Over-the-top Nader-bashing and left-bashing by liberals -- particularly DLC democrats -- is helping Nader and hurting the Democratic party in 2004. It's playing right into Karl Rove's hands.
For the record, I am Kerry supporter, and have been since before he announced. I will not be voting for Nader and didn't vote for him in 2000. In fact I encouraged friends of mine who insisted on voting for Nader in 2000 to vote trade. This first-hand experience gives me some idea of what it takes to persuade people not to vote for Nader -- and explains why I feel so pissed at other democrats for alienating possible Nader voters once again in 2004.
Look the results of the Nader bashing so far. After all the demonization in recent weeks, Nader is polling 8% in places like New Hampshire we need to win.
So how should democrats deal with it differently? First, recognize the fact that Nader is not an idiot, nor are his voters. Far from it. Yet there are entire message threads here on Kos that seem to be devoted to calling Nader voters' idiots. To say the least, I consider such conversations counterproductive, unpragmatic, and self-defeating. Karl Rove couldn't have done a better job if he were posting himself.
So in this post, I want to argue against Nader very differently. First, I want to make the best case I can FOR a Nader run and only then say why and how I wish democrats would argue AGAINST a Nader run.
The bottom line is we ought to treat fellow liberals and lefties more respectfully and rationally. In my opinion, the best case for a vote FOR Nader would be based on the following three major points:
1)
Our political spectrum is skewed to the far right compared to nearly all other Western democracies and even our own history. This occured thanks to the conservative revolution starting with Goldwater, through Reagan and now to Bush II. The question is how to address it.
The main problem Nader points to -- which even centrists like Lieberman to McCain recognize -- it way too much corporate influence in Washington. As Nader says, both the GOP and Democrats seem unable to resist it.
The political consequences can't be undersold and should not. Arguably, we are now further to the right when it comes to corporate influence than we have ever been.
In the nineteenth-century, Bush and Cheney and their friends would have been considered Robber Barons by most Americans.
In most of the twentieth-century Americans basically accepted that corporate power had to be kept in check by citizens through their government.
But today, under the control of the far right, the new GOP wants to undo this history. With control of all branches of government the GOP wants to starve the same government of revenues, and turn the clock back at least 100 years allowing corporations to reign supreme in Washington.
Something needs to be done to reverse this long term shift to the far right, and so far the DLC strategy is not working. Democrats don't control a single branch of our government.
2)
How did we get here? The DLC argues this has occured because Democrats were too far to the left for Americans on any number of issues. And I don't disagree with this point entirely. Not all Americans want gay marriage yet, though I suspect in 10 years it will be basically accepted.
However, the DLC's own strategy of moving one inch to the Republican's left on economic issues and foreign policy has been a disaster in the mid to long term. And in 2002, it was even a proven disaster in the short term.
Why? Because DLC democrats spend a lot of their time -- in some cases most of their time -- bashing other democrats as too far to the left.
Their idea is that this makes them seem more centrist. But it's also made Republican rhetoric bashing government seem moderate.
Today liberalism today is now a bad word -- somehow far left or extremist, just as Rush Limbaugh claims it is. Instead of fighting back, the DLC democrats have been back-peddling.
Now of course the DLC isn't Rush L, but DLC Democrats have unintentionally helped the far right recalibrate the polical spectrum further to the right.
Also their short-term goal of winning elections has come at the expense of articulating a coherent, alternative vision for America.
What do DLC democrats really stand for other than being one inch to the left of Republicans, no matter how far to the right the GOP goes? I'd imagine most voters couldn't tell you.
3)
To recalibrate the political lines in this country back to the center, the democrats need to welcome criticism from their left. They don't have to agree, they simply need to stop demonizing people like Noam Chomsky and Nader.
Note that the Republicans NEVER EVER criticize the far right in their party, unless it's the KKK. And look who's in power.
Only by encourarging challenges from their left -- or opening up more elbow room to their left -- can democrats reclaim leadership of centrist-liberal coalition.
So why, in the end, should left-liberals inclined to support Nader vote for Kerry anyway?
a)
Just because Nader is often right, doesn't mean you have to vote for him. Many democrats agree with Nader that our party has moved too far to the right. So please, re-join the party and help us reform it from within!
By reforming the democratic party from within, we can insist it becomes a real alternative to the GOP. Get involved with your local democrats where you can really make a difference.
Work to get progressive congressional candidates elected! Help us hold Kerry's feet to the fire if he wins! Make the democratic party machine more responsive to the grassroots!
etc. etc.
b)
Kerry's far from perfect. But the far right in this country is truly frightening. So voting for Nader in 2004 is not be the same as voting for Eugene Debs in 1912, or Nader in 2000.
A vote for Kerry in 2004 might be compared to voting for a centrist alternative to extremist governments throughout history. Would you have said "things need to get worse before they can get better" in Germany in the 1930s? No! So please hold your nose and vote for Kerry in 2004.
c) Insert your rational argument here.