28 replies to this topic

[MuseZack]

Nader is emblematic of a tendency on the American left that drives me absolutely bats***.  Let's call it the notion that politics should be therapy, and that the purpose of casting a vote should be to feel a surge of righteous pride that you've supported someone who thinks exactly the way you do.  And I simply want to smack these people and tell them, guess what folks, you're wrong.  Nobody aside from your pathetic self cares if you vote for a fringe candidate, and in fact by doing so you might actually be helping to elect someone whose ideals are diametrically opposed to yours.  Because politics isn't therapy.  It's about the exercise of power, and the way you exercise power is to elect the people who come closest to representing your priorities and ideals.  And sometimes that means voting for someone who's merely less bad than the other guy.

A corrolary to this idea is the other notion one hears floated by Nader supporters:  the worse, the better.  That is, the only way the Democrats (and by proxy, the American people) will wake up annd pay attention to them, them, them (see what I mean about the therapy part) is for a third party challenger to take enough votes to get a Republican into office and screw everything up.   This idea has, to put it charitably, a checkered past.  Most notably, it was the electoral strategy employed by the German communists in the 1930s when they refused to support the lukewarm socialists in the SPD against the Nazis.  They thought that letting Hitler into office would help them in the long run by showing everyone how bad Hitler was.  Their slogan actually was "after Hitler, us."  And we saw how well that worked out for them.  (and no, I'm not comparing the Republicans to the Nazis...the comparison was for illustrative purposes only)



But back to Nader.  Am I annoyed by his candidacy?  Sure.  Am I worried?  Not really.  By being in there, he allows the Democratic candidate to look more moderate and even provides the opportunity for a "Sister Souljah" moment, a la Clinton in 1992.

[Delvo]

Rhea, on Feb 22 2004, 02:11 PM, said:

Delvo, on Feb 22 2004, 09:07 AM, said:

I don't believe he will suck away votes this time; he's too famous now among liberal voters as the guy who does exactly that.-

I agree with Gordon.

That would be the most interesting guess at my real name I've seen.

[Delvo]

MuseZack, on Feb 22 2004, 02:23 PM, said:

Nader is emblematic of a tendency on the American left that drives me absolutely bats***... politics isn't therapy.  It's about the exercise of power...

It's a tendency that comes and goes at times depending on circumstances, and it happens on both sides. Conservatives were so mad at the first Bush for turning out to be a liberal in disguise that they glommed onto Perot even though the stuff he said was just an incoherent mess that didn't reflect the views of anybody in particular, but which they could, in their desperation, come up with ways to interpret as conservative.

Quote

A corrolary to this idea is the other notion one hears floated by Nader supporters:  the worse, the better.

Another one conservatives are also plagued by... it was said many times both during Clinton's Presidency and before while liberals ran Congress, that surely it was now finally so bad or just about to get so bad in only one more step, finally America would feel the last straw on its back and wake up to what was happening. Nothing changed.

[Kevin Street]

Well, at least we can laugh about it. Here's a cartoon from Slate:

EDIT: The link doesn't refer to that cartoon anymore. Darn

Edited by Kevin Street, 24 February 2004 - 04:00 PM.

[Rhea]

Delvo, on Feb 22 2004, 01:26 PM, said:

Rhea, on Feb 22 2004, 02:11 PM, said:

Delvo, on Feb 22 2004, 09:07 AM, said:

I don't believe he will suck away votes this time; he's too famous now among liberal voters as the guy who does exactly that.-

I agree with Gordon.

That would be the most interesting guess at my real name I've seen.

Oopsie.    I thought I was agreeing with G1223, but I'll agree with you instead, Delvo.  

[prolog]

The two North American electoral systems need to be changed so we can partially eliminate all this "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush"-type stuff.  The basic problem is that first-past-the-post systems encourage duopolies.  Even in Canada, though we have four major political parties, only two have ever been elected and will ever be elected (sorry, NDP).  It shouldn't have to be that way.  I'll take PR over FPTP, even with the associated disadvantages that it brings.

[Drew]

prolog, on Feb 24 2004, 02:50 PM, said:

The two North American electoral systems need to be changed so we can partially eliminate all this "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush"-type stuff.

What would you propose?

[Kevin Street]

I believe prolog is referring to Proportional Representation. Here's a good link:

PR Library: Readings In Proportional Representation

[Drew]

Kevin Street, on Feb 24 2004, 03:03 PM, said:

I believe prolog is referring to Proportional Representation. Here's a good link:

PR Library: Readings In Proportional Representation

Interesting. I'll have to look more closely. However, if you think people had problems with the Butterfly Ballot, just wait until they try to understand this!