Democrats & Liberals Archives

As much as I want to see more parties become prominant in politics this election is one where a chance such as that cannot be taken. There is really too much at stake. However, say we had someone such as John McCain in office currently that would be a different story. There would not be as much to risk as there is now.

blipsman, while your logic is dead on and the article’s point well taken, there is an underlying value for the Green Party that is not considered.

The Fed. Elections Commission (FEC) has marginalized the Green Party and their platform issues since its inception in the U.S. Democrats are part and parcel of the FEC responsible for that marginalization.

Now step back for a moment, and look at the landscape. 1/3 of voters are Democrat, 1/3 are Republican, and 1/3 fall under “other”. And they make up altogether only half of all potential voters. This means that the majority of potential voters are not buying that the Democratic Party is best suited to govern. By the same numbers, this is also true of the Republican Party.

Democrats had it all, Congressional Majority and Presidency and they failed to move the majority of potential voters. Now the shoe is on the Republican foot. As a Green leaning Independent, I want to see Bush win another 4 years and Congress to remain in Republican hands.

At the end of the Republican reign, the potential voters will have a 16 year period of history to point at and say, SEE, the Democrats and Republicans have both had their turn, and we are no better off. Isn’t it time tried something new? Like the Green Party?

Asking the Green’s to vote Democrat to save us from Bush, and asking Nader to not run to save us from Bush, is a just another form of marginalizing the Green Party and asking them to bite their nose to spite their face.

Nader should run for no other reason than this is still a mostly free country and liberty not exercised, is liberty soon lost.

Wow, David. I consider most Greens and Independents fair-minded people, but the fact that some in the third party category would rather see Bush win just to prove a point makes me question their real motives.

Having Bush re-elected won’t be good for anyone, Democratic, Green, Independent, nor even most Republicans. Instead of defending the legitimacy of third party supporters, saying Bush should be re-elected just to prove a point is irresponsible and selfish.

Independents and Green Party members have many great ideas for this country and are a valuable part of it. Their candidates don’t get a fair shake the way things are now, but a secret hope for Bush to get re-elected to HELP them is not only misguided, but just plain wrong.

David,

I agree with you on many points. I have long said that our political system has some shortcomings that seem to favor a two party sytem rather than the true multi-party system that would better mirror the diversity of political views of the voters. I think that this reduces the effectiveness of the government because it doesn’t accurately act in concer with the values and beliefs of the citizens.

However, I think that at this point Nader needs to put realism before idealism and realize that there’s no chance for his winning the presidential election and the Green party’s platform would be better served by a Democratic adminstration.

But I don’t mean that Nader (or other 3rd party leaders) should sell out. They need to work within the system that exists now to achive their platform while simultanously work to build legitimate alternatives from the ground up. Because there is no proportional representation, winning 10%, 20% even 30% support usually results in a loss nonetheless.

It’s easier to turn a speedboat than a cruise ship, and in the same respect it’d be easier to win and show success on a smaller scale. Then parlay this success to step to the next level. Jesse Ventura started to do this, but then his momentum deminished as he became distracted by other opportunities. Had he run for another term, helped other candidates in other states run successful 3rd party campaigns they may have been able to plant the seeds from which a sustainable 3rd party could grow. And the Greens seems to be on the verge of being able to do this with Matt Gonzalez’s showing in the San Francisco mayoral election. Here was a situation where, within a smaller political venue, a 3rd party candidate recevied nearly half the votes.

As important as the political ideals are to a party, so to is the political infrastructure needed to get out the vote and spread the message. This needs to be built both with average citizens and with leaders within the government who know how to navigate the system.
And this needs to be done by winning elections and proving that the party bring better results. If the track record is there, the voters will follow.

Yawn, let Ralph run. The millisecond Kerry is nominated as the “centrist” candidate the Deaner-Weeners will go insane and vote for anyone else other than guys from Yale (of which, I’ll be voting for Bush again this year).

Seriously, think about it… The Democratic party has been blasting what is wrong with America instead of galvanizing people behind saying “Here is what’s right with America, and he is what we can do to make it better”. Being the “bitchy ex-wife” isn’t going to exactly motivate more people to your party. If anything, it’s going to alienate those that might lean more to the right. And yes, I’m a recovering Democrat who voted for Clinton twice, straight ticket Dem from 1990 until 2000. Jees, I even voted for Carol Mosely Braun…what the hell was I smoking…

The biggest race in November is going to be if Bush can beat Reagan’s landslide against Mondale in 1984. Again, think about it and flame away…

Brian, I don’t know what you’re smoking, but Bush won’t come anywhere close to pulling of an ‘84 Reagan in this election. Read any polls or reports and you’ll see this is an extremely stratified country right now - this election will be just as close as 2000.

As for the tired line that Democrats don’t offer any solutions - the only reason people seem to say this is that they’ve heard other people say it. Listen to any policy speech by a Democrat and you’ll hear an abundance of ideas on how America could change for the better.

Brian, name calling other party members or followers of other candidates is not permitted here, regardless of party. Our policy of Critique the Message, Not the Messenger is designed specifically to prevent flames from occuring here. Your invitation to others to flame away, defeats the policy agreed to by the more than 40 writers here at WatchBlog. Please abide by our policy and support our effort to keep WatchBlog a flame free zone.
—WatchBlog Manager.

blipsman, I appreciate your point of view, and it has a pragmatism that I am sure will be appealing to a majority of third party and Independent voters who are not comfortable with the Bush administration.

I would respectfully disagree however, that ideals should be put aside for pragmatism. Putting ideals aside is so easily justified and done at times like these. The problem is, everytime we put them, it becomes exponentially harder to pick them back up again. This is in part why our country faces so many of the seemingly insoluble dilemmas before us. We have compromised our ideals once too often in granting ever more power to the executive branch of government, by both parties. We have so contorted the rules and parliamentary procedures of Congress for the sake of pragmatism and expedience, that such rules are barely discernible anymore in the Committee backrooms and even on the floor.

Someone, at some point, must stand the line, and pronounce that what is ideal must be held as high or higher than pragmatism and expedience, or it will be lost forever, not in the mind of people, but, in the rules of our beauracracies and organizations, and therefore, in real life. Hitler transformed German society by increments of pragmatism. The process was so insidious that most civilian Germans did not realize what their country had become until after the war was over.

Let Bush win, nothing will turn Americans away from him and his policies like another 4 years of perpetutating fear, insecurity, and allegiance to his power as a means of dealing with the source of that fear. Bush would have us believe that we should fear the terrorists. I believe we should only fear being afraid. We should act like FREE people, talk like fearless people, and demand our rights to live in a peaceful society for there can be no greater weapon against terrorism than the refusal to be terrorized by them.

Nader should run, because America is great because it protects every citizen’s right to run for office. The day we argue that Nader should not run, we undermine yet another of the basic principles which made this democracy great.

Anthony, it is not to make a point, it is to protect one of the basic fundamental freedoms that made American a free nation. Every citizen has the right to aspire to office. Curtail that right by diminishing those that exercise it, is to diminish our freedoms and the principle of freedom which used to bind us together as a people.

But here’s the deal (and I apologize for inviting flames, but that’s usually what happens..) :-)

Listen to any policy speech by a Democrat and you’ll hear an abundance of ideas on how America could change for the better.

Do you mean Universal Health Care that no one wants to pay for? Or do you mean cowtowing to the UN who ran the maligned “Oil for Food” program in Iraq which was delievering Mercedes Benzs to help the poor Iraqis in need?

While I have nothing horribly against Ralph Nader, I can almost assure he will run if Kerry gets the nod. And if he does, he will fracture the party and remove the almost communist wing from Kerry’s coffers. That in itself will be a death knell even before a single dollar gets spent to reelect the president.

Brian, it’s one thing to say Democrats don’t offer any solutions. It’s quite another to simply disagree with them, as you have done (albeit via extreme simplification.)

David, Sounds like it is to make a point, the point being that every citizen has the right to aspire to office. While I couldn’t agree more, this year, 2004, isn’t the year of idealism. It is the year of realism and polls show the election will be close enough without Ralph Nader.

Nader brings up many good issues, but he should take this election off. He can rest up for 2008…

Anthony, I will let a couple of others speak my point better than I can.

Benjamin Franklin:
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Samuel Adams:
“The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards.”

“Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” - Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.

“You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence.” - Charles A. Beard (1874-1948), U.S. historian

David, Very impressive quotes you pulled out there, all of which I subscribe to myself. Maybe my point wasn’t stated clearly enough, however. I don’t think Nader shouldn’t run because someone is not allowing him to, thus subverting liberty.

I think Nader shouldn’t run because it’s not the right time for him to run. This is evidenced by the current state of the country right now and the current structure of the political parties. All in due time.

It may not be the right time for those who desperately want to see Bush sent packing (course, I live in Texas, so the longer he stays President in D.C., the better off we are here). If I were Nader however, and remember, he has little respect for either the Democratic or Republican parties, the decision would rest on my estimate of how far my message about corrupt government by both parties would carry given the cost and sacrifice of running. That is a decision only he can make.

It is the height of hypocrisy however, for Bush and Kerry to be trading barbs on special interest campaign contributions and someone needs to hold both candidates feet to the fire on this issue.

Every vote for Nader is a vote for an eternity of Conservative rule. There have got to be other ways of starting a progressive third party without ensuring

Maybe there is a better way to jump-start a legitimate Green-like party without making ultra-conservative Republicans president again and again. Maybe it’s time to consider some tactics besides Ralph-Nader-centric party-crashing.

Here are some ideas (note that these ideas are not mutually exclusive):

(a) Do it from *within* the Democratic party. Get a large number of Democrats to formally create and join a “Green Caucus” within the party, a caucus which could choose to vote with or against the party according to it’s own collective will. Witness the Congressional Black Caucus for evidence of how successful a block of concerted politicians can be even within a new party. (And imagine how utterly powerless African Americans would be if all progressive black politicians created a third party instead of working within the Democratic party.)

(b) If, after forming a Green Caucus, they can’t get things done within the party, Caucus leaders can take that Green Caucus and, when it’s good and powerful (i.e., when it’s like 50% of the Democrats) split it off from the party to start a third party, a la the Dixiecrats. But don’t do it unless the power base is legitimate!

(c) Form multi-party coalitions like they do in other countries. In countries that have legitimate third parties, it is perfectly normal for third party candidates to throw their support behind a Tweedle Dee just to ensure that a Tweedle Dum doesn’t get into office. Again, as hard as it may be for Mr. Nader to imagine, the Greens can be successful without having a presidential candidate at all. I realize that this is easier in a Pariamentary system, but we can think of our own flavor of party coalitions here. I also realize that party funding in America is (currently) largely based on Presidential election results, but this, too, can be changed.

(d) Be patient about making a national impace and keep up the great work of having Greens run for office in local elections. Let the Greens reach the Presidential stage when they’ve established and proven their legitimacy at the grassroots first - NOT the other way around. (Note also that, at least here in NYC, it’s totally normal for candidated to run under the banners of *multiple parties*. This is a great way for Greens to start their climb up the ladder of power.)

These ideas may seem far-fetched and unrealistic, but they are a thousand times more plausible than creating an effective Green Party by simply continually voting for Ralph Nader for president.

Sadly, Nader and many of his supporters, of course, wouldn’t even consider any of these alternative ways of thinking because they seem to care more about hearing the sound of their voice than they care about our country. It’s ironic that people seeking an alternative party and a third way of thinking about politics can only think of one simplistic way, an old-fashioned way, of making a dent in our government - running for President. There are other ways to do this without dragging our country into the pits!

Mr. Nader: Run your party, but don’t run for President.

-Cf

> I would respectfully disagree however, that
> ideals should be put aside for pragmatism.

David, consider this: pragmatism IS idealism. An idealist must do all he or she can to make sure their ideals become a reality. One does not need to put aside ideas, ever.

Sometimes the best route from A to B is not a straight line. Finding the best path towards a goal usually means that you’ll have to sometimes point away from your goal. There is no crime in that.

Voting for Nader is like driving your car towards your destination without steering it around obstacles. Your heart may be in the right place, but you’re going to end up in a wreck if you don’t steer.

I’m not saying that your reasons for voting for Nader are wrong, though. I just think you and other Nader voters should think away from the false dichotomy of being “either for your true ideals or for political expediency”. It’s just not that simple (it also smacks of the hamfisted “you’re either with us or against us”).

-Cf

-Cf

CF, this is a sophisticated argument you provide. But by your same reasoning, one can justify one murder if it will prevent two other murders. So, murder is not always bad or wrong, it depends on the outcome. Sophisticated reasoning, but, ends justifying the means, rarely holds up to close scrutiny when used to defend a person’s actions and extrapolated to society as a whole. Would we want everyone to justify murder by their own hand by arguing to themselves and others that the act probably prevented two other murders from occuring? Should the state execute all convicted murderers since their is a likelihood they would kill again of they remain alive?

For Democrats to ask Nader to forego his freedom to run for just 4 years, is just such an ends justifying the means defense. If Democrats truly stand for individual freedom as guaranteed under the Constitution, they cannot in good conscience, even ask Nader to consider not running. To do so, represents the Democrat’s party being complicit in an attempt to enhance their own power while asking another to sacrifice their freedom to run.

It is just such reasoning by the Democratic Party that caused me to leave it after 36 years.

David, I find it very strange that you frame this as a “freedom to run” issue. Nobody is saying Nader has no right to run or that someone should deny him that right to run. They are simply saying that he shouldn’t run if he wants to push forth his political agenda, and/or that people who support his political agenda shouldn’t vote for him in good conscience.

Also, yes, sometimes a murder is justified if it prevents another crime (even if that crime is not murder!) for example in self-defense. In a way, a vote for the Democratic candidate instead of Nader
is an act of emergency self-defense, perhaps literally to defend the safety of the world.

Seriously, if Bush wins again, with a Republican House, Senate, Supreme Court, State Legistatures, and no re-election constraints, there’s nothing stopping him. He could load the court with more Scalias, he could pass a load of constitutional amendments written by any and all of his right wing backers, he could invade another country or two and further incite the enmity of the world, he could plunge our nation even further into debt, who knows what havoc he could wreak, havoc that could be with us for 30 years or more.

All of these scenarios, as extreme as some of them might sound, are a heck of a lot more likely than the Green Party gaining power and relevance in the next 30 years under the leadership of Ralph Nader, especially if he leads the left into a long string of lost Presidential elections. Where will it lead? What does a vote for Nader lead to? Is there any kind of long-term plan at all behind voting for Nader? Is the plan any good? Is the plan working so far?

Think of it this way: you’re in the middle of crossing the street, your signal says “Walk”, and a giant truck is barreling right at you. You have the right of way, but if you want to live you’ll have to move out of the way, rights or not! Bush is the truck.

-Cf

CF, is there any kind of long term plan behind sacrificing choice based on values and platform issues in lieu of political expediency and a choice of lesser of two evils?

On the one hand you say no one is trying to deprive Nader of the right to run. Ok, on the face of it. But, you then say, “or that people who support his political agenda shouldn’t vote for him in good conscience.” Given that the purchasing power of our dollar per hour worked has steadily declined since the 1960’s with occasional quarterly blips, under both Dem and Repub watches, and our quality of life is not vastly improved save in the area of medical knowledge, why, oh why, does it make sense to vote Democrat this election or any election?

In my opinion, it doesn’t, and Nader offers an alternative to choosing the lesser of two evils.

Good debate by the way.

CF, P.S. I am reminded or a saying “If you aren’t part of the solution, then, you are part of the problem” or something similar. It seems so apropos’ in light of our debate. Dem’s are not going to improve America, they will only make things a bit different from what another 4 years with Bush will bring. In the end, we will not be anymore secure, be any wealthier per hour worked, nor have our quality of life vastly improved, like removing Mercury from fish, MTBE from our drinking water supplies, safer from UV rays, etc., etc. Nor will corporations be held to any higher standard of obligation back to society, nor will the wealthiest, the corruption of money and power will continue, only some of the names and faces would change.

If McCain were in office, I would never ask Nadar not to run. It’s abhorent to me, but I did it anyway.

The following is a letter that a sent to James çarville a few weeks ago that goes to the 2000 Nader issue.
________________________________

Dear Mr. Carville:

I believe that there are good strategic reasons why George W. Bush should not win in 2004 based on analysis of the 2000 turnout, the controversy over the 2000 result and Bush’s actions since then. But I also believe that the Democrats are doing everything in 2004 that they did in 2000 to drive voters away from supporting Democrats in 2004. Bush can’t will but the Democrats sure can lose this election.

-What was the one issue opposed by both the Republicans and the Democrats and was common to the three largest third party groups that drew voters from the Democrats in 2000?

-What is the one Democrat and Republican policy that has had the government disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of Americans, mostly minority, each year since 1970?

-What is the one national policy that was designed by the right wing of the two dominant parties, together, in 1970 to neutralize, undermine and subvert the empowering effects of the Voter Rights Act and the Twenty-sixth Amendment?

-What is the one issue mostly responsible for allowing the Republicans to purge more than one hundred and fifty thousand voters from the Florida voter rolls in 2000?

- What is the one issue that turned the Greens into an 86,000 strong Party in Florida in 2000 when they did not even exist in Florida in 1996?

- What is the one policy issue that, aspects of which, have won electoral majorities in 18% of the states since 1996 but is still ignorantly opposed by both the Democrats and Republicans?

Drug War policy reform is that issue.

The Drug War was never created to mitigate drug abuse. That is why America has 5 million addicts today when America had fewer that four hundred thousand addicts when the Drug War policy was created by Richard Nixon. The Drug War was created to suppress, mitigate and neutralize the dissident, nonconformist and minority empowering effect of the VRA and the 26st Amendment. At that it is a great success.

Young people who demonstrate a potential to question the status quo by questioning the drug laws by experimenting with proscribed drugs are as likely to question other dictates and dogma of the powers that be. The two dominant parties do not want voters who question them and so the two parties impose the Drug War on America.

But socially curious and questioning young people are also what makes really great political activists for social change. Such personal traits used to be thought of as good Democrats when I worked for Gene McCarthy. But the right wing of both parties, together, decided that such Americans were to be identified, marginalized and disenfranchised whenever such folks could not be coerced or co-opted into capitulation to the right wing status quo of America. This is the basis and purpose of Bill Bennett’s “culture war”. What amazes me is that the Democrats go along with this subversion of their own basic constituencies and activist base. The Republicans must be laughing their asses off seeing you guys incarcerating your most aggressive potential supporters, America’s nonconformists and socially aware dissidents of all colors.

An aggressive national security, public safety, public health and pro-democracy platform could be articulated for immediately ending the Drug War. the Democrats just say no.

The $64 billion dollar a year US black market empowers gangster predators to buy drugs from terrorists and then turn around and sell those drugs to American children. The violence of terrorism today is really just the same kind of escalation of violence as the gangsters introduced in the roaring twenties when liquor money fueled the predators. More money today only means richer and more aggressive international predators with greater plans for the world.

Regulation and taxation of the narcotics market would directly attack the 39% of terrorists who the DEA says finance their activities against us with drug dollars from the $500 billion a year world wide black market. Including bin Laden.

I do not believe that the Democrats will win in 2004 because the Democrats have not learned these lessons about the Drug war and from the 2000 election.

Good luck because I will not vote for any Drug Warrior Democrats. Period. And all of my drug policy reform friends say the same thing. We vote this issue. Kucinich will not get to the general election and those reformer votes will not transfer to a drug warrior Democrat. those votes will again go to third parties and any Independent candidates who articulate a pro drug policy reform platform.

Pat Rogers

In a piece in the New York Times today titled, “Nader Searches For His Roots”, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/15/politics/campaign/15POIN.html, it was reported that the Democrats felt the need to sabotage the Nader exploratory effort. This is precisely the kind of self serving right wing garbage that drove me out of the Democratic Party.

“Mr. Nader tried asking visitors to his Web site, naderexplore04.com, whether he should run, but the poll was halted after a flood of negative votes orchestrated by another Web site, RalphDontRun.net, created by John Pearce, a California Democrat and former Internet executive.”

It prompted me to go straight to the Nader site and signup as a volunteer.

Nader addresses the issues that the right wing Democrats and Republicans, together, suppress for their own political hegemony.

Here is my opinion of the right wing John Kerry who has made a career of subverting the Voter Rights Act and the Twenty-sixth Amendment. http://mysite.verizon.net/aahpat/kerr.htm

Nader will be announcing one way or the other this coming Sunday on Meet the Press. He is the second guest.

Here are some of my reasons for supporting Nader over Kerry.

John Kerry…Drug Warrior
http://mysite.verizon.net/aahpat/kerr.htm

If Nader thought he could put a “Should I run?” online poll on his site and NOT get slammed by well-organized Democrats, then he’s even more delusional than I thought. Do you really want a man with that kind of dullard’s political instincts in the White House?

I thought Nader voters voted out of conscience, nobly voting for the best man instead of the “lesser of two evils”.

But when I think about a scenario (admittedly improbable) where Nader is the President… and when I imagine whether or not he would actually be a *competant* President (competance meaning being able to get anything at all done, being able to avoid crippling scandals, being able to work with Congress, with the Military, etc.) I realize that he’d probably be a terrible, ineffectual, doormat of a President. He would be eaten alive by Hastert, Frist, etc… not to mention Putin, Jintao, Blair, etc. I’m sure Tom DeLay could figure out a way to impeach President Nader within weeks, and the hapless Nader could do nothing to stop it. His cabinet would be composed of similarly inexperienced, not-ready-for-prime-time second stringers.

Is this really what Nader voters want? Best candidate, indeed!

If you really think about it, Nader voters are, in fact, choosing from among *three* evils: Tweedledee, Tweedledum, and Tweedledo’h.

-Cf

Christopher:

Typical Democrat. Attack the messenger and avoid the message. You are rationalizing and justifying the kind of dirty tricks that have Americans running screaming from the American political process in contempt, disgust and sadness.

You validate my contempt for the Democrats.

Pat, what you call “dirty tricks” I call “the real world”. There has never existed a culture on earth where such “dirty tricks” didn’t absolutely and thoroughly define and permeate the world of politics and power.

It would be silly of me to attack Nader’s message because in general I agree with Nader’s political platforms! I attack the messenger (Nader) because he, not his platform, is running for President. When you vote for Nader you are not voting for his platform, you are voting for the man, Ralph Nader. I know dozens of people who have political platforms superior to those of any of the Presidential candidates, including Nader, but none of them have the political acumen to effectively run for office, much less to do the day to day job of actually running the country within the bloodbath of Washington politics.

It would be better for the left to embrace and *master* the world of back-stabbing, arm-twisting, truth-spinning, compromising politics than to try to pretend that the battle can or ever will be faught fairly. Politics have always been ugly, and they always will be.

If people on the left continue to beleive that they can win through absolute honesty, total rule by conscience, never compromising, never playing dirty tricks, then they will forever be steamrollered by the right, which has never had any compunction from doing whatever it takes to advance their agenda. Even Christian fundamentalists look at the bigger picture and compromise their beliefs, cleverly voting even for philanderers and abortion fence-sitters!

Here’s a question: Historically, has our country - or any other state - ever been run by a government which did not practice “dirty tricks”? Has any government of absolute conscience ever survived?

-Cf

Christopher:

That is not the real world it is your real world. To me it is cognitive dissonance.

The tough love of John Kerry…Drug Warrior is my response to your dirty tricks perspective.
http://mysite.verizon.net/aahpat/kerr.htm

Just saw you on Tim Russert. I agree with most of your views & we need a third party but we need to defeat Bush even more. He is a liar & cares about corporate America & the rich more than the American people.
PLEASE DO NOT RUN THIS YEAR. SUPPORT EDWARDS