w(h)ither nader?
4 years ago, Ralph Nader galvanized a sizable number of voters (2+ million), especially those of my generation, to send a message which essentially boiled down to "politics sux". i think a lot of people, even Nader supporters, were surprised at how many people felt that they couldn't find a voice within the two party system. and Nader could have garnered a lot more support if many Democrats hadn't been worried about Bush winning which he didn't, but he did. i think this is largely the same group of people who pushed Howard Dean to the front of the Democratic class for a few months before his demented Iowa cowboy speech.
so now, in the face of super liberals Dean and Kucinich having been relegated to the dustbin, Nader is suiting up again to bring the government back to the people. too bad it's never going to happen, at least not this year. i like Ralph, and i think that he brings a lot of good issues to the table, but i think the last election cycle made pragmatists out of many idealists. certainly, the last 3+ years have taught the lesson that there are most certainly discrete levels of evil and that Bush is a couple rungs lower than maybe we thought.
this country was founded by government, not by business, and while neither Kerry nor Edwards would be a cure-all for the woes inflicted by corporate profiteers on our citizenry, neither would Nader, so let's just make sure that Bush is dispatched, OK?
Comments
This country was not founded with business interests in mind? You sure about that?
Also, let's make sure that Bush doesn't get re-elected Apes style and not even bother to vote! One man, one opinion, one vote.... or perhaps the amended one ape, one opinion. many excuses of why he can't be bothered to register to vote.
If this is working on your guilty conscience to actually register and vote this year, then good.
Posted by: Dan | February 23, 2004 02:37 PM
i've already promised my brother (and myself) that i will register and vote this year.
Posted by: jamie | February 23, 2004 03:02 PM
time's a wasting, get out there and do it now!
i agree wholly with your pragmatists out of idealists line. 4 years is a long time.
why has nader waited so long to jump in now? what could he possibly accomplish at this late date?
Posted by: crispin | February 23, 2004 03:46 PM
I second the Crispin's approval of the pragmatist line. Good one, Apes.
Also, I think Nader is simply making a point that now that it is down to Kerry and Edwards, the Democratic party has again moved too far to the center.
Posted by: Dan | February 23, 2004 04:13 PM
I think Nader is grandstanding. Just like he was last time. Less than two months ago Nader said on CNN, "I'm supporting Kucinich. Is that simple enough for you?" Didn't take to long for his ego to force him off that stand, did it?
I've also never quite understood the notion that Nader "galvanized" a "sizable number" of people in the last election. I think there are certain people out there who every few elections get in a "none of the above" mood and vote for a third party candidate. Nader's 2.8 million votes were only significant because of how extraordinarily close the 2000 election was. It's a lot less support than Perot received in '96 (8 million votes) or '92 (19 million), and less than John Anderson in '80 (5 million), and we don't talk about John Anderson as a galvanizing force.
A potted plant could get 100,000 votes as a third-party candidate; would we than be blaming a fern for keeping Gore about the White House? Would we talk about a palm as a galvanizing force?
Posted by: David | February 23, 2004 09:50 PM
I find it annoying when people re-post simply to correct their own typos, but I think I made one significant enough to cause confusion (if any of it made sense in the first place): In penultimate sentence, I meant "out of," not "about."
P.S., Happy to hear that you are voting this year. I recall several past arguments about your old stance.
Posted by: David | February 23, 2004 09:59 PM
dave, i was talking about galvanizing a specific population. in the case of Nader, i think he broke through with a lot of "disaffected" young people who were fed up with the political process as they knew it. many of the same people, it would seem, who became Dean backers. Perot certainly had more appeal (and more money) to older voters who didn't like the choices they were given, but i think most of those people would have voted regardless, unlike Nader supporters. this is based mostly on general observations, so it could be way off, but i'm throwing it out there as a hypothesis.
Posted by: jamie | February 24, 2004 11:18 AM
For some reason, I was a big Anderson supporter in 1980. I was in kindergarten and actually got into a fist fight with another kid who supported Reagan. I think I cared more about politics when I was five than I do now. Where do I vote for the potted plant?
Posted by: jake | February 24, 2004 04:16 PM