I'm sick and tired of stupid morons. One such individual was on The Laura Flanders Show tonight promoting Ralph Nader. I fault the host in part for not calling into question some of his claims as well as the callers, who leaned to the "can't risk Bush being re-elected" category. It is important to answer those sympathetic to an alternative to Bush and Kerry (though few probably think Nader is much better), but in a better way than provided by the show. The way to answer middle of the road dreck is not with worse dreck.
My ire was raised because he tried to promote his point of view, a defendable one in a sense, with patent falsehoods and perversions of the truth. For instance, he is upset that Kerry would appoint anti-choice judges. What did Kerry really say? He would not nominate judges against Roe v. Wade, especially if the Supreme Court was closely divided, but would not completely count ever picking such a person to some court. Oh no! Recall he himself is a pro-life Catholic, but supports pro-choice judges. And, that a Republican Senate will force him to compromise a bit, just what Bush did not do.
He also is against gay marriage. True enough, but given the alternative and unlikelihood Congress will allow federal marriage benefits to apply to same sex couples, is this a reason not to vote for the guy? Remember, he is strongly in support of gay rights in general, as is his wife. Likewise, Nader himself has not been in the forefront on such social issues, in fact, he has ridiculed the emphasis on them in the past. So, who would you choose?
No mention was made of Kerry's environmental record. On the other hand, the whole ballot access issue was emphasized. Implications aside, however, Kerry has explicitly said he is not against Nader running. Likewise, how allowing Republicans and even the Reform Party to take advantage of the issue for their own purposes is useful is unclear. If anything, it turns people off, and makes them cynical. Oh, and the Emancipation Proclamation is not an example of a good result for bad reasons. First the promotion of union was a good result, second anti-slavery was one reason why Lincoln put it forth.
And, what about the whole "progressive movement" argument? First off, Nader is not exactly a "new voice," if anything, he is helping to keep true new voices out of the news. Second, many of these voices are part of real grassroots movements. In fact, Nader is a sort of an anti-movement, one that turns off many who would gladly join a third party with a true future.
This, deny it as much as you want, is a major reason is having trouble getting on the same ballots he got on in 2000. Of course, the core reason is the rejection by the Greens, who he annoyed last time by not truly doing much to promote their party's cause. In the past, Nader actually was useful in building a movement, now he is sadly more for himself. For instance, yes, Gore ignored the harm to blacks in Florida when they needed him, but where was Nader?
Don't worry, says the remaining deluded few, we are really anti-Bush, we are just sending a message! We heard this message before, haven't we? Somehow, they are going to rile up many key votes in the sliver of the electorate that will turn certain swing states, but they will vote for Kerry on Election Day. Sure. Also, what sort of message are you sending? A message that exaggerates how bad Kerry is, and ignoring how bad Nader really is. If you want to send a message, vote for a true third party candidate.
Oh, and stop exaggerating how bad Kerry is, using the same corrupt techniques all politicians you claim to despise use. Finally, no, if Kerry wins, someone as bad as Bush will not necessarily run against him in 2008. The ideal situation, one that will require a lot of hard work by realistic progressives, is a Democrat in the White House and with added strength in Congress and locally. This would require the Republicans to realize conservative retrogrades won't get them elected.
My concern here is not to give Nader more respect than he deserves. It is to show how not to build a true grass roots movement to keep Democrats honest. What a waste of effort! What a way to turn off those who deep down agrees with you more than one might think! Believe me, we respect what you are trying to do, and reasonable debate is well appreciated. The core problem is that it is not being done, and you are not helping.