question comes again to the fore: if Bush is so bad, why is it conceived as such a tight race to get rid of him? Isn't it exactly the 'shut up and go along without asking questions or dissenting' attitude that we're fighting here? Why is it OK suddenly for Democrats to use that tactic? The Chomsky quote goes on: <bq>Keeping the Bush circle out means holding one's nose and voting for some Democrat, <b>but that's not the end of the story</b>. The basic culture and institutions of a democratic society have to be constructed, in part reconstructed, and defeat of an extremely dangerous clique in the presidential race is only one very small component of that. (emphasis added)</bq> Aha. That sounds more like what Nader's saying --- that the defeat of Bush will simply be another hollow victory if the entire machinery rule by corporation is left intact. Getting rid of Bush achieves nothing if the next guy is almost as bad. Compare Bush and Clinton's records --- on many important issues, they have exactly the same policies --- what do I care if Clinton was more affable than Bush? What do I care if Kerry mouthes words I like, if he never acts on them? <h>Finally: a pro-Nader article</h> <a source="CounterPunch" author="Josh Frank" href="http://www.counterpunch.org/frank02232004.html">Nader's Nadir?: Not a Chance</a> tells us to watch out for <iq>...denouncement[s] of Nader's bid --- the whole while failing to articulate a coherent strategy for challenging the corporate entrenched Democrats as they genuflect at the feet of Republicans' every whim.</iq> Democrats are just as deep in as the Republicans: they aren't offering you any choice at all. <bq>Nader is now publicly calling for the impeachment of the President. ... The Republicans attacked Clinton for a cigar and an intern, but the Democrats won't go after Bush for misleading Americans into war. Why? It's simple; the Democrats on the whole supported the illegal invasion...</bq> Another article denouncing the Democrats is <a source="CounterPunch" title="The Liberal 'Intelligentsia' v. Nader: Things They Should Consider" href="http://www.counterpunch.org/krebs02232004.html" author="Al Krebs">Things They Should Consider</a> in which he points out that Nader's spoiler status is unearned --- Gore should have clobbered Bush, but he didn't. He didn't debate him at all (those weren't debates, they were pathetic agree-a-thons, in which Gore agreed on almost everything Bush said), he didn't even visit all the Democratic stronghold states. He points out that Howard Dean already tried the 'work from the inside' approach to populism --- and the Democratic Party ate him for breakfast. It wasn't the media, he didn't implode, he just fell away once the Dems moved their support to 'viable' candidates.