"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde		 Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007

"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata

"...the best bleacher bum since Pete Axthelm" -- Randy K.

"I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum." -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (1954-2015), They Live
Sunday, February 24, 2008

He's BAAAAAACK....
Posted by Jill | 10:37 AM
We've all had them, those friends who cause nothing but trouble, the ones we try to tactfully excise from our lives, but they don't take a hint.

Ralph Nader is kind of like that, and he's just announced in Press the Meat that he's running for president again in his continuing effort to keep the White House in the hands of Republicans.

That's not his stated goal, of course, but that IS the net result. Every one of Nader's points about the current state of both the Democratic Party and the government is valid. But where the hell is Ralph Nader when he's not out there every four years trying to keep Republicans in power? There are those who track what he does when he's not deciding he wants some presidential attention, and it's not a pretty sight. We all know how he took campaign funds from the GOP in 2004. And every four years, like those e-mail hoaxes about Olympic Torch viruses, he shows up, running for president.

How long is this guy going to be able to live off his consumer advocacy in the early 1960's?

We can argue back and forth about whether Al Gore should have been able to trounce George W. Bush in 2000 even without Florida and/or Ralph Nader's 93,000 votes till the cows come home. But advocacy is a commitment that requires vigilance every year, every month, every day -- not just every four years when Tim Russert calls.

Ralph Nader may have the right message, but he's the wrong messenger. They way to effect change is not to vote for some egomaniac who doesn't do jack shit until the presidential elections come around and then all he does is ensure the perpetuation of Republican power. The way to effect change is to run progressive candidates at the local, state, and Congressional level, running credible progressives to mount primary challenges to entrenched hacks like Al Wynn. It involves not being afraid to take on people like Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers who have allowed themselves to be co-opted by the corrupt Washington corporatist system.

I am by no means convinced that the Democratic Party can be saved. Barack Obama may be transformational for a number of reasons, but I think that as president, he's likely to be cautious, consistent with his role as "the first black president." That would not be a major problem if he has a Congress that'll have his back -- but I'm not convinced he does.

Radical change to a system that's become as corrupt as ours has doesn't happen overnight. That doesn't mean, however, that we should be content to support corporate apologists like Hillary Clinton on the grounds that they are "maybe a bit less in the pockets of multinational corporations" than the Republicans. And this year hopefully we won't have to. But while a third-party vote CAN be a statement, a vote for Ralph Nader at this point, given his track record of using the national electoral process to feed his ego and generate donations to a bunch of PIRGs that don't seem to accomplish much, IS throwing away your vote. You don't put a brand new kitchen with granite countertops in a house where the floor is bowing because the joists underneath have been eaten away by termites; you fix the structural damage first. This means development of a progressive infrastructure starting at the state and local level.

I realize that we may not have the luxury of time to develop this kind of infrastructure, given the relentless march towards authoritarian theocracy on the part of the Republican Party and the increasing corporatization of the Democrats. But what choice do we have? Electing supposed "moderates" like Heath Shuler and Jim Webb just because they have a (D) after their names isn't the answer. But any one Congresscritter or Senator has limited influence and can only do limited damage. A president is another ballgame entirely.

Hillary Clinton is a candidate I would probably vote for in November if only because the thought of John McCain and whatever Christofascist Zombie he names as his #2 shaping the Supreme Court for the next two generations is just too horrifying. I'll vote for Barack Obama with somewhat more enthusiasm, though I don't see him as the kind of courageous, groundbreaking progressive I'd prefer. But even though neither of these candidates give me a whole lot of hope for a sea change in the way our government operates, neither would Ralph Nader. Because at his core, Ralph Nader is out for the interests of Ralph Nader...and no one else.

And that is NOT the definition of a progressive leader.

Labels: , ,

5 comments
Bookmark and Share
5 Comments:
Blogger Distributorcap said...
jill

i LOATH nader, almost as much as I loath McCain or Romney or any of that crowd- as far as i am concerned his ego-maniacal and twisted logic is one of the reasons we are in the mess -- and for that he cannot be forgiven - evuh.

you are so right -- if he was SO for reforming a broken system --- where is he during the "off" years -- why doesnt he run for congress and try to take some small steps to fix it ---- because to me, like Hillary and McCain, he only cares about Ralph.

i am not an enthused Obama supporter -- but he is far superior to those three. I agree, being the first "black" president is going to me a very very cautious and planned presidency, but i think Hillary would have the same problem - only magnified because of Bill.

Nader DOES run the risk of putting McInsane in office because there are enough fence sitters out there that will switch around
2/24/08, 1:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Are there electoral strategies that can be employed to try to keep Nader off the ballot?
2/24/08, 1:24 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...
It's hard to imagine he'll win many votes if Obama is the nominee.
2/24/08, 2:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Amen. If they guy were serious, he'd be in there working every day in between Presidential elections, trying to make the government work the way he claims he wants to. Instead, he pops up every four years like a short-term cicada, distracting and destroying rather than contributing anything useful.
2/24/08, 6:28 PM  
Blogger jurassicpork said...
Where's Lee Harvey Oswald when you need him?
2/24/08, 8:12 PM  
Post a Comment
<< Home