Provocation: Naderites

EVENT: CONNOR

I often express more distaste for Nader and other third party presidential candidates than I do for Republicans.

In fact, not only do I fully acknowledge this seeming contradiction, but I would argue that, in fact, such distaste is consistant with my hopes for a more progressive, egalitarian society.

The explanation is simple; the detailed logic a bit more complex:

I differ philosophically with conservatives... we see the world in fundamentally different ways. Conservatives believe that society is bettered through a deregulated economy than can aggressively expand... I believe that effective regulation allows society to benefit to a greater degree, and that some basic human needs are more important than economic growth. Conservatives believe that the religion, language, and cultures of the majority can be taken for granted in a society... I believe that the margins must be assured an equal place in public institutions. Conservatives believe that discrimination et al must be addressed through a sort of civic evolution that does not involve government intervention beyond the provision of basic rights... I believe that government must take a more active role in the redress of inequality. There are more examples, but I've tried to generalize.
These are not differences, however, which are likely to be resolved by anything other than a very open and willing sort of conversation, or personal experience. They, I believe, are also differences informed more by perspective than maturity.
I am prompted, therefore, to object to conservative ideas as opposed to conservatives.

I share much, philosophically, with Ralph Nader and his supporters… even moreso than I do with the Democrats.
Most Nader suppporters would agree the beliefs I've outlined above.
We would agree that the dominant "left" party in America is a little too far right for our tastes.
After all, Clinton abandoned universal health care but bore the fruits of welfare reform. Al Gore was a vocal supporter of the Death Penalty. Today, Kerry avoids discussion of gay marriage at every opportunity, while trumpeting his work with McCain above any achievements within his own party.
I share with Naderites a basic dissatisfaction with America's "liberal party," which often seems to be hardly liberal at all.
Differences, however, stem from our interpretation of facts and situations, which I'll outline below. Nader supporters, as a group of voters, activists, and citizens, are a large factor in a choice of almost ungraspable consequence. Their lapse is a lapse of awareness, discretion, and vision. Their choice is irresponsible.
I am prompted, therefore to object to progressives’ conduct as opposed to progressive ideas.

It’s an objection that is more frustrating to me, spoken in a more personal way, and so it is “more distasteful.”

* * * * *

In 2000, when Ralph Nader was the nominee of the Green party, and refused to pull out of the election even when it seemed that a few percentage points might mean the difference between a status quo Democrat and a president who would create staggering deficits, reward corporations for outsourcing union jobs, and preside over the most abysmal environmental policy in American history, I asked my Green voting friends what made such a risk worthwhile in Florida, in Ohio, and in Maine.

They gave many different answers, but to a soul, they claimed they wanted third parties to be more of a visible force in American politics… they praised Parliamentary systems in Europe that allow some authority to drift away from the mainstream. 100% of Americans, that is, are forced to abide by the decisions of anywhere up from (and sometimes less than) 51%, and our political leadership would be better on the whole if it refleted more than two facets of our national personality.

In 2004, third parties have lost ground. Republicans have ironically become Nader’s allies on petitions and in court. Even were the reputation undeserved, Greens have acquired the image of spoilers, dividing the liberal vote in its hour of need. Our now bitterly partisan country has its eyes on the presidential goal, with little more than contempt for Libertarians, Greens, the Reform party or any other political entity not represented by a donkey or an elephant.

While I don’t doubt superficial sincerity on the part of Nader supporters, either now or in 2000, I don’t think they’ve been objective about their situation.

They want, above all, to promote other choices? I cannot believe this at heart. Why, then, aren’t the Greens (or any other third party) running a candidate in Flint’s one state house seat race? Flint is more likely than most places to elect a progressive candidate... the city is an example of the failures of both Democrats and Republicans to adequately solve problems.

Nor is a third party candidate running for either of the state senate or houses seats I could vote for in Illinois. I would very likely vote for them, if they were there!

Rather than be a spoiler (Potential spoiler? Partial spoiler? Shareholder in the spoilage?) of an important national election they can’t possibly win, wouldn’t it be more productive for third party candidates to build support from the ground up? Most of us think progressives are unrealistic, unyielding, and in a sense of denial. Perhaps if we see Greens or Libertarians effectively running the city council or county board of commissioners, we'll be more disposed to trust them in more important positions. It's not a matter of worth as much as of exposure... positive exposure.

It's not enough to hope to educate the public about progressive policies. The public has to see the soundness of these policies in action before it will be likely to trust third parties in prominent congressional or presidential positions.

And ironically; third parties should be able to obtain these positions. They are more likely to run uncontested, or only contested by one of the dominant parties. They are more likely to attract undecided or swing voters, because the stakes are lower, and less attention is heaped upon any candidate. Some democrats or republicans might even go out on a limb and experiment, since they know their Ombudsman cannot raise taxes or bomb Iraq.

I said earlier that my differences with conservatives were informed more by "perspective than maturity." Maturity is precisely the problem with Nader supporters... because there is little glory in winning County Commissioner... it doesn't generate energy among hordes of college freshmen, and it doesn't hector the Democrats on the national stage. It's a slow, boring process of spending decades purchasing credibility from a recalcitrant public.

But, for those hoping to give third parties a voice of consequence, it's the only realistic option.

Naderites and other third parties must face the truth: we don't live in a Parliamentary democracy. There are only two dominant parties, and for any third party (liberal or conservative) to enter the mix on a national level could only split the vote, draw animosity from would-be allies, and unite opposition. And much as we hate to admit it, the differences today between our center-leaning Democratic party, and the right-moving Republicans, are numerous and important.

To Naderites, I issue this challenge. Take down your Nader signs. Vote for Kerry. Nominate Green, Libertarian, or independent candidates for City Council, Board of Education, Office of Comptroller, County Commissioner... you will be doing more for your country, the progressive movement, and your own party.

It would be mature progressive conduct.

* * * * *

There's one more point I think is necessary to make:

My distaste for those who do not vote exceeds that of voters for any party.

Numerically, a vote for Nader is equivalent to not voting at all, since there can be no doubt of Nader's losing. The same applies to any non-Democrat and non-Republican vote. On the other hand, no presidential election (even 2000) was ever determined by less than 100 votes... most have been determined by millions, so really, unless we register 100 or 1000 voters, we're all essentially "throwing our vote away," as so many like to say.

My criticism of Nader supporters is framed within the context of our national conversation, of which voting is only one part (albeit a very important part). Progressive contributions today are confusing and contradictory, which is still, I think, better than removing yourself from the conversation altogether.

~ Connor