Naderize: refusal to admit or even discuss the practical consequences of acting on one’s own political beliefs. The narcissistic impossibility of admitting that the political action you take might be counter-productive to your ultimate goals.
The above is the definition you normally get. But I have my own idiosyncratic secondary definition of "Naderize." To "Naderize" is "to ensure the advancement of conservative policy and politicians through splitting of anti-conservative votes."
(continued)
You’ll note that both of the definitions have little to do with Nader himself, his supporters, or the wisdom of his policy proposals. Nader’s name is invoked because of what he did in 2000. If Nader and his supporters had seen the future of the United State in 2000—had had the realism and prescience to see the political horrorshow that would result from a Bush presidency with a GOP congress, and the sense of responsibility necessary to act on that knowledge—they would have done everything in their power to prevent it from coming to pass. If they had been able to see the future and had been able to get over their own self-righteousness, they would have actively campaigned for and recruited votes for Al Gore.
Instead, they insisted—as many people are doing on this blog lately—that there was no real difference between the Dems and the GOP. This is a childish position. It’s a lie, and worse than that it’s a self-serving tantrum. In order to argue that, you have to make the case that there is no real difference between a Clinton/Gore presidency and a Bush/Cheney presidency: a nutty argument.
In 2000, the partial result of this nutty/argument was the empowerment of the conservatives. And that is the cardinal sin in American politics: empowering conservatives. Because conservatives are "the Devil." And because conservatives are powerful, well-placed, and dominate the American political media. They’re not an ineffectual little devil; they are "the" devil, and they are not going away.
Some Kossacks are acting as if they believe the Devil is dead. It seems to me that they are still doing bong hits off the 2006 election results; turning an anti-war mandate into a broad popular mandate for liberal programs.
They’re also making the mistake that Nader followers made in the late 90s: overestimating the morbidity of Reagan conservatism, assuming it is so spent that it’s no longer an imminent threat. It’s not spent. Conservatism is an incredibly powerful mixed metaphor: it’s not only the Devil; it’s also a well-funded hydra that appeals to superstition, ignorance, xenophobia, racism, sexism—you name it: all the people you wouldn’t like to have lunch with—35% of the electorate is still there for the conservatives.
Nonetheless, people here are threatening to Naderize the Dems. They call the center "mythical;" they would marginalize the center; the non-Dems, non-progressives. They want to believe that punishing weakling Dems on the war is a solution; they want to back presidential candidates who tell them what they want to hear, rather than a presidential candidate who can actually do the deals necessary to get them some of the things they want (eg, a rational and just health care system in the US.)
Politics is the art of the possible; it’s not the art of "we get everything we want." If rallying behind Hillary is "voting out of fear"—then I urge you: vote out of fear. If a strong Dem president comes in with a strong Dem congress—we will get some of what we want. Not all; some. And what we do get (for example, health care, an end to the war) will strengthen liberalism, move it back to the center of the political debate where it belongs. Once it’s there again, you won’t have to "vote out of fear" anymore.
At lot of people didn’t "vote out of fear" in 2000. They voted their principles, their first choices--and we ended up with GWB. And if people prone to that same kind of thinking do that again next time—the rest of us will end up with more Republicans in Congress, and maybe even Giuliani in the White House.
Don’t Naderize the Democrats.