Question for Nader supporters... - An Unreasonable Man (2006) Discussion

[–] chdach 17 years ago

I'm curious, which would be the lesser of 2 evils? The movie essentially proved that the Democratic Party, traditionally viewed as the more populist party, has in reality abandoned the downtrodden long ago, and is just as slavish to corporate agendas as the Republicans. Their tactics in excluding Nader from debates and sabotaging every effort to get him on the states' ballots shows just how undemocratic the Democrats are. If it's the Iraq War that has you convinced that Bush and his administration are the Supreme Evil, you should remember that the Iraq war was voted for by Republicans and Democrats alike.

And every Nader supporter I have met, and Nader himself, would like to build up a 3rd party that could vie with the major two parties. It was an issue that was much discussed among Nader's supporters everywhere. A major goal of Nader's campaign in 2000 was to get 5% of the vote for the Green party, to make them eligible for federal funding. The Green Party opted to go with another candidate in '04, so Nader had to run as an independent.

I myself have vowed never to vote for either of the 2 major parties, as a matter of principle. The Democrats continue to be a watered-down version of the Republicans (I think I've borrowed that phrase from Ralph), and since when is watered-down anything better? The Democrats to me are more repulsive than Republican candidates, because they assume a larger responsibility through their posturing as the more compassionate, enlightened, populist party. But it is hypocritical posturing- the party is largely composed of wolves in sheeps' clothing.

reply

[–] calikidd2k 17 years ago

So the lesser of two evils got eviler, is it not still the lesser of the two evils? Cause watered-down poison is probably better than poison if you were forced to drink one.

Because the way I see it, there's the generally united republicans and then the coalition of the opposing views attempting to compromise on some issues for the sake of one or two issues which they feel strongly about. Which is why they have troubled finding a message (other than "not the republicans") and are watered down and hypocritical, because they are not one, but many with an uneasy truce. So whether it was the democrats or the green party or whoever, I think it would be similar because the republican agenda seems to represent the majority of america, and to contend with that the "other" party would require an alliance of smaller factions.

"Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity"
www.myspace.com/andrehill

reply

[–] chdach 17 years ago

You make several assumptions that I fundamentally disagree with. First, that the Democrats are the lesser of two evils. I see the two-party system as a united front against democracy and citizens’ interests. What difference does it make, on a larger scale, whether a Democrat or Republican gets elected? The environment still gets ignored, healthcare is unaffordable, foreign policy favors capitalist imperialist agendas over human rights, etc, etc. Why did the Democrats put up such a fight against Nader in the last two elections, in effect demonizing him, and yet only put in a half-assed attempt to defeat the Republicans, their only real competitor for the White House? I think it’s because the powers-that-be, the moneyed interests that control the electoral process, know that, Democrat or Republican, it doesn’t really matter who’s sitting in office. What was not to be tolerated was this activist leader going around the country getting people all riled up, pointing out the corruption and inadequacies in both of the two parties, and forcing people to think about their own involvement in the electoral process. That was the real threat, because these powers would much prefer an ignorant and complacent electorate.

So it is not the Democrats plus the Greens and other small, liberal parties vs. the Big Bad Republicans, but all concerned citizens vs. the two-party system.

The other assumption that you make that I don’t buy is that I’m obligated to vote against my conscience, as though we don’t actually live in a democracy. This is America, right? Therefore, I vote for whomever I believe is the best candidate. To vote strategically is to defeat my own agenda of supporting any sort of positive change in this country by moving away from the two-party system.

And by the way, watered-down poison will kill you just the same.

reply

[–] calikidd2k 17 years ago

I see what you're saying about the two-party system, but that's what I was talking about about the "coalition of factions" or whatever. From my perspective the reason the Democrats fought Nader harder than the Republicans was because Nader would woo away some of those factions from their coalition that give them enough strength to compete with the republicans. And those missing factions would be more detrimental the "swing voters."

So, I didn't mean it so much as Democrat vs. Republican, but Liberal vs. Conservative. Whatever the names of the parties are, the conservative viewpoint is much more prevelant in this country, and the "other" party will always (at least on the national level) be the coalition of people who are more liberal on the few issues that are most important to them. Because, I know that the range of political beliefs is much more extreme in other countries, but there are still differences between Democrats and Republicans. And the only way I think a 3+ party system would work was if the there was some factioning of the republicans too, so that it wouldn't be the one large conservative party against the several smaller liberal parties.

So, getting back to my original question, you say that to vote for either is to vote against your conscience, but until a legitimate 3+ party system is established wouldn't the Democratic view at least be preferable to the Republican view? The Democrats may not be very effective, but in contrast would a strong Republican party EVER deal with the enviornment, healthcare, or a human-rights based foreign policy? Because watered-down poison may just may you sick, and even if it does kill you, it might take a little longer and give you the time to find a cure. (I like this analogy) :-)

"Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity"
www.myspace.com/andrehill

reply

[–] chdach 17 years ago

I suppose the issue has become, just how uncompromising in your political beliefs are you? It seems to me that supporters of the Democratic Party are extremely willing to compromise. But how can you be willing to give ground on so many issues and still claim to be a liberal? As an actual, progressive liberal (not a pretend liberal like so many Democrats) I cannot identify myself with a party who has compromised to such an extent that their platform no longer addresses my concerns.

The real problem that I have with the Democrats is that they have become equally beholden to corporate interests as the Republicans (the movie outlines the beginning of the Democrats' sell-out quite well, if you remember). As long as we have two parties that represent corporations over citizens, there is no such thing as a better option within either of the two. So it doesn't matter to me where they stand on minor issues- which is the only place they seem to differ- because I am interested in progressive change. I would like to see a more just policy in the Middle East, drastic steps taken to reduce the U.S.'s environmental impact, increased quality in food production, etc. None of these issues even register on the radar of most major party candidates, BECAUSE THEY ARE BOTH EQUALLY BEHOLDEN TO CORPORATE INTERESTS. They are not free to stand up for citizens concerned with the environment or with global justice or for adequate healthcare because they are paid to represent the opposing interest.

(By the way, if you don't believe my core argument that the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans, check out canadamelody's comments and the articles posted in "the directors" discussion on this board. It shows that where the environment is concerned, Gore should hang his head in shame rather than accept all the praise being thrown at him lately. The man is a violent hypocite!)

So rather than drink any sort of poison, watered-down or not, I choose to use the extremely limited power that I have as a voter to dissent, by casting a symbolic vote for the kind of person that we should have for our President. If I don't, and if all of Nader's supporters said "why bother", and we just closed our eyes and did eenie-meenie-minie-mo to cast our votes, the progressive movements in this country would weaken, while corporate parties just abused more and more of the power that we have handed them. You say that the watered-down poison might not kill us, but just make us sick. When we're sick, we're weakened, we're unable to help ourselves. Dissent is important, vital in fact- it keeps the powers-that-be fearful. Maybe we as voters should give ourselves more credit, tell ourselves that our vote does matter and that we can, individually and united, affect the changes that we want to see. Because this defeatist attitude that Americans have in which we tell ourselves that our vote doesn't really count anyway, that we're caught between a rock and a hard place and powerless to do anything about it, hasn't been working so well.

reply

[–] calikidd2k 17 years ago

Okay, I guess the mistake I made in all this was assuming that those who supported Nader would rather have a Democrat in office than a Republican, but it seems both parties are equally loathed.

As for the issue of compromising goes, how else does a large group of varied opinions work together? Because if your key issue is pro-choice for example, but you're against legalizing marijuana, what's wrong with backing the pro-choice/pro-drug guy against the guy who's pro-life/anti-drug? And if the Democrats have to compromise so much to contend against the Republicans, doesn't that just show how conservative the nation as a whole is? Some may pay lip service to some of those ideas, but they don't want to pay more for gas, or stop driving their Hummers to McDonalds to buy another Supersized Big Mac meal. And I think that's mirrored in the fact that third party candidates who do address these issues don't exactly spark widespread public interest....

"Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity"
www.myspace.com/andrehill

reply

[–] chdach 17 years ago

Compromise on a personal level is, of course, fine and necessary in many cases, but to compromise to a point that is immoral is really giving up altogether. Which is what the Democrats have done by selling their party to corporations and fatcats. I guess I don't believe in political compromise because politics seems to me to be a clear-cut field of rights and wrongs. I mean, what is politics, but a way of ensuring quality of life through justice? And justice cannot be compromised.

And I disagree with your assessment of voters paying lip service because they don't really want change. It is probably superficially true, but I think if people were truly educated about the consequences of driving Hummers and patronizing McDonald's, most would not be so slow to change. The real obstacle is not an unwillingess to change, but an unwillingness to educate oneself as to why change is necessary. Which is why the two-party system, and the conservativism that you see in the nation as a whole, has remained dominant- because it maintains its power by dumbing down political discussion, buying out the media and keeping real news off the air and out of the papers.

Why do third-party candidates not spark widespread public interest? Because they have no forum- they are as good as silenced from the get-go. Did you see the part in the movie where Ralph was not even allowed to watch the debate from a remote location? The two parties were so threatened by his mere presence (not to mention the prospect of his participation) that they could not even allow him that. (They treated him like a criminal, and Ralph handled it with so much grace, it was amazing.) That part of the movie clearly demonstrated who controls voters' access to information about the candidates. How many more people would have been turned onto Nader's campaign had he been able to participate in that debate? I can tell you, it would have been many, because Ralph is a great speaker (I've seen him speak twice, and it's incredible, you feel like you could take on an army afterwards) and his platform achieves something amazing: it addresses real human concerns in a non-patronizing way. One of the first things I noticed about Ralph's style is that he doesn't flatter his supporters- he comes flat out and tells you that it is your responsibility to affect change (my favorite quote by Ralph, and very true it is: "there can be no daily democracy without daily citizenship") while the other politicians cajole and tell you what they will do for you- a lot of meaningless words. Ralph would've made both candidates look ridiculous had he participated in those debates. (Are you aware of the machinery that keeps him and other third-party candidates out? If not go to www.debatethis.org.) I'll bet that if Ralph could have been heard by as many people as he would've reached that night, a lot of those fast-food eating hummer drivers would've had second thoughts.

reply

[–] calikidd2k 17 years ago

Sorry I seem to have forgotten to reply again...

I disagree about politics being a clear-cut set of right and wrongs, far from it. In many cases it is merely a matter of opinion, based on upbrining, personal experiences, education, etc. and one could find just as many arguments for something as not. But even if you find politics to be uncompromising, there are just too many issues for any single politician (or even party) to ever cover, how does one find a party that doesn't compromise on something no matter how small? Or perhaps I'm missing your meaning?

Additionally, I think there's plenty of info out there, many just choose to be selfish. I know McDonalds is bad for me, but every now and then I eat there because I like it. I know many of the things I do are harming the enviornment (i.e. using energy to power my computer just to debate with people on a movie message board) but at a certain point I just sorta say 'I don't care THAT much' and I'm sure there are plenty of people who do the same, but draw the line even sooner at being selfless.

Finally, as for Ralph, virtually everyone has heard of him and the green party and, in this day and age, could find out all they want, whether he is included in debates and such or not... it's merely a matter of whether his positions appeal to them

"Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity"
www.myspace.com/andrehill

reply

[–] chdach 17 years ago

Is the definition of right and wrong really subjective- or is it just that facts and arguments can often be manipulated in order to make the wrong position sound right? I mean, there is a moral code that doesn't vary that much from person to person (provided that we're talking about sane, functional members of society). However, people make the conscious or subconscious decision to reject that code when it serves their interests, and this is by and large how the world of politics operates, when it should, in an ideal world, be a system for ensuring justice and quality of life. Morals cannot actually be so subjective, because then it becomes too difficult to draw any lines at all. Could anyone (that any of us would take seriously, anyway) argue that the war in Iraq is justified, for instance? That's a clear example of Wrong, just like genocide, exploitation of foreign workers and resources, and a lot of other things that Nations and politicians condone, support, or are directly responsible for. And if I had the opportunity to vote for someone like Nader in every election, then I wouldn't be compromising on any issues, since I believe that he basically stands up for justice with every position. But I get what you're saying, that it's hard to find the perfect candidate, and voters are usually forced into a situation of compromise. From my perspective, however, voting Democrat wouldn't be a compromise, it would be a sell-out and a self-betrayal, whether or not there is a candidate like Nader that I can vote for instead. (If Nader hadn't run, I wouldn't have voted, or I would've voted for another third-party candidate- there is no temptation for me to vote Democrat at all.)

And some things are so prevalent that they are virtually impossible to avoid, such as fast-food chains and the internet. It's not really a question, in that case, of selfishness, but of limited options in today's world. I'm on the computer right now because I use a computer all day at work- I couldn't turn it off even if I wanted to. As for McDonald's, I stopped eating there and at all fast-food chains mainly because I'm a vegetarian, but it is really pretty much impossible for even the most health-conscious person to adhere to a diet where they don't take in overly processed foods more often than they'd like. Not to mention that the marketing for fast-food chains is so pervasive, just like the marketing for Coke and Pepsi, and all other poisonous staples of the modern diet. But in personal matters like these that have a larger impact, you have a better chance of making the right choices when you're more informed, and face it, most Americans are not that informed. I still say that if most of the people who drive Hummers understood the far-reaching effects of their choice, or if people truly understood the consequences to their health of a McDonald's diet, etc., they would make the better choice more often.

Everyone has the option of educating themselves on the candidates, but we know that most people won't. If you tell people that a candidate has no shot, most won't bother learning that candidate's platform, since they've already decided not to vote for someone they've been told has no chance of winning. It is too easy for the politicians in this country to herd citizens like sheep (to quote Greg Palast, there is an "American resistance to information not channeled through celebrities"). Nader should've been allowed to participate in the debates- it was unfair and cowardly to keep him out. The CPD took advantage of the fact that most people would be too complacent to care that they're denied access to one of the candidates, a candidate whose platform actually represents their interests, and would therefore be more appealing than either of the two parties.

Hoping for the rush of some experience that could elevate me Up Above the Daily Hum

reply

[–] tristan-voskuhl 17 years ago

Unfortunately, we don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic, and until something is done that every person's vote actually counts, there will be nothing to change our two party government, at least nothing incredibly effective.

(If you can prove that wrong, please do. I mean that in full sincerity. I'd love to know a way that a third party could actually be considered.)

reply

[–] canadamelody 17 years ago

In my opinion the only way to change the all-the-same-as-each-other
election day choice in Western countries these days (its not just an
American problem) is for there to be a mass movement of non-participation
by millions of people demanding real choice.

Here in the UK we still use paper ballots so it would be great if millions of people did what I do which is spoil the ballot by writing a slogan on it and then putting it into the ballot box. If there was more ballots with THIS IS NOT A CHOICE...THIS IS NOT DEMOCRACY!! written on it than there were actual votes it would send a very loud message.

reply

[–] roamic-1 17 years ago

First, I voted for Nader in 2000 and 2004. On one level, because of the electoral system, my vote didn't matter, because I live in Vermont and it went Democratic both times.

I saw the movie last night. Nader was there in person. I thought there was to be a question and answer session with him, but all he did was to introduce the film.

During the last campaign, I happened to be on the Harvard Campus when he was speaking. At that time he said he didn't believe in an immediate withdrawl.

I would have loved to have asked him, given the number of deaths and wounded (on both sides) in the last 3 years, is he still opposed to an immediate withdrawl?

The Democrats were voted in during the last election on an anti-war wave and more troops are being sent to Iraq, more money is being authorized for the war, and there is talk of a war with Iran.

reply

[–] DismembersOnly 17 years ago

You vote for the candidate you want to win. That is the American way, the essence of democracy. Voting for who you think has the best chance of winning is compromising and gambling, distiliing your primary interests by hedging your bets. I'm from Minnesota. The first time I stopped settling for inferior choices and voted for my FIRST choice, my preferred candidate, he won: Jess Ventura!

I can't stand the losers who sell out vote for the Dem and then blame Nader or some other scapegoat for the failing of their candidate to do it right on their own.

PS- don't reply about what a putz Ventura was. It was eough to have a 3rd party candidate prove it to be possible. I was a part of that. Were you?

reply

[–] totokeke 17 years ago

Ventura wasn't a putz -- he was pretty good! There's a great summary of his accomplishments and objectives in Gary Indiana's book "Schwarzenegger Syndrome." Ventura actually had governmental experience as a real mayor, supported light rail, abortion, no prayer in public shool, medical marijuana, and a whole bunch of other things. And he got legislation passed about those concerns! You know this 'cause you're from Minnesota but most people don't. He was straighforward and didn't care a lick that his honestly-held ideas would limit his political career. (They wouldn't have -- most people support these things.) Anyway contrast Ventura with H. Clinton or Edwards or Obama (good god almighty are they bad -- especially that massive compromiser Obama) and there's no question -- hands down, Ventura is miles beyond them. And IMO he represents what most people in this country really care about -- the whole notion that the US is primarily conservative is balderdash, which anyone can plainly see by looking at how the majority of people actually live their lives.

reply

[–] canadamelody 17 years ago

Interesting...maybe he felt ill later on or had to leave for a personal reason. The rest very interesting. I think by now he may understand cut and run is the least bad option. All other options make it worse.

reply

[–] hewstino 17 years ago

canadamelody said: If there was more ballots with THIS IS NOT A CHOICE...THIS IS NOT DEMOCRACY!! written on it than there were actual votes it would send a very loud message.

I understand that this might send a message in the UK (my wife is English, and has concurred), but not in the US. After his dubious 2004 and especially 2000 victories, by this logic Bush would have attempted to be a moderate leader as opposed to one who operates from the far right. Didn't happen.

It didn't happen because the right has a larger base than the left in the United States, as it probably has had in most hegomonic countries throughout history. So it is easier for the right to take "principled" stands against gay marriage, abortion, a fair minimum wage, etc, etc. The left is forced to be more inclusive of independent voters in the middle who might agree with one or two conservative positions, but don't consider themselves conservative as such.

One of the most disingenuous lines I remember from after the 2000 election was that Gore supporters shouldn't blame Nader for stealing Democratic votes since Bush took even more of them. By that logic, Gore should have run as an even more conservative candidate than he did, which assumedly would have alienated even more people on the far left from him. What would be the point of this? If you want left wing leaders, you need to expand the left-wing constituency in America. I have seen no evidence that Nader has achieved this during his adventures in national politics. He seems to think it can just happen from the top-down, which makes no sense, as he should know more than anyone. Didn't happen with Perot, didn't happen with Ralph, won't happen with the next guy either.

reply

[–] canadamelody 17 years ago

My suggestion related to a standard paper ballot system which still exists in most countries. The automization of voting in the USA is the basis of a regime of permanent election fraud by both sides.

If GORE had been any more Right wing he would have fallen off the edge of his own flat world.

reply

[–] chdach 17 years ago

So true- In fact, had Gore taken up any of Nader's challenges (and this is exactly what Nader's runs were, a challenge to the Democrats to tackle real issues of concern to liberals), he most likely would have won by a landslide. Bush beat Gore because the two essentially represented the same thing to most Americans, but Gore had less personal appeal. A real platform through which he actually showed some strength of character and solidarity with liberals and progressives would have made up for this lack of personal appeal. Face it, Gore is a hypocrite (esp. environmentally) and a lousy politician. Kerry was hardly better. The Democrats need to nominate someone that the majority of voters could actually live with as President (and Hillary is not the answer!), then they can try to put the blame somewhere else when they lose. But the simple truth is that there will never be a good choice between two parties indebted to corporations.

And I agree, automated voting is yet another tool of the corrupt forces controlling elections in this country. Where's the paper trail? I also know that my vote in 2004, which was a write-in for Nader (because he was kept off the ballot there and in many other states thanks to the two-party machinery), was never counted. The county in which I voted reported no votes for Nader, though I know several others besides myself that wrote him in.

reply

[–] canadamelody 17 years ago

My impression of Nader is that had he been allowed into the debates
he had perfectly resonant things to say to appeal to a broad section
of the population. He does not slice and dice people into liberal and
conservative the way the RepDems do. He believes in authentic values.
He believes in putting into practise the 230+ year old claims of American
Democracy. Values that appeal to most people. That is why the vested interests
insisted on keeping him and other third choices out.

In New York City...Hillary Clinton in the NY Senate race insisted that she would not participate in any debate where a Left Progressive candidate was allowed in such as the NY Green candidate. NY1 channel agreed to these terms and disqualified all third party candidates from their televised debates. NY1 is owned by TimeWarner who had donated over $200,000 to the Clinton campaign.

Then there is a regional chain of local television stations in the Pacific North West that created a 1 million dollar entry qualification for any candidate (for Congress or State) to appear on their stations in a candidate debate. If you cannot prove you have at least 1 million dollars in campaign funds you are disqualified from democracy.

These examples simply prove everything Nader has to say.

reply

[–] chdach 17 years ago

All of this goes to show that the Democrats are just as opposed to the democratic process as Republicans. Another proof from today's headlines:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-04-04-dems-oil-loophole_N.htm

So, Calikidd, don't ask why people vote third-party when the answer is in the news everyday. Not to mention all the newsworthy tidbits featuring our favorite politicians that don't get printed. For his integrity alone, Nader was a much better choice.

Even though I doubt I'll ever vote with the Democrats, I'm really curious to see who the Dems nominate, and am keeping my fingers crossed that it won't be Hillary. My worst nightmare is that the choice in 2008 will be between her and Giuliani, or her and Jeb Bush. There is no lesser of two evils anymore.

reply

[–] gop3000 17 years ago

And let's not forget Joe "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb-Bomb-Iran" Lieberman, the VP choice in 2000.

Gore didn't even win his home state! Even Mondale won Minnesota (and DC) in the Reagan rout of 1984.

reply

[–] totokeke 17 years ago

You'll have to explain how you define "base." You can't mean more absolute voters, because Gore won the popular election. If you mean more people are right wing, I simply don't believe it. Most people go about their business enjoying the modest freedoms of a liberal democracy, and don't want that to change in any substantive way. Totalitarian governments have fierce strangleholds over the military, commerce, incarceration, the media and so on, and this doesn't require the approval or participation of the majority of the citizenry, but it does require a weak opposition. Here, in the US, it also means that people have to be so worked to death that they can't even contemplate opposition, and in many cases it's too immediately risky. Marcuse advanced the concept of a totalitarian democracy, and we're soaking in it.

It is worth contemplating that fascist Italy had a freer and more diverse press than we have right now.

Well, if more people stopped watching television, and stopped distracting themselves with procreation (I'm not being Malthusian but for god's sake aren't two kids enough?), and did little acts of happy sabotage at work (this can even be fun!), and a whole bunch of other really cool stuff, reality might have a chance of seeping into the average American brain, which currently is a mental wastebasket. I mean, the current regime couldn't manufacture something as effective for its cause than something like "The Secret." Good god.

What would this all do? Open the door for a third party, and perhaps even a fourth one. A plurality such as our is heading for certain destruction with the monolithic two-party [sic] set up we now have. Either the above, or privation on a scale we haven't seen for 100 years. Ho hum.

reply

[–] drcampbell 17 years ago

No shot? If everybody who said they support Nader's/Greens' issues & ideals actually found the courage to vote for him, he would receive an overwhelming majority of the vote. This problem is not lost on commentator Steve Kelley: http://blog.nola.com/stevekelley/2007/04/29_april_2007.html

Lesser of two evils? Between Bush, Gore and Kerry, who would that be? I honestly can't tell.

My priority issue in 2000 was the economy. Stable currency, interest rates under control, Federal debt, deficit & balance of trade under control and nobody left behind if they need a hand up. Clinton & Gore rammed through NAFTA, repealed Glass-Steagall and gutted public assistance for poor people without providing an alternative. Gore's connections to Occidental Petroleum also troubles me, making it likely that he would have responded the same way as Duhbbya to Saddam Hussein selling Iraqi oil in non-dollar currencies.

My priority issue in 2004 was ending Duhbbya's Folly in Iraq. Kerry was promising to send 60,000 more troops there - and promising to overthrow Fidel Castro while he was at it. If campaign promises could be believed, [sic] Bush would clearly be the lesser of two evils, promising to "only" stay the course, not escalate.

The bottom line? I didn't vote for Gore or Kerry (or Duhbbya) because I don't want them, their party or their agenda in the White House.

In the short run, the lesser of two evils - whichever one that might be - just didn't meet the minimum threshold. In the long run, lending them my support will only embolden the two parties to present candidates who are even more in conflict with my interests.

A viable alternative? Where did you ever get the idea that the Green party's not working at all levels of government? From Fox News? Against a monumentally unlevel playing field, there have been hundreds of Greens elected in the United States and thousands more in the hundred or so other countries with a Green party. Just because the seven big media conglomerates don't report it doesn't mean that it isn't happening. Sure, we run candidates for President and Governor - that's where the majority of the media coverage is, and because we'd lose legal standing as a bona fide political party in several states if we didn't.

Offended? Hardly. You're just brainwashed, along with most of the rest of the country. Wake up, look closely at what the Democrats and Republicans actually do, (not what they say) and you'll quit supporting them, too.

reply

[–] bobbythiel 17 years ago

Ralph Nader and the Green Party are the biggest hypocrites in the USA.
They're worse than the Republicans because they serve the GOP, but posture
as ultra-liberals and bogus revolutionaries.

Nader intentionally helped Bush in New Hampshire and Florida. Nader is as responsible for the Iraq War as Bush. Nader and the Green Party are the greatest of three evils.

Most of the people who voted for Nader in 2000 recognized that he was a
rat by 2004. Nader got less than 1% of the vote in 2004.
If you think you're going to overthrow capitalism with 1% of the electorate,
doesn't that tell us a lot about your mental faculties?

The Democratic Party is a capitalist party, the center-left party. The Democratic Party is a coalition of coalitions and includes organized labor.
The Democratic Party is the party of outgroups including minority capitalists
as well as other minorities.
The Green Party is a tiny party of the petty bourgeoisie, a coterie of Bush's poodles. Their candidates are financed by the GOP.
What do you think about Nader's racism? Or do you think it's fine and dandy that
he uses the "n" word ?

reply

[–] chdach 17 years ago

Sorry to butt in. Do you know what you sound like, bobby? An angry Democrat. I'm not insulting you- I'm an angry Independent. But I try to make sure that my anger isn't misplaced.

It seems that you're angry that the Democrats weren't able to defeat Bush in the last two elections. I can understand that much. But why blame Nader? It's already been shown on other threads on this board that it's pretty much mathematically impossible for Nader to have been responsible for Gore's loss, and if he only got less than 1% of the vote in '04, I guess nobody's blaming him for Kerry's loss. Then there's the plausible argument that Nader's campaign actually helped Gore: fed-up people that normally wouldn't have even bothered to vote in 2000 went to the polls with the intention of voting for Nader, then chickened out and wound up voting for Gore. There were polling-booth surveys to back this up, though I don't have a reference for it, unfortunately.

I was angry too that the Dems were unable to beat Bush (though I wasn't about to cave in and vote against my conscience), but probably not as angry as you were, since I fully expected Bush to win given the weak opposition, and since I've been more angry about the bigger picture for a long time. The Democrats deserve the blame- they failed to appeal to so many people and they took a cowardly stance on so many issues.

I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist myself, but do you honestly believe that Nader was in league with the Bush team? Do you know anything about the man's history? If so, how can you even entertain such a thought?

I'm skeptical that Nader only got less than 1% of the vote in '04. Like I've already said in another post, I know my vote wasn't even counted, and I'm guessing that most states in which Nader was a write-in didn't bother to count them.

The Democrats may be the center-left party and the party of minority capitalists, but they have fallen far short lately. And when, oh when, did Nader use the n word? I find that extremeley hard to believe, not only because it's out of character, but more because the two-party machinery would have made sure that it was plastered on every single front page. It would've given them an easy opportunity to discredit Nader, and the Dems could've then saved themselves the trouble of using scare tactics and b.s. legal maneuvers to win over swing voters.

I only know my mind. I am mine. -PJ

reply

[–] aurelie_ledoyen 16 years ago

chdach-I voted for Nader in 2004-it was also a write in-in Palm beach County, Florida. Judging by the Nader signs around town, the fact that only six votes were counted-six!-makes me think there may have been a deliberate miscalculation there as well.

Would you classify that as a launch problem or a design problem?-Real Genius

reply

[–] TheManWhoFellToEarth 17 years ago

Also, why try to support a single man for president instead of working to build up a strong third party as a viable alternative at all levels of government first?

How would you build a strong third-party unless you cast your votes for them?

In 2000, voting for Nader, because he was the Green Party candidate, was part of an effort to get the required 5% of the national vote in order to get official recognition and government funding for future elections.

"YOU REMIND ME TODAY OF A SMALL MEXICAN CHIHUAHUA"
http://tinyurl.com/yqwurw

reply

[–] calikidd2k 17 years ago

I mean build a strong base; green party mayors and govenors, getting judges and ranking members in government agencies and offices who are card-carrying green party members, green party members holding enough seats in Congress to be a force to be reckoned with....
Why spend so much time/money/effort/etc to (try to) get a green party member all the way to the top when he wouldn't even have the support he would need in Washington to do anything he wanted to do anyway?

"Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity"
www.myspace.com/andrehill

reply

[–] TheManWhoFellToEarth 17 years ago

There was no chance Nader would win in 2000. It was only about getting the 5% to put the Green Party in an official status. (I forget the techinal aspects of it). So the 2000 campaign was, for me and most people, about getting the country to take the Green Party seriously.

I now live in a part of the country that is hyper-conservative and has never had a Green Party candidate in any local election, and probably never will.

"YOU REMIND ME TODAY OF A SMALL MEXICAN CHIHUAHUA"
http://tinyurl.com/yqwurw

reply

[–] calikidd2k 17 years ago

Okay, I understand that, but it seems to have failed pretty miserably, so what now? Keep trying for the 5% or work from the ground up?

"Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity"
www.myspace.com/andrehill

reply

[–] TheManWhoFellToEarth 17 years ago

Myself, I'm suicidally despondent and incapable of having any hope for the future of the country or the world. I think we've gone way beyond the tipping point and are quickly sliding into an abyss.

And I'm not alone here. There are lots of people my age (52) and older who feel exactly as I do. It has a lot to do with having lived through 5 decades of deepening bullcrap and rampant corruption.

"YOU REMIND ME TODAY OF A SMALL MEXICAN CHIHUAHUA"
http://tinyurl.com/yqwurw

reply

[–] calikidd2k 17 years ago

Isn't that just part of getting older? Feeling like everything has gone to crap and used to be better 'back in the day'? I know my Dad certainly seems to always find plenty to bitch about now that he's becoming a senior citizen

"Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity"
www.myspace.com/andrehill

reply

[–] TheManWhoFellToEarth 17 years ago

Maybe, maybe not.

It's quite possible there's more than a grain of truth to it. Ever heard of devolution?

"YOU REMIND ME TODAY OF A SMALL MEXICAN CHIHUAHUA"
http://tinyurl.com/yqwurw

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] calikidd2k 17 years ago

This post is a childish response to an honest question about third party strategies, expectations and goals. Thus I'm ignoring it and moving to your next post which, hopefully, will be more rational.

But... I would interested to hear from others who support Nader about your comments regarding our troops.

"Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity"
www.myspace.com/andrehill

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] calikidd2k 17 years ago

Despite all the fancy pieces of paper on your wall, you still seemed to miss the point that everyone else seemed to get. (and you will notice I have been politely debating the issue with them) So I will again ignore your whole rant, which is totally unrelated to the point of my question, and focus on your first paragraph.

I think you kinda proved my point for me; I don't think Nader has a realistic chance because, with his name on the ballet in most states and no one physically stopping voters from voting for him, he only got 1% of the vote. Now whether that was people not agreeing with his message or 'selling out' and voting on who they think could really win is up to you, but the end result is the same; 1% of the vote. Not saying he could never win, just that as things stand now, his chances of doing so are slim to none, especially with all this frenzy over Hillary, Obama and to a lesser extent Giuliani and Romney. So then what? Vote for Nader anyway in symbolic defiance or vote for whoever you view to be better between the Dems and Reps in the hopes of keeping the other from winning? I'm not talking polical blah-blah-blah, I'm talking personal decisions when you step in the voting booth.

"Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity"
www.myspace.com/andrehill

reply

[–] chdach 17 years ago

Nader didn't have a realistic chance because the electoral system is unfair, because the CPD is beyond corrupt, and because Americans have a self-defeating view of political progress. I can't tell you how many people I met while campaigning for Nader on my campus that told me they'd like to vote for Nader, but they wouldn't, because he had no chance. How self-defeating is that? Why couldn't his would-be supporters involve themselves in efforts to help his campaign, and try to increase the chance that they lamented as nearly non-existent? Because it's easier to sit back and tell ourselves we're screwed, might as well vote Dem and give in to corporate influence over government.

If you're talking about personal decisions in the voting booth, how about the personal decision to actually summon the guts to vote with your conscience? Why would I make the personal decision to vote for any party that doesn't represent me? That wouldn't be voting strategically- strategically, voting Democrat makes no sense to me or to any other progressive, since it only weakens our efforts by capitulating to a corporate party. Yes, our efforts may be flailing right now anyway, but the surest way to see them die is to abandon them altogether.

By the way, I really do appreciate the politeness of your debating style so far. Where politics is concerned, I expect people to get heated (and excuse me if I have) and it obviously is most beneficial for those of us with differences to be able to have a civilized discussion.

Regarding the troops, all I can say is that I feel sorry for them. Enlisting, putting your life at risk, implies trust in your government not to take your patriotism for granted, and sadly, that's what's been done here. Not to mention that our troops often don't receive proper equipment or healthcare. But I also don't think everyone on the ground in Iraq necessarily has a sense of patriotic duty- I think a lot of the motivation to enlist comes from the same racist, imperialist agenda for which this war was started. I feel more sorry for the dozens of Iraqi civilians killed every day.

Hoping for the rush of some experience that could elevate me Up Above the Daily Hum

reply

[–] calikidd2k 17 years ago

I'm late for work, so I'll make this quick and maybe flesh out my response later....

When you say 'Why would I make the personal decision to vote for any party that doesn't represent me?' I mean it more in the sense of voting AGAINST the party that represents you least. You are Russia in WWII, not so much supporting the Allies as opposing the Nazis. See what I'm getting at?

And again, I confess ignorance if there is such an effort, but where is the push for Green party candidates at the lower levels of government? I would think areas like the Pacific Northwest and perhaps New England (among others) would be excellent place to push for green party governors and mayors and congressional representatives, which would help distill the fear of hopeless for all those you talked to who supported Nader, but felt like he had no chance

"Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity"
www.myspace.com/andrehill

reply

[–] chdach 17 years ago

I was waiting to see if you would add anything.

The difference between us is that you and other liberals had assigned yourselves the task of defeating Bush, but the first priority of many progressives and supporters of Nader is to strengthen third-party opposition. Don't get me wrong, I abhor Bush and this war, and I wish very strongly that it had never happened. But it seems to me that the oil industry has the most to gain from the war and the continued occupation. I think the impetus for the war was profit for the oil industry, not necessarily Bush and his alleged personal vendetta. This is the danger in having a government controlled by two parties that have both sold out to wealthy capitalist interests- I honestly believe that the war is a direct result of that. Which is why I care most about seeing third parties grow stronger- even if they're never strong enough to gain the White House, at least they'd be able to put pressure on the two parties and keep them in line, if they had more public support. If the Greens and the Socialists were able to grow, we'd see a stronger Democratic party- they'd be forced to work for the liberal vote. And the Republicans might be forced to be more moderate. I don't know for sure, of course- I'm no political theorist, and this is all just supposition. What I do know for sure is that neither of the two parties represents me, and that neither of them is entitled to my vote. If I'm as powerless as I seem to be, then I may as well have my say and vote with my conscience. If I'm not as powerless as I seem to be, if there is a potential for grassroots efforts to build stronger third parties that actually represent voters, then I'm gonna play my part.

I don't think you can draw a parallel between voting against Bush and resisting the Nazis. The rise of Nazism, to me, seems to be comparable to a period of temporary insanity (please correct me if I'm characterizing it incorrectly- there's much that I don't understand about Nazism and the greater context of pre-WWII Europe), while the current situation in the U.S. seems to be that we're thoroughly diseased with complacency, misinformation, and corporate dominance. Bush is a particularly nasty symptom, but not the cause of problems in this country. There's more to helping ourselves than simply putting a Democrat in office.

Hoping for the rush of some experience that could elevate me Up Above the Daily Hum

reply

[–] chdach 17 years ago

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore your second question. But since I'm not a Green, I can't really answer. I have voted with the Greens in local elections- however there seems to be a lot of issues within the party that I don't really understand. Hopefully a Green party member will take the time to enlighten us both.

Hoping for the rush of some experience that could elevate me Up Above the Daily Hum

reply

[–] calikidd2k 17 years ago

Arggh... my browser crashed just as I was posting my reply. I'll retype everything tomorrow, but I just wanted to throw out that I wasn't comparing bush to nazis, I was trying to give an example of two groups who didn't see eye-to-eye but were battling a common foe, a 'enemy of my enemy' type thing.

"Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity"
www.myspace.com/andrehill

reply

[–] calikidd2k 17 years ago

Ok, I'm finally back.

I forget everything I had typed up the first time, so I'll just say; I don't see how a more liberal third party suddenly makes everyone more liberal. That just cuts into the Democrats base and gives Republicans the advantage to do whatever they want. Because it's not that people don't have a good liberal party to represent them, it's that they're just not that liberal. Look at how many states banned gay marriage at the same time they were voting a Democrat majority into Congress.
"Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity"
www.myspace.com/andrehill

reply

[–] chdach 17 years ago

I was wondering what the heck happened to you.

I obviously disagree with your statement that we have a good liberal party to represent us- if there wasn't such a weak, corporate-owned Democratic party, things would be a lot different today. We probably would never have been duped into going into Iraq, we'd have a better healthcare system, no talk of privatizing social security, Wal-Mart wouldn't be able to keep unions from forming, and the list could go on and on. How can you say there's a good liberal party, when we're inching closer and closer to fascism, and further and further from the protections offered by the New Deal? Is it possible for one of the major parties to be completely ineffectual, and still "good"?

Regarding how liberal voters in general are- it depends on the issue, I think. Older people tend to be very conservative about gay rights, because they grew up in a repressed age that fostered homophobic sentiment. I've heard what older members of my own family think about what does and does not constitute "normal" or "natural" behavior, what God thinks and what the Bible says about homosexuality. These are working-class people that grew up in Christian homes with immigrant parents, where machismo ruled- they're not gonna change their minds about gay rights anytime soon. It's gonna take the maturation of younger generations for homosexuality to be truly accepted in this country. Yet these same people believe in social security, they think healthcare expenses in this country are a joke, and they wish now that we had never gone to Iraq. Even if a mid-west farmer doesn't believe in gay marriage, he probably does hate the fact that big agri-business companies are getting rich off of corporate welfare, when he can barely stay afloat. Basically, what I'm saying is that the trends this country is following don't necessarily represent the will of regular people- it represents our ignorance and our powerlessness. We're ignorant because the media force-feeds us entertainment news on 800 channels interrupted by commercials for pharmaceuticals, beer and fast-food, along with ads for the newest "reality" show, and we're powerless because both major parties are corporate-owned.

I think it's 100% ridiculous that liberals who fully recognize that the Democratic Party doesn't represent them any longer still step into the voting booth and hand that Party their vote like it's a gift, when they know that they don't deserve it. They don't even try to earn it, instead they use scare tactics about the Republican administration you'll be helping to put into office if you dare seek out a third party. They're hoping you won't realize that they're funded by the same people (or if not, by different members of the same corporate aristocracy) who fund the campaigns of their Republican opponents. Really, I think you should be asking why more people don't vote third-party, than why so many do. The only way for liberals to reclaim any representation is through third-party efforts- either we dump the Democrats completely, or we scare them into actually fighting for us by withholding our support until they do. I think that's what Nader wanted (though he said that he never would have dropped out, because it'd be a betrayal to all the people who worked so hard on his behalf)- he wanted Gore and Kerry to swing further left, and pick up some of his supporters along the way. Neither Gore nor Kerry is stupid, both probably realized what needed to be done, so why didn't they do it? I'm guessing it was because their corporate sponsors wouldn't allow it.

I agree with you in theory, that it doesn't make sense for a liberal to abandon a liberal party, thereby making it easier for the conservative party to win. But we don't have a liberal party anymore. And it's not because the people don't want one, it's because the people in charge, the major campaign contributors, don't want one.

Hoping for the rush of some experience that could elevate me Up Above the Daily Hum

reply

[–] sinnedco 17 years ago

The answer is simple. Nader knows he is not going to win the election but it is not as simple winning and losing. What third party candidates do is force the two primary parties to hopefully and eventually address issues that they otherwise would not. Just as the capitalist system works democracy can work in a similiar way in that the more compettion there is the better the product or politician can be. The end result of an election ultimatly depends on whether it was legal and whether or not a particular candidate represents them the best. For a lot of people Democrats and Republicans do not represent or appeall to some Americans. Lastly, it is my right as a person and an American to vote any way I Iike and that goes for anyone no matter how stupid or smart they are.

reply

[–] tritisan 16 years ago

I just watched An Unreasonable Man, and was very impressed. Then I just had to see what the chattering class on the IMDB was up to. I am pleasantly surprised to see such an intelligent, civil, and long-running debate here! (Thank you chdach and calikidd2k.) Too bad you don't see this quality of intelligence in the press.

For the record, I am a Green Party member and voted for Nader in 2000. I've never bought into the "a vote for Nader is a vote less for [insert Democratic candidate]" argument. I voted for him because I really thought he had a chance to get that 5% that would have given the Greens some serious clout. Not to mention the fact that I have always admired him and feel that his values align closer to my own than any of the super-rich "liberal" Democrats who we're supposed to believe represent our best interests.

reply

[–] chdach 16 years ago

I voted for him because I really thought he had a chance to get that 5% that would have given the Greens some serious clout.

That's exactly what I was hoping for. I really wanted to see a liberal third party become a force to reckon with, since the Dems are worse than useless. I'm hoping for a reasonable alternative to Hillary in '08. If Ralph runs, I want to get involved with his campaign. Did you go with Cobb in '04? I know there was controversy surrounding his nomination, but I don't know what it was about.

I go where I please. I walk through walls, I float down the Liffey.

reply

[–] emncaity 16 years ago

Chdach, throughout this discussion you could not have been more right. I'm still a Democrat, I guess--although vaguely, with moorings loose, feeling no particular commitment to this drifting boat, because the party really has sold out to corporatism.

As for Nader, I consider him not only the leading candidate I know of for the title of Greatest Living American, but also a throwback to a time when Democrats were like that. It makes you shake your head to think about how we got from the idea of politicians who put deeds behind their populist words (like Nader always has--well, he's not strictly a politician, but you know what I'm saying) to Democrats like, frankly, Hillary Clinton, who feels the need to remind everybody how ready she is to "obliterate" Iran. For that matter, how did we get from a Republican like Eisenhower to an utter disaster and pathetic-rube failure like Bush?

It really just crushes me to think how far wrong we've gone in the past half-century. How did we get here, from there? The guy who answers that question best, I think, is Nader, who's watched this military-industrial-congressional complex (about which Eisenhower warned us) develop into an unstoppable, insatiable behemoth throughout his public career.

Far as I'm concerned, it's an indication of how far wrong the Democratic Party has gone to see them treating Nader as the enemy, rather than adopting pretty much every position he has, dumping their megacorporate partners, and making him one of the people at the forefront of the party.

Anyway, for Nader even to want to serve the country at all at this point, after having been vilified by the very people whose lives he has made immeasurably better...well, it's amazing, not to mention beyond sad. It really is.

reply

[–] tiberius-kirk 16 years ago

I hear so many people say things like "i won't vote for john/jane doe b/c they can't win." That's backwards. They won't win b/c you, and everyone else like you, won't vote for him. Where does this belief come from? Media, I guess. If all those people stopped believing the myth of unelectability, then things would really start to change. Maybe not a sweeping majority, but a large enough block to really alter the landscape we're living in.

just my two cents there.

reply

[–] criticex 16 years ago

There was that one very angry journalist that said it best for me: "52% of the country voted against George Bush. To me, that's crazy, and the problem. I was raised by conservative republicans and was taught to vote the candidate, without compromise. How's that working for me? Well, I've been voting for people that haven't won starting with John Anderson but it doesn't bother me. Well...
Democrats are not a "capitalist party" per se. We live in a capitalist society; and ever since the turn of the (last) century when corporations were given the status of individuals, they have bought the government that most favors big business in the name of the nation's good, especially republicans. But they don't act or return the favor like individuals. Halliburton moving to Dubai is a classic example. As with all capitalist ventures, it's all about profit. Nader argues that's not what <good> government is for.
Detroit auto makers were able to get away with whatever they wanted in the name of profit for decades, until Nader (and didn't have foreign competition until the '70s). The backlash against the new consumer advocacy was Reagan. And Reagan made government MUCH bigger, not smaller like he said. It's been that way since then, Clinton made a great Republican. Remember him campaigning on national health care?
I think it was that same journalist that makes my counter-point, Nader sees change coming in the long run. Well, yeah.. It has to, the long-term government is put in place by presidents when they appoint judges. So, we have to be patient if you play be Ralph's rules of working from inside the system. We know he's not going to win but we still vote for him, or vote green. Look how "green" even corporations are at least advertising themselves to be even though this stuff was talked about by Carter way back when. Thirty years later the low watt bulbs are showing up! The fact the Japanese lead in hybrid cars illustrates the work that has to be done. Government can, and should, help or pursuade for the US to once again be the world leader and not the block bully.

reply