Daily Kos

Obama puts Nader to the test

Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:13:48 AM PDT

It is looking more and more likely that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is about to be tested on what it takes for Democrats to win: Run liberal. Ralph Nader on the Meet the Press today repeated this mantra, and he even ceded that Barack Obama is as a "liberal evangelist."  

Since Bil Clinton shifted the Democrats to the right, we've been saying that being "Republican-lite" is a losing strategy.  In groaning about Gore, supporting Dean and predicting a train wreck for Kerry we've been saying that "moving to the base" and "standing up for progressive principles" is the winning combination, not sliding ever rightward to the center.

Obama is building out from the progressive base of the party. That's where his support is strongest and has been in place the longest.  He has spoken our language and our dreams for the kinder, more just and more aspirational America.  In place of focusing on base-transactional politics (vote for me and I'll get you this) he is running on personal and community - moral - values.  Obama represents the first real test of our contention that this kind of politics will work, will shift politics to the left and result in things like universal health coverage, multi-lateral foreign policy and other progressive initiatives. Will we pass this test?

In 2000 Nader captured a lot of the same frustration and hope for something that better that Obama launched his campaign from.  Nader's Super Rallies drew out energetic crowds of 15,000 paid attendants across the country.  His 2000 campaign was incredible in many ways, even if his fizzled since then.

Obama has done more than repeat what Nader did, since Obama's coalition is looking big enough to result in a victory.  There's no comparing Nader to Obama. Obama is running to win and he's winning.  But Nader runs to make a point, and it's point that many Obama supporters agree with.  Run as a liberal, define liberal in terms that Americans can understand and support, and don't hide from our legacy or our principles.

Unlike Nader, Obama will put this claim to test.  Can he run as an aspirational liberal unafraid of the good that can come from government working in people's interests, and win?  Will that be why he wins?

Nader is a non-factor for whether or not the contention will be proven true of false.  Of far more importance is how the right's attacks on Obama will resonate.  

The test depends on how well Obama's unabashed positions on liberal ideals and aspirations will out trump the petty and divisive "cultural war" politics that have put American progressives on the defensive for more than twenty years now.

Nedler Pickler of the AP lays out how the ultra-right will conduct itself against Obama:

Sen. Barack Obama's refusal to wear an American flag lapel pin along with a photo of him not putting his hand over his heart during the National Anthem led conservatives on Internet and in the media to question his patriotism.

Politicians like Gore and Kerry followed the advice that how to defeat these kinds of attacks is to co-opt them, as was masterfully demonstrated by Bill Clinton who defeated the false truisms like "bleeding heart liberal," "welfare queen," and "tax and spend" by talking tough, ending welfare and making deficit reduction the new mantra of the Democratic Party.  Kerry believed that dressing himself in the flag, complete with "ready for duty" salutes at his convention would save him from attacks that he was not a patriot.  He instead opened the door to be shift boated, which was a total shame because the charges and the narrative was so base as to be remarkable in how effective that campaign really was.

Will Obama's way prove to work?  If Obama stays with his current narrative-defining, self-defining, strategy and he is able to do what Gore and Kerry could not, to be defined as "with character" and "in touch," then I think we will know that running on liberal values and principles works.

What's more, we'll have learned that sticking to bedrock principles, but not to tired tactics, also works.  Because Obama also makes the point that it takes more than the right positions, as leadership, organization and effective messaging as also required.

And then, hopefully, we'll get to see if running on liberal values can translate into action on those values. Since Bill Clinton ran to the right, we could only see how little that does for progressivism.  So far, so good. With Obama, this is a test I'd like to see run its course.

Tags: nader, obama, clinton, 2008 (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 34 comments

  •  If nothing else, Nader being in the race could... (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    J Royce

    ...help ensure that Obama doesn't swing to the right/center in the general. Nader being in the race means Obama can't afford to alienate progressives by not taking strong positions. I don't think Nader will draw any significant number of votes from Obama unless Obama does something really disappointing to progressives.

    Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. -Barack Obama

    by klizard on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:23:42 AM PDT

    •  I don't think even that would push progressives (0+ / 0-)

      to Nader. But what Nader will do is keep talking about those issues, and keep telling progressives to get organized, to start out-organizing both the right and centrists in the Democratic Party.  Only good can come from that.  

      I think that Obama is about as far to the left as he's going to go because he thinks he can't go farther and get elected and because he doesn't need to.

      What I what to see is how he governs, since I think his race so far allows him to govern as a liberal.  So will he?

      Tom Kertes - End poverty by securing human rights for all.

      by tomkertes on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:31:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  For all of Nader's talk... (5+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    RoIn, Inland, esquimaux, pseudopod, ankey

    I wonder why he has never put serious effort into developing a grassroots movement.  Why is that only way to make a difference is to run for President?  I know he is no longer part of the Green Party, however after his 2000 campaign he could have begun to work towards getting Greens or what he considers "real liberals" into local offices.  Am I correct, or has the only office he has ever ran for is President?  To me that just seems to fly in the face of any effort of developing a base not just for himself, but for legitimate third parties.  You can't really argue for open Presidential debates when your party has no influence in American politics.  

    •  I agree (4+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      RoIn, esquimaux, kilgore2345, ankey

      I think his lack of activity in the interim four years is very telling, and demonstrates that his rhetoric about developing a viable alternative to the two-party system is just that--rhetoric.  If he was truly motivated by this philosophy, he would remain visible even after the presidential elections are over--after all, we already know that the man can crusade with the best of them.

      "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."-George Bernard Shaw
      -8.38 -7.59

      by SDChelle on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:30:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks, (0+ / 0-)

        That's exactly what I said to the TV this AM.  Put it out there, Ralph, and stop this running for the Presidency.  

        It's obvious that a true believer in grass-roots organizing is making it happen.  So, what is Ralph waiting for?

        Mind you, I've always admired this guy, so it's constructive criticism.

    •  He has been a tireless organizer, but from (0+ / 0-)

      another era.  During his off years we don't see him since his way of organizing and advocating is not visible without some big enough effort to be carried via the national media spot light.  

      For most of his career Nader believed that he could do more behind the scenes (not as an elected official) and as an advocate.  But advocacy has changed since he first started, and the sense I have is that he plays from the original play book still.

      In all, Nader has made a huge difference in American life - but he did not keep up with modern ways of conveying this, or of relating to the public.

      Tom Kertes - End poverty by securing human rights for all.

      by tomkertes on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:34:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Perhaps it is Nader's age? (0+ / 0-)

        "In all, Nader has made a huge difference in American life - but he did not keep up with modern ways of conveying this, or of relating to the public."

        The American public failed to keep up with Progressives would be my take. Instead of expecting an elder Nader to continue fighting your fights, why not honor what one man can (and did) accomplish and set about fighting the new fights yourself?

        It's a Right-wing, conservative, Republican war.

        by J Royce on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:37:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Nader is not a politician (0+ / 0-)

      Nader runs so that a Progressive voice is heard in America.

      Why are so many perpetually disappointed Dems so convinced that Parties and politicians are the only solution? Does it have something to do with the Dem belief that they are "owed" votes from Progressives because they've sealed off the exits?

      It's a Right-wing, conservative, Republican war.

      by J Royce on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:34:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Some think they are own, others don't... (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        RoIn

        Why are so many perpetually disappointed Dems so convinced that Parties and politicians are the only solution?

        Are we talking about government or culture?  In my opinion, in government it is politicians that are the solution.  Why are parties important?  Because they organize people with common thoughts and goals.  Democrats aren't the only ones that think political parties or important; every government in the world organize themselves by party.  

        Nader is not a politician

        If he is not a politician, why is he running for President?  Why is that only running for office makes sure the Progressive voice is heard?  If he is a Progressive, why does he accept money from right-wing organizations?  

    •  I think running for president and grass-roots... (0+ / 0-)

      ...activism can be mutually-reinforcing. Showing that a Green candidate can make even a slight showing in a presidential election can be great PR. Granted, it completely backfired by his being a spoiler for Gore in 2000, but that's much easier to criticize in retrospect.

      But I agree, local politics are a much more important for a green candidate right now.

      Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. -Barack Obama

      by klizard on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:40:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This all seems like another bad flashback! (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    RepubAnon, hideinplainsight, Calfacon

    ...but I think Nader may actually pull some Republicans away this time instead of Democrats...my father-in-law can't stand any of the Republican candidates, but just can't bring himself to vote for a Democrat...but, with the election still so far away, who knows what can happen until then...

    Bottom line is that Nader is a self-serving jackass.

    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

    by bayareadem on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:28:08 AM PDT

    •  At This Point (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      esquimaux

      I dunno.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I sort of think that at this point, after all the country has been through over the past 7 years, that anybody who votes for Ralph Nader, especially over Obama, is someone who would NOT vot Democratic under any circumstances so I'm not sure we'll be losing that many votes.  This isn't to say we should not be leery of yet another run by Ralphie (this will be #4), but the dynamics of this election are going to be very, very, different than in 2000.

    •  I would really like to meet one of the (0+ / 0-)

      likely to vote Bush supporters who instead vote Kerry.  I have never met anyone conservative enough to consider Bush to think of voting for Nader.  Who are these people?

      Tom Kertes - End poverty by securing human rights for all.

      by tomkertes on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:35:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bill Clinton (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    jay w

    I know that it is somewhat fashionable here to bash him for moving too far to the center, but it is important remember that in 1992 that was necessary in order to win.  Clinton was a product of his time and it is a little unfair to use today's standards to judge him by.  Republicans under Ronald Reagan had succeeded in portraying Democrats, liberals, and progressives and the new "elites" which is how they became so successful in persuading blue collar and other voters to vote against their own economic interests and the Democratic party still suffers from that stigma even if signs point to that strategy having peaked for Republicans.

    •  I have bashed on Bill Clinton since 1991 (0+ / 0-)

      and really don't think he had it right in how he reversed Reagan-Bush.  Clinton was very disappointing in both how he ran and how he governed.  Welfare reform, Defense of Marriage Act, these were major set backs handed to us by a Democrat in the White House.  That said, Bush showed us how terrible the alternative could be.  

      Tom Kertes - End poverty by securing human rights for all.

      by tomkertes on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:37:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Keep in Mind... (0+ / 0-)

        ...that for 6 of his 8 years as president Clinton had a Republican Congress which severely limited what he could accomplish  (and not just any Republican Congress but a House that was hard right).  Maybe he could have handeld then situation better, but the only way for Democrats  to win the White House in 1992 was to tack more towards the center.  If nothing else, his win got us Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Bryer on the Supreme Court rather than two more Thomases.

        I'm not offering a blind defense of Clinton, just pointing out factors that made some of what he did necessary.

        •  May justify what he didn't do, but not (0+ / 0-)

          the backwards steps he took. Free Speech Zones, "60 New death penalties' for such trivial offenses as growing a field of hemp.

          Running against Herb "WIRETAP" Kohl in 2012. $1/year. Cash preferred.
          Masel4Senate 1214 E. Mifflin, Madison, WI 53703

          by ben masel on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:55:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  It took 8 years of Bush (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      RoIn, hideinplainsight

      For Americans to say "Hey, the R's are playing us for suckers."  

      Ralph Nader's only part in this was helping Bush get elected.  Currently, he's in the race for self-aggrandizement.  If he cared about the issues, he'd talk about them more than once every 4 years.

      The thing about Ralph Nader's tactics is that they don't work.  He got Bush elected, and now he's trying to help get McCain elected.  Does anyone think this will steer public policy in the direction we'd like to see?  Nader's pulling a Bush - he thinks that ideological purity is all that's required for victory.  It didn't work in Iraq for Bush, and it hasn't worked for Nader to date in US electoral politics.  Still, they keep doing the same thing over and over, hoping for a different result if they just "stay the course."

  •  Are Dems and Progressives allies or enemies? (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    VeganMilitia, bsmechanic

    Dems are not Progressives, unless it helps to "elect more Dems." Dems are a team, and their leadership plays for the other side. This is not known among most Dems, because they operate on scapegoating, willful ignorance and wishful thinking.

    Ralph Nader has been proven exactly right in his contention that the Dem Party leadership does not represent its citizen constituency. Over and over, through military votes, refusal to stand for the Constitution, kowtowing to weak political opposition ... yet the Dem base cannot bring themselves to see the truth, and only makes excuses.

    The Dems are not "liberal" any more than they are "Progressive." They wish power, for with power will come the fufilment of their hopes and dreams. That it never does come neither awakens nor discourages the True Partisan Democrat.

    It's a Right-wing, conservative, Republican war.

    by J Royce on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:31:10 AM PDT

  •  asdf (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    hideinplainsight, elie

    Ignore him.  By talking about him you are giving him what he wants.  Attention.  Just ignore him.

    If you are in DC see Man of La Mancha at the Church Street Theater opening 7/10/08

    by BDA in VA on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:31:43 AM PDT

  •  That is why Nader... (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    RoIn, kitebro, Cyber Kat, Pacific NW Mark

    is all about Nader...nothing else...he is an egomaniac..that is it

    Well also a baby who likes to have his way or have a big temper tantrum...

    Obama/Whoever He Chooses '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

    by dvogel001 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:33:37 AM PDT

  •  Will he get .01 % (0+ / 0-)

    of the vote? I think not.

    John McCain - Hope Less!

    by kitebro on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:57:34 AM PDT

Permalink | 34 comments