Too busy to say as much as I would like to say about Ralph Nader’s announcement that he will run for President in 2008. Eventually, I hope to get around to it. For now, just links to two posts with which I heartily agree, followed by some quick comments:
I took Nader seriously in 2000, not because I thought that he had a chance to win, but because he was engaged in real party building. And I am not one who is concerned about whether Nader siphons votes one way or another. Indeed, my basic position is that people should vote for whom they please, if that vote is their sincere democratic expression. Now, there are issues that can be said about strategic choices, but I do not think that one has any other moral obligation when voting aside from utilizing it as a means of democratic participation.
Ralph has decided to run again, and he’s getting a beating for it. The argument goes like this: Green-leaning candidates “take” votes away from Democrats. This particular election is so critical that “we” can’t afford to lose. Nader therefore should do the “right” thing and withdraw.
I want to make the case for Nader’s candidacy. This is not an endorsement of the man or his program. His decision to run urges consideration of structural ‘democracy problems’ in America. 2008 may be more critical than 2004, 2000, 1932, 1896 or even 1796, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore our democracy problems. Run-of-the-mill condemnation of Nader reflects a choice to do just that.
…To blame Nader is to shoot the messenger. The conversation should be about lasting solutions. Browbeating Greens to depress their turnout, if doable at all, is not a lasting solution.1
As I have said here before, I was genuinely excited to vote, now almost a month ago, for Barack Obama in the first “meaningful” presidential primary election that I can recall ever participating in. But, having jumped on the bandwagon, I expect to have to hang on tight or else be tossed off by some hard lurches to the right in the months to come. And I am a dues-paying Green Party member. None of that should provide any clues as to how I might vote in November,2 as I genuinely do not know. But I certainly do not believe the Democrats own my vote just because they have better (to me) policies and are better at governing than Republicans.3 Nor would a potential vote for a third-party or independent presidential candidate be my way of saying “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference” between the two big parties. These standard narratives of voting decisions are caricatures, and the sooner we recognize that, the greater the chance of having a meaningful debate about the future of democracy in America and about policies that actually work for Americans, and for those on the other end of America’s formidable power abroad.
___________
Update: jackms, in his other persona as Jack (a frequent propagator here) also posted the DK entry at TDP, where there is a discussion ongoing in the comments.
___________
- By the way, jackms was banned from DailyKos, which tells you about all you need to know about the “Democratic” netrooots. But it is unsurprising, and typical. After all, Ron Paul supporters were banned from Red State some time ago. (And I should add that jackms is explicitly not endorsing Nader, but rather making the case for candidacies outside the two-party mainstream–much as Steven does.) [↩]
- Actually, it might, inasmuch as it is not yet clear whether Nader wants to run as a Green, or if the party even wants him. There was a bit of a dust-up on that front in 2004, when he ran a very different campaign from that of 2000. [↩]
- Nor do Greens “own” my vote just because I invested modestly in the better future I could envision if the Green Party USA could be built into a significant political force. [↩]
I joined a Facebook group last November called ‘Don’t stuff it up, Kevin’.
Of course in a well-run Australian election it was possible to vote Green-Labor, Democrat-Labor or indeed Democrat-Green-Labor knowing that ultimately you would have your say on which direction the Labor Party should move, as well as who would win the two party preferred vote and form the government.
The calculus, I accept, is different in electorally primitive countries. Nevertheless, this election above all has to carry a don’t stuff it up strategy as well. The US has not been a force for good in the world these last 8 years. Continuing the present policies is not a moral option for the US electorate any more than it is for the US government.
Like most fructovoters I’m not convinced that either Democrat candidate has the ideas, the character or the capacity to make right what has been done wrong since 2000. I am however absolutely certain that another 4 years of Republican government would set the Bush ideology (if it can be dignified with that name) in concrete for a very long time to come.
To quote Paul Keating writing before the November election:
The planet needs a United States that has a moral basis to its public life.
Seed planted by Alan — 27 February 2008 @ 00:09
The planet needs a United States that has a moral basis to its public life.
Well, a hearty amein to that! And if I lived in a district with actual impact on the outcome, the vote (Dem) would be a no-brainer. But we have this weird (“primitive” works for me) districted system of choosing the national executive. Rotten boroughs, safe districts, and the odd marginal here and there.
It is liberating, in a sense. But be wary of anyone promising liberation.
Seed planted by MSS — 27 February 2008 @ 00:57
I agree! I think to have a continuation of a Republican presidency would erode any chance of reversing the damage of the past few years. I think Howard Zinn says it best (his bit on “even a slight difference between the two parties”). In fact the whole article is terrific.
Thanks for sending me the link to the NZ section, I’ve been enjoying the posts.
Seed planted by Jessica — 27 February 2008 @ 09:59
That is the paradox, isn’t it. One can aid the PR movement with a vote that helps shock the party system because the district is lopsided – only the district’s lopsidedness means your vote doesn’t help shock the party system. (Assuming a “moral basis”/short-term instrumental rationality.)
I probably would do the same as MSS if I lived in a marginal district.
I want to disagree, though, (on a theoretical level) about the need for moral basis to public life. Voters’ collective action problems should not excuse undemocratic usurpations by the executive. The wisest mechanism designers assume the worst about men’s preferences and build institutions accordingly. The problem is not an absence of morality. It’s legislative atrophy. If the Congress thought of itself as equal to the executive and acted accordingly, there are several pickles in which we’d not find ourselves.
Seed planted by Jack — 27 February 2008 @ 14:51
Voters’ collective action problems should not excuse undemocratic usurpations by the executive.
I am not aware of how anyone could argue this proposition. On the other hand, it’s fairly easy to show that the propensity of legislators of both parties to go along with executive outrages out of fear of the electoral consequences of such ‘radical’ positions as actually upholding the constitution or opposing torture without exceptions has its roots in moral failure. If you follow your oath to the American people, you uphold the constitution. End of story.
The moral duty to the world that the American people, especially Democrats, is first of all not to stuff up the election. To return to Keating’s excellent article:
Seed planted by Alan — 27 February 2008 @ 18:02