Skip to main content

View Diary: Surrender Dems (442 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Er... No (none)
    I didn't say that at all. What I said was: 1.) It's pretty fucking absurd to blame Nader supporters for Bush's "victory" in 2000, and 2.) If Gore had won, given the current state of the party, it's unlikely he would have been able to exercize any power or drive the political debate, and he would have been squashed in 2004 and we'd now be gearing up for the Iraq War.

    "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

    by Septic Tank on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 08:58:57 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Actually (none)
      It is perfectly reasonable to blame Nader supporters in part, if only because the vote count he got in Florida alone was enough to secure the win of the state for Gore, and thus the presidence.

      My original post did not blame Nader exclusively in any event.

      As for the rest of your post, you are assuming that a Gore victor in 2000 would have done nothing to change the current course of events. Perhaps that is true, and there is no doubt that the right wing would have gone after him with all their guns blazing, but there is only one thing for sure we can say about that:

      We will never know, because the left could not unite behind the only viable candiate it had in the 2000 election and in so doing gave the presidency to George W. Bush.

      •  The left could not unite (none)
        This is my favorite part about the "blame Nader" school of thought. All the agency is given to a handful of wilted Greens. None is given to Gore, to the Democratic Party (as effectively represented by a corrupt, arrogant D.C. establishment), to the wholly unprincipled, ruthless opposition and its media enablers.

        That's a dangerous cop-out, because it lets the architects of the party's internal divisions -- the collaborationist corporate faction that ruled the party throughout the '90s -- off the hook, and because their unilateral disarmament approach continues to this day to leave the party defenseless.

        Incidentally, I would never assert that a Gore victory would have done nothing to change the course of events, per se. Obviously, policy-wise, it would have. Gore appointees would have held the line on all sorts of things. But Republicans would still be in the driver's seat and, almost inevitably given the miserable state of the party, would have taken the presidency in 2004.

        I gotta say, I think you and AWD are ascribing to me all sorts of cartoonish Naderite positions (which I'm not so sure were ever really held by even the most addled Ralphie -- like {"Gore would have implemented massive tax cuts for the rich and started a pointless war just like Bush!"). I find this a recurrent and worryingly Republican-like feature of obsessive anti-Nader-voter commentary -- the oversimplification, the armies of strawmen, the self-righteous arrogance and ironclad assumptions. It creeps me out.

        It creeps me out because if party activists can't understand how what happened in 2000 was party the result of a decade's-worth of antagonism by the D.C. establishment (which continues, unabated, to this day), then we're bound to keep on doing the same thing and getting the same results. The Nader vote was an angry reaction to Beltway/Wall Street hubris and a total lack of accountability to the party base (or important traditional constituencies, anyway) -- much the same stuff we spend much of our time bitching about on DKos today, five years later.

        "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

        by Septic Tank on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 10:59:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site