Robert Parry responds to the letter I had posted here previously.
John, it's a bit strange that you insist that no one has sought to teach the Dems a lesson and then cite a quote from O'Donnell suggesting exactly that. Going back to the 1968 campaign, this has been a periodic refrain from progressives furious at the Democrats, such as Sam Brown who had led the McCarthy insurgency. In 1980, disaffected progressives punished Carter by voting for Anderson and others. In 2000, I had personal meetings with key figures in Nader's campaign who felt it was crucial to teach the Dems a lesson, that the Dems couldn't take progressives for granted anymore. And I've been getting similar e-mails and phone calls this year. Are you claiming that you've never heard this point made by any progressive?
As for building institutions independent of the Democratic Party, that is perfectly fine. Indeed, it's what I've done myself in working to create a news outlet that dares criticize all sides, from the Right and Republicans to the Democrats and the Left.
The article that you attack contained especially sharp criticism of the Republicans for their outrageous actions and of the governing Democrats for their cowardice in not holding Republicans accountable. (I should note that many of those facts -- i.e. Clifford's "good for the country" excuse in 1968 and the reality of Reagan's dirty tricks in 1980 -- are known to you and others only because of Consortiumnews.com. That history would not exist in the public domain without our work.)
The point of the article was to ask the difficult question of whether the Left's strategies of the past 42 years have worked or not. For me, this story goes back to the late 60s and early 70s when some on the Left insisted on withdrawing from the national political battles and returning to the countryside to organize the masses. Remember the slogan, "Think globally, act locally." Part of that involved shuttering promising national media outlets like Ramparts and Dispatch News and scaling back progressive think tanks like IPS. This created a policy vacuum at the national level that the Right eagerly filled.
To this day, many on the Left refuse to acknowledge that this shift in strategy was a miscalculation. Some say it was important not to be corrupted by Washington. They also still resist moving to address these dangerous shortcomings. Just this year, wealthy progressives pulled the plug on Air America.
In part, the Left's institutional weaknesses have contributed to the Left's sometimes petulant behavior regarding getting its way. Since it lacks sufficient clout with the American public -- much of which is tuned in to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News -- some on the Left turn to actions like the Nader campaign in 2000, helping to sink Al Gore and thus demonstrate what muscle they have. But the Greens, in particular, refused to accept any responsibility for the consequences of what they did. For a decade now, I've heard Greens insist that they had no responsibility for Bush's presidency, that is was all Al Gore's fault.
Perhaps naively, I had hoped that pointing to the four decades of undeniable failures in the Left's strategies -- if one measures them by actual accomplishments -- might spur some new thinking. Apparently, I just got a lot of people angry, with some eager to threaten the survival of Consortiumnews.com.
Thanks for the e-mail.
Bob Parry
Here is my response to him:
Dear Mr. Parry,
Thank you for responding.
We continue to differ on several fundamental points.
First, on the matter of whether the O'Donnell quote endorses "teaching the Dems a lesson," I did not interpret it as suggesting anything of the kind: it neither uses the phrase in question, nor the word "punishment," nor does it indicate any such motivation among those who choose not to vote Democratic. O'Donnell is simply noting that at a certain point differences in ideology develop to a rupture point such that support is no longer possible.
To describe those who fail to vote for a candidate or party as engaging in "punishment" trivializes and obscures the reality which is that for many voting is not an exclusively pragmatic act, but an expression of principle and moral choice. Someone might refuse to vote for a candidate based on their deeply rooted opposition to, for example, the death penalty, state sanctioned torture, a genocidal foreign policy or on any number of grounds. Those doing so are not acting out of childish spite but expressing deeply held beliefs. It is demeaning of you to suggest that they are required to jettison these in the interest of pure political calculation.
Furthermore, your employing these negative/personalized terms obscures the fact that for many of us, the decision to withhold our support from the Democrats is in no way negative, but rather a component of a positive broader strategy, namely task of building an alternative infrastructure.
In fact, rather than differing on this point, as you suggest, we actually come close to seeing eye to eye, and as an indication, here's a passage from your note which I strongly agree with.
For me, this story goes back to the late 60s and early 70s when some on the Left insisted on withdrawing from the national political battles and returning to the countryside to organize the masses. Remember the slogan, "Think globally, act locally." Part of that involved shuttering promising national media outlets like Ramparts and Dispatch News and scaling back progressive think tanks like IPS. This created a policy vacuum at the national level that the Right eagerly filled.
In fact, I have written along similar lines:
(T)he waning of serious, organized oppositional politics is (has) resulted in the dismantling of the gains which have been achieved in (a) period of progressive ferment - in increasing concentration of wealth, assaults on civil and human rights, inferior working conditions etc. . . . While this is partly due to the increased organizational effectiveness of the right, it is also a consequence of the failure of a generation which is usually given credit for their political engagement, . . . much of what passed for "liberation" in the sixties needs now to be seen as a hollowing out of the organized core of oppositional politics - one which had, to be fair, already been devastated by the McCarthy era. It was this vacuum which allowed for the DLC takeover of the Democratic Party and to the subsequent imposition of neo-liberalist austerity presided over by Republican and Democrat administrations.
Notice that the only difference in our positions is that you focus on the collapse of alternative media institutions whereas I stress the concurrent disengagement from political institutions capable of competing effectively for state power (on whatever level this is possible).
This brings me to my final objection which is in questioning "whether the Left's strategies of the past 42 years have worked or not" you fail to recognize precisely this point-namely that while the left may have (as you claim) "shuttered promising national media outlets" so too has it shuttered the generations long goal of the left to build independent power, with the result that the establishments of the major parties have been left to fill the power vacuum (with predictable consequences).
A corollary of this observation is that, completely contrary to your claim, the third party strategy has never been seriously attempted by the left at any time in the last 42 years. The two examples you cite of third party campaigns both attest to the opposite of what you claim to be the case in different respects. As for the Anderson campaign, as you yourself must know, Anderson was in no way a progressive (or liberal, as they ere called at the time). Indeed he was a lifelong Republican and his primary support (much like the support which is now coalescing around Bloomberg) comes from establishment centrists, most notably Washington power couple Ben Bradlee and Sally Quinn and similar circles. To describe Anderson as an instance of this supposedly failed left strategy is simply a falsification.
As for the Nader campaign, it is similarly inaccurate to describe support for Nader as widespread among the left particularly among the establishment left: Not a single left or progressive journal, from the Nation, to the Progressive, to the American Prospect to In These Times not to mention supposedly liberal daily newspapers such as the Boston Globe endorsed Nader. As the election approached the barrage of anti-Nader propaganda from these outlets became frightening in its intensity. Given that his efforts to attract establishment left support were met with silence or hostility to describe the Nader campaign as approaching a genuine attempt at building a progressive, third party alternative is baseless. It never reached sufficient mass among the broader left for it to do so and it is therefore inappropriate to evaluate it as such.
It might be claimed that this rejection was based on a strategic evaluation of Nader's potential to function as a spoiler, but this is a red herring. And on this basis I speak from my own personal experience as a local elected official in New Haven. Many establishment liberals were just as hostile to third party organizing in a city where the Republican Party barely existed and in which there was no possible spoiler effect of a third party (actually second party) campaign. A similar dynamic was observable with the nearly successful Gonzalez campaign for the San Francisco Mayoralty which was completely ignored by the same media organs who had ignored or rejected Nader.
On these grounds the Nader campaign should be viewed along with other third party campaigns not as a failed strategy, but rather a strategy that has never been allowed to achieve sufficient momentum. And a large part of the reason is a fatwa against independent political organizing imposed by the official left since the sixties, which has now ossified into a dysfunctional and sclerotic relationship with the Democratic Party.
Insofar as you, and many other nominal leftists, are functioning as a mouthpiece for this agenda, I regarded you as part of the problem and an obstacle in the way of finding a solution.
I very much hope you will reconsider your position on this matter.
Best Regards, John
- john.halle's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[CSE]+#b94+
Front page
Comments
If I never hear the canard that "nader brought us Bush" again,
I'll be a happy woman, but i just hear it every day, on D blogs, from D supporters in my District. I get that winners write the history, but really the lies and wilfull misrepresentations just floor me. And the reason they keep on keepin on is that it works-the kind of fear tactic that is all too familiar. Case in point, I just heard from a supporter that she can't vote for me or spread word of my candidacy because there was a letter over the weekend in a local paper stating that "Levin's seat is on the R radar, and the NRC is getting ready to get big bucks for its candidate". (Which, frankly, I believe was a plant by a Dem operative..for cryin out loud, Levin's got more than a $million in his kitty) So, I guess it's only OK to vote your strong beliefs and conscience if the G has no chance of winning, or "won't hurt the Dem"? Rather than embracing the left and lurching leftward in response to its base (as opposed to the Rs), the D party just lurches rightward and marginalizes us, attacks us, attempts to prevent our ballot access in any number of ways, and constantly spreads slurs like we take R funding (a sure sign of a "captured" D is that comment). If you can't counter our policies and position statements with achievements of your own, I guess dirty tricks is one answer, rather than trying to be, you know, "Democratic".
Time for Real Change
I think Greens and other anti-legacy party advocates...
make a mistake by insisting that Nader wasn't an arguable cause of Bush's presidency and by taking umbrage at those who view his 2000 candidacy that way.
Nader decided to be competition to the leading parties, and his message was obviously more in line with the views of habitual Democrats. More than a few swing-state Nader supporters made deals with people in non-swing states, wherein they'd vote for the Dem in trade for a Nader vote in a deep-blue or deep-red state. Clearly, they thought a Nader vote here and there could tip the balance, and that such a tip was undesirable.
I strongly recommend that Greens take a new tack on this, accepting that people of conscience disagree about the impact of Nader's 2000 run, and that they avoid giving the impression that holding Nader blameless for the 2000 election result is a threshold issue for making peace with them (and other left alternative parties/candidacies).
The important matter is that since returning to power in 2006 and 2008, the Democrats have fully validated Nader's message. Whether it was timely in 2000 is a moot point.
I'm not a fan of STFU
or "get over it," so if you see value in continuing to try to move people on their concept of Nader's role in Bush's "election," then rock on.
On this topic, one person's "canard" is another's sore subject. The fact was and is, Nader and his supporters were within their rights to do what they did in 2000, and reasonable people disagree about the judgment and results.
If people are moved to "join the class of 2010" on emerging-party voting, while continuing to harbor unhappy feelings about Bush v. Gore v. Nader, I say "welcome!"
Here's where I stand
An "arguable cause" is in the eye of the beholder, and is not the same as documentation, even Gore himself stated that Nader had no influence on the election outcome. The arguments also come from D operatives, constant and inaccurate, and used to invalidate our Party. In addition, these slurs are accompanied by D operatives doing everything in their power to prevent the Greens from gaining ballot access (PA D's were convicted of crimes for doing this):
http://www.freeandequal.org/2010/07/carl...
and these actions and slanders were, and are, as egregious and dirty as the events of the 2008 primaries. I am not going to validate D party propaganda, because it leads to more of the same, just as I will not stand by and allow D's to report that the Greens are "funded by R's" or any other attempt to slander the Party. If a lefty really believes that Nader was responsible for Bush, then it declares to me a tendency to swallow the D narrative, without research, in addition to placing blame for D losses elsewhere, always elsewhere
Time for Real Change
fools believe
that they can accomplish great change without money. sometimes, they are right. mostly, they are not. the modern day left doens't have any, and what little it gets is veal-penned into ineffective groups who spend it on themselves and cocktail parties in the Village
in exchange for meaningless and oftimes actually hurtful "progress" like the health care bill.
it always amuses me, in a sad sort of way, how we on the left play the game of "who is really to blame for our failures?" because it's an amusing game. but in the end, mostly a distraction from the ultimate truth. there were plenty of chances for "the left" in this country to take back power, fairly quickly and easily. the best wasted opportunity was in the 70s, when "the left" was actually still pretty powerful and culturally acceptable. impeaching nixon should have been the start, not the end, of what the left really needed to do. i was four years old, so i'm sorry i didn't work harder at that time.
but the leadership of the left for the last ~40 years or so has been more interested in jockeying for position in the Village than actually killing fascists or recognizing that "capitalism" as practiced here needs to be severely reigned in or it will metastasize. as it has, indeed. isn't that why we're talking about all this? and anyone who calls acting locally "a failure" is completely ignoring history, and a bitter truth of it. acting locally is *exactly* how the neofascists began their (successful) rise to power. small goals, building upon small success after small success... this eventually led to the funding reality they enjoy today, as well as their great power. for some reason, i can't seem to convince, well, anyone that this narrative is the one that should command our attention. or rather, the attention of those who still believe that we have a representative democracy here in which progressive change is possible peacefully.
but perry is fooling himself if he thinks continuing to play the Village game will make any difference to anyone who doesn't live there and get a paycheck from a patron in it. dood, we lost. It's Over. now, more than ever, it's time for all of us to get to know our neighbors, and hope the strength of those relationships will prevent them from turning us in to the brownshirts. for they are coming. meh, i'm always such a cassandra. even while mostly, i haven't been wrong. i take heart in the fact that 85% of the german people survived the war, even as i'm pretty sure i'll not be among the americans who will (maybe). nukes are ugly like that.
meanwhile: is anyone paying attention to the fact that this currency battle with china we're having right now is, you know, really bad.
Which is it?
a) In the eye of the beholder (i.e., a fair-game subjective opinion)?
b) A slur and an invalidation of one's newfound commitment to challenging the Democrats from the left?
It can't be both.
I never said that I wanted to "invalidate"
anyone's newfound commitment to challenging the D's from the left. I am, however, justly suspicious of anyone who subscribes to the D narrative unthinkingly while at the same time professing to want to challenge them. And in re: "the eye of the beholder" I admit to careless usage, I meant to say "an arguable cause can be alleged".
Time for Real Change
Sounds pretty invalidating to me
"it declares to me a tendency to swallow the D narrative, without research, in addition to placing blame for D losses elsewhere, always elsewhere"
I wouldn't feel very trusted or welcomed by a new (to me) group if my opinion on a plainly debatable matter (whether Gore would have won if Nader hadn't run) was "greeted" this way.
"Straw that broke the camel's back"
I don't think it's in dispute that Nader took some votes from Gore in FL.
Trivially, therefore, Nader bears some responsibility for the FL outcome (I won't say "Gore's defeat" in FL, for obvious reasons).
In other words, Nader was part of the load on the camel's back which did, after all, break.
My own view is that the election should never have gotten so close that the tiny Nader vote made any difference in the first place, and that's totally down to Gore, the Ds, and has nothing to do with Nader at all.
One could also make the argument that Jebbie was going to do whatever it took to steal the election for Gore, and for that reason Nader made no difference. But I don't hear that argument being made here.
NOTE Of course the "Naderite" slur is what it is, but there's still the question of fact that nothing to do with the use of the slur.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
BTW, I've adopted "Naderite" as a badge of honor
I was strongly opposed to Naderites in 2000 and for sometime afterward.
But in the long haul, their correct assessment of the two parties has become increasingly evident. So, I'll eat my words of opposition to them, but not my reckoning that challenging Gore from the left is one of many factors that contributed to the final result in 2000. There are many "butterfly effects" (including, of course, the butterfly ballots) that played a role. It seems like a tribal "necessity" to absolve Nader from having had an influence, and I find it rather off-putting that swallowing that line seems like a rite of passage for supporting the Greens.
I think the more meaningful argument is "see, electing Democrats doesn't improve anything," rather than "we had no role in electing Bush."
+1000
On all counts. Embarassingly, I thought there was some possibility that the Ds could salvaged until the 2008 primaries. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
my objection is, has been and will remain:
what is he doing? right now? to build up a successful third party? why has he (allegedly, i can't prove it but i respect some people who believe they can) taken money from republicans? why does/has he meet with Norquist's "Wednesday Group" of neoliberals and neofascists? why does he trot around the country talking a good progressive game, for personal gain? (not that the lecture circuit is always bad, but still, it's very much Village
behavior) what about the stuff i keep reading about the shitty way his organization treats employees?
i never seem to get satisfactory answers from the Naderites to any of these questions. i hate worship. i agree with VL. if you love him, fine. if you hate him, fine. but he's really sort of a non-issue at this point, a distraction for far lefties, as well as a player in the Village but not out here in the real world. he strikes me as an egoist, and i don't like those. if someone can show me how he's leveraged his significant reputation and power among the Left to build up a solid and successful slate of indie candidates, i'll eat these words. but so far, no one ever has. he (and anyone else) can blather on far-left all they want. the proof is in the result. i have more respect for Julia than I do for nader, at this point. she's the real thing; him? mostly a lot of talk.
I think that VL and I are talking analytical tools
IOW, Nader called his shot on the legacy parties and got it right (on the national stage, with skin in the game, not an academic, etc).
That doesn't mean that Nader helped with party building at all -- PIRG isn't a "slate" -- and my superficial understanding is that he did not, not that I know how to do that, or do more than I am already doing in offering a technical platform. Correct me if I'm wrong!
And yes, more respect for Julia. She's the future, Nader the past.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Kinder, gentler Okanogen?
I'm going to be all happy smiley face on this thread. Seriously! I'll try anyway.
So to start with, THANK YOU CD! I agree that Nader is now a phony in 2010, and submit he was then a phony in 2000. He is doing now, as he did then, absolutely nothing to build any kind of progressive alternative to either party that doesn't have Ralph Nader as the centerpiece. Hell, he even kicked the Greens in the teeth in 2004, and still they have his back!
Just because he was right on the most obvious call of all, even at the time, that the major political parties are just two facets of corporatism, doesn't change the fact that between Al Gore and George W. Bush, there was a significant difference. It also doesn't change the fact that his campaign was completely directed at damaging Al Gore. "Teaching those Democrats a lesson" as Perry puts it. Well, message received Ralph, can we have another please?
Should Gore have done better? Hell yeah. Was Nader another straw on the camel's back, as Lambert puts it? Hell, yeah.
As VL is saying, I don't understand why the Green's don't just drop this, it is a lose-lose argument. They (in my view) fucked up in 2000, move on, and/or don't, but if you want to grow support, you won't get it by demanding doctrinal purity on this decade-old battle. If growing support is important to you.
To Greens, at present, why do you think I plan to vote NOTA? Why are so many others on the left planning to not vote, or vote NOTA? Maybe you should be asking yourselves that question, rather than shoving Nader in people's faces (again)?
Sorry, I don't fall in love with politicians. I'm not that desperate.....
and for the record: i'd have a lot more respect for
the argument "nader cost gore the election" except for the fact that our Al didn't win his own fucking home state. sorry, the D "loss" in 2000? i place that blame squarely at Al's feet. we're talking about the guy who didn't believe democracy was worth fighting to the death for here, the guy who gave up when it was beyond obvious the election was being stolen from him, the guy who let himself get talked into taking on Holy Joe as a running mate. nader had zip zero nada to do with any of that.
The focus of my argument is
that believing Nader had no effect on the 2000 outcome often seems like a requirement to bonding with the Greens. That obtains regardless of one's opinion of Nader, of Gore's campaign and post-vote challenge, etc.
And I think it's a notable mistake on the part of some Greens to look askance at those who don't happen to rule out that Nader played a role in the result. They may have that opinion with all honesty, research, and clarity of thought. And them having that opinion ought not be a threshold limitation, because ultimately it's subjective speculation about "what might have been."
In short,
Gore acted like a Democrat. Give away half of what you claim to believe and surrender the rest.
with real power comes real responsibility
nader is perfectly willing to take checks from college progressive orgs and other progressive groups on the lecture circuit, but he can't dirty his hands with actual party building? lame. the difference between you and nader, lb, is fame and power. he has them, you don't. what is he doing with them, other than cashing checks and showing up on TV sometimes?
My issue with the argument that Nader wasn't trying to spoil
The election for the Dems, is that his actions are those of a person who wants to be a spoiler.
Why did he spend all his time and effort in swing states? Why not concentrate on the blue states, where he wasn't going to hurt Gore, and could get greater exposure? Why not go to the red states, like my own, that have a DEEP liberal history, but the liberal people got over the two party two step awile ago(it doesn't help that the Dem party is as corrupt as all get out here in KY) where he could have gotten more people invested in our elections again.
But he didn't.
Instead he invested all the time and energy that devoted GParty activists were giving him, into a few battle states. That demonstrates what his priorities were to me, and it's a perfectly valid and rational belief to take from his actions.
Having my thought out and rationalized opinion, that is shared by many people, denigrated as being blinded by the Dem party narrative, is insulting to many potential consituents.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
That's a great argument, aeryl
Question, then, for Greens: Was Nader's strategy in 2000 to be a spoiler?
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
The bottomline is that we
The bottomline is that we don't owe candidates a vote. They must give us positive, substantial reasons to vote for them. Saying if you don't vote for me, the candidate from the Greater Evil party is going to win is not a sufficient or positive reason. It wasn't in 2000. It's not in 2010.
Like many here, I am ambivalent about Nader. He nailed the two parties as corporatist sellouts years ago. But it always was more about him than sticking around and using his clout and cachet to build a viable political alternative to our two party system.
That said, Gore chose Joe Lieberman as his running mate and ran a rotten campaign.
Hugh
First, thanks for your compliments and "votes" of confidence
And now...look, who freakin' brought up Nader here, FIRST? THIS is the stuff I hear every day, day in and day out. I must admit, I am beginning to take attacks like that (you're a spoiler because Nader was a spoiler) personally at this point. I don't "worship" him. I admire his good qualities, and don't admire his bad ones. But for cryin' out loud, it starts geting stale, OK? And as far as him being a "spoiler" here is a nice interview with Amy Goodman, dealing with the same bloody spoiler accusation:
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/10/26/n...
Look, it's hard enough being a Green, it's hard enough to go up against entrenched parties that were, and are, willing to break laws and threaten people, and actually hurt people, I am getting sick and tired of having to defend the right of my Party to just be on a ballot rather than cave to the wishes of some soi-dissant liberals, and I really, really wish that rather than throw that mud, people would look at the facts. I welcome EVERYBODY who wants to join the Greens, from every political spectrum, if they truly support our 10 key values. I don't think it should be a requirement for ME, however, to accept the D propaganda and apologize for Nader's run!
Time for Real Change
The question of fact here...
... is where Nader actually campaigned in the last weeks of 2000. Swing states or not? Aeryl says yes; the D says yes; Nader's press secretary says no. Do we have Nader's actual itinerary anywhere? (I know the detail and the sourcing of 2004, 2006, and 2008 because I blogged through them all; but not 2000).
* * *
Libby, if you'll look at what both VL and I are saying, you'll see that we're not trying to make your life harder; quite the reverse.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
The question of fact runs a little deeper than "where was Ralph"
It's all about ballot access that "right" that was fought against by D's coast-tocoast, and cost Nader, and the Party tons of $$. If you read this:
https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/bcburden/web...
You'll see his "strategy' was to get matching funding, to promote greater ballot access for the next election.
and here's another analysis of "why and how Gore lost" (from the DLC):
"They maintain that Gore lost not because of his populist, big government message but because of cultural and moral issues, fueled by resentment of President Clinton's behavior and by Gore's own personal shortcomings. I think they're wrong on all counts. The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race."
Time for Real Change
But it's very important for Ds to keep up that "spoiler" myth
for any number of reasons, first because it deflects away from them the results of their own horrific, anti-democratic tactics against Greens, and also because that 'spoiler" message resonates still for progressives (and I'm getting it every day). And again, it also absolves them for the loss in 2000.
oh, here's the link for the DLC quote above, I forgot it, sorry: http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=179&contentid=2919
Time for Real Change
Debunking myths and documenting dirty tricks is always a worthy
endeavor, IMHO. And I don't begrudge you surmising that Nader had no impact. I just think it's possible for people of good faith to disagree on the latter point and yet to constructively agree that Nader's message resonates today.
I'm asking a simpler question
What states did Nader run in, during the last weeks of the election? (I care about his actions, not about whatever strategerizing they did, which was all subject to change anyhow.)
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Doing a search
Of news stories about Nader in October 2000, I see one of the claims about Nader's heavy campaigning in swing states(though outside of one mention in FL & one mention of Madison Square Garden w/ Susan Sarandon & Tim Robbins I can find no mentions of an other campaign stops) came straight from Eric Alterman, who is nothing more than a DParty hack. I don't know if I read it from him(likely I used to read him a lot) but I have a clear memory of Nader in FL in the days before/of the election, which was why that claim always stuck, when so many other memories from 2000 are gone.
So I'm probably wrong on this, especially after reading the disgusting fear based article from Gloria Steinem I stumbled across during this search. It was full of the same brow beating, insulting and minimizing language that today's progressives use so well about DParty loyalty above all else.
I need to go throw up now.*
*Over the Steinem article, BTW.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
Don't Worry, Aeryl
After the first five or six years, the nausea passes.
Take it from one who bailed in '99.
A quote from your source
This is a quote directly out of the study you cite:
It is one of many in that study describing how Nader's candidacy had the effect of handing the election to Bush.
So people (including Dem partisans) say Nader was a spoiler, because, um, he was a spoiler!
Some times talking points are true.
Greens can't have it both ways on this. They can't have had both no impact and still be relevant. They had an impact, they were relevant, and they helped elect George W. Bush to the White House. Even the study you cite says it was obvious.
As for Nader's intentions. Well, haven't we long ago given up discovering people's intentions (as unknowable) and focused on their actions?
Sorry, I don't fall in love with politicians. I'm not that desperate.....
I don't read it that way
What the study also shows is that Nader was trying to get the Greens to the 5% threshold for Federal funding. That's not a spoiler strategy -- or if it is, than anything that doesn't reinforce the legacy parties is spoiler by definition.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
The point of Robert Parry's discussion
Is that the "punish the dems" strategy is ineffective and although well-intentioned has demonstrably lead to undesirable outcomes. I think he makes a good argument, though I wish he would propose an alternative strategy.
The take away for me is that regardless of what Nader's "intentions" were (and if we have given up trying to discern Obama's "intentions" and instead focused on the outcomes, why can't we do that for Nader?), the effect is widely acknowledged and even stated so in that paper: his candidacy helped elect George W. Bush. Regardless of intention or strategy, that was the outcome and Parry's argument is that not accepting and working to improve the "lesser evil" ensures the greater evil. In a binary political environment, it is a valid argument and should be argued on the merits, rather than hyperbole.
I actually read through this entire paper, I have some problems with his methodology, which specifically disregards what Nader actually said, and instead focuses on campaign appearances to determine 5% vs. Spoiler, where if no site visit data showed evidence for Hypothesis 2 (spoiler) ergo hypothesis 3 (both goals) is also false. Well, as Obama's people would have it "words are powerful things". Here are some reports of Nader's words during the election.
And here:
Sorry, I don't fall in love with politicians. I'm not that desperate.....
I don't think you will ever see what I see
"beng more open", "some reporters even asserted""seems to suggest" , "implicates", "insiders account suggests", and "clearly relished" aren't what I consider evidence. I don't see any on-the-record remarks in your post that definitely state Nader was following a spoiler strategy (outside of the charges made by Ds), and the facts do not bear this "theory" out, only masses and masses of D propaganda. If a third party is never allowed to run, or only when it's "safe" for the Ds, then I guess the Ds will continue to use whatever dirty trick they can to keep Greens (or whatever party they feel threatened by) off the ballot nation-wide. If a third party will only be "allowed" to exist by D agreement, and people are fine with that, then we don't have a third party. And the "spoiler" charges stemmed from the D party in the context of his going to "swing states" to campaign, and I believe the evidence disproves that. "Florida" has been, and still is, a rallying cry for Ds who are attempting to marginalize and delegitimize any Green they want to, I know it's been used against my campaign. If factual evidence is no good, and whatever a D pundit writes is truth, then the myth will go on and on.
(And after what Nader went through just to get on ballots nationwide, due to D obstructionism, I can certainly empathize with a small amount of schadenfreude)
Time for Real Change
Nothing is to be believed?
First, we should never believe anything ever written by reporters describing what Nader said to them, or what Nader campaign insiders told them?
Well, ok......
Second, I am not now, and never did say anything about it being legitimate for the Democratic (and I assume Republican?) parties blocking the Green Party access to the ballot. That is reprehensible.
Third, two things can be true: Nader primarily was interested in getting 5% of the vote. Nader's candidacy helped elect George W. Bush.
For some on the Left, and for Democratic party partisans, that means he was a spoiler, regardless of his "strategy". Outcomes. Outcomes. which leads us to....
Finally, and most importantly, and consequently least discussed is THE ACTUAL TOPIC OF THIS POST: Robert Parry, right or wrong? The author of the study you cite says, the outcome (never mind the strategy, again, for the tenth time), the outcome was George W. Bush as president.
I realize you are a Green party candidate, and I congratulate you for that. But not everyone is convinced that voting Green is going to lead to a desirable outcome. Why don't you start parrying Parry's argument by putting forth an argument for how how voting Green will lead to a desirable outcome in the future? Far more important use of your energy than battling the historical record.
Sorry, I don't fall in love with politicians. I'm not that desperate.....
Well Said!
The Democrats will forever have their cake and eat it, too, when it comes to Nader. He single-handedly ruined the divinely ordained ascension of the great and glorious Albert Gore ---and yet simultaneously: Nader and the Greens had no power and that's why nobody had to listen to them, respect them, or care about what they wanted.
It was already b.s. ten years ago. Still is.
The previously cited study took into account all of Nader's and
Gore's campaign stops and media use, and came to this conclusion (a very rigorous study, one I think that goes well beyond "states visited')
Those observing the 2000 presidential campaign agreed that Ralph Nader could not win the presidency but disagreed about his actual strategy. Many Democrats contended that he was playing the role of “spoiler” in an attempt to attract attention or affect the election outcome. Others argued that he was trying to earn 5% of the popular vote to secure matching funds for the GreenParty in the next presidential election. Count models find that Nader’s travel schedule, unlike
Gore’s, was unresponsive to the closeness of the major-party race. Nader’s appearances were driven primarily by opportunities for attracting a large number of voters, suggesting that earning 5% was indeed a central campaign goal. Data on television advertising produce a parallel result. This finding resolves an ongoing debate about Nader in particular, but also points to broader differences
between major- and minor-party campaign strategies.
Time for Real Change
Great source on the Nader campaign, Julia
The nut graf, p 686:
Just what I wanted. The "5% hypothesis" is that Nader wanted to get the Greens over the 5% voting threshold for Federal funding.
So in the absence of better evidence and reasoning, the spoiler hypothesis is wrong.
Worth a post for someone to pull out those points (and also to make it Google-able more easily than the PDF...)
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Thank you, lambert
I hope another Green can expound on this, I'm busy "pounding pavement' and filling out more questionnaires.
Time for Real Change
Thanks to all for a truly decent discussion
The open minds and strict adherence to fact-based commentary is what keeps me coming here. It keeps me honest, too, by demanding I look up all my old documentation and support my claims, a good thing for me, as well. I can't tell you how difficult it is to combat the tireless efforts of the Ds (and Rs) to break our Party, deny us access, threaten us, and yes, even have our candidates injured. It was once remarked that we Greens are a "paranoid lot", but just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you
. If I can help spread the word that we are NOT taking R money, that our ability to get on the ballot will NOT bring this country down, that our members are NOT "ego-driven dilettantes", and that we ARE passionate about helping our fellow citizens, then I can feel like I've accomplished some little thing.
Time for Real Change
oh, and please keep your eyes open for more "spoiler"
propaganda from the Ds as their campaigns get more and more worried about their wonderful messaging and the support for all the good things they've done just hasn't materialized.
Time for Real Change
That spoiler takedown looks definitive to me...
I can't grab that PDF and excerpt it, nor can you, but...
Got a link on "even have our candidates injured"? Up here, the Greens somehow managed not to get into the gubernatorial race, which is a little discouraging.
NOTE Incidentally, the first paragraph is a good deal tougher on Nader than my "straw that broke the camel's back" argument.
NOTE Thanks also for the kind words. Method is very important. AA doesn't have a lot of money either, but it does have a method, and a central office for the distribution of same.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
What I've got is a first-person account of one of our
candidates getting physically removed from a debate he was qualified to attend,and "roughed up":
http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/UNzCTNHEC95...
suffering broken ribs and a probable concussion. (Try as I might I can't get to the news accounts, but as I recall, it was sparse coverage, and buried.) It does get mentioned in his wiki link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Campbell_(Michigan_politician)
and re: note #1: Yes, I know, I don't 'scrub' my sources.
and re: note #2: You're welcome
And also, what do you mean by we can't grab or excerpt that pdf? (Luddite, here)
Time for Real Change
and because of media blackouts, I only have other word-of-mouth
reports, which i can't document, so I won't mention them.
Time for Real Change
Cell phones that do movies...
... are your friends. They go on YT, or here, and then go viral. We hope.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Yes, I wish I had a video of the looney RTLer that grabbed my
literature, and got waay too close to me, all the while screaming and foaming at the mouth. Not a pretty picture, and scared the heck out of me.
Time for Real Change