Angry At Politics

Finally, a minute to talk about Ralph Nader. A lot of people are getting caught up in the question of whether Nader should run, and is he handing the election to the Republicans by running. These conversations usually end with Democrats shaking their heads at the perceived hubris of Nader, and Republicans secretly chortling over the lack of discipline in the Democratic party.

I guess what rankles most is that we all know that Nader is well within his rights. Of course, just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you should do it. But from Nader's perspective, settling for being governed by one corporate sponsor or another is unacceptable, and I think that many Americans share some of his disgust and unhappiness.

In most elections, a marginal candidate like Nader would have little impact on the overall outcome, but this isn't any ordinary election, and neither was the last. One of the lessons we can learn from parliamentary systems like the one in Israel, in which there are two major parties and many medium and small parties, is that tight races tend to increase the power of marginal players in a manner disproportionate to their numbers.

Maybe Ralph Nader shouldn't run, and maybe he is a little high on himself, but it doesn't really matter. The fact is that Nader wields power, and the Democrats can't afford to ignore him. They have to co-opt him. Nader knows he's not going to win the election, and probably doesn't even want to run. If he could get his issues addressed, perhaps he would withdraw. I don't know what his price is, but I'm betting that Nader would love to be Attorney General - and what a great way to counter four years of John Ashcroft! The specifics of the deal that will get Nader to pull out (and maybe support Kerry?) will need to be worked out between Nader and Kerry, but a deal should be possible, and it behooves Kerry to make it.

Making a deal with Nader might have other benefits as well. The political world right now is defined not by Democrats and Republicans as much as by Liberals and Conservatives. Nader represents a paradigm shift. In the past, Republicans and Democrats were not as closely aligned with the Liberal and Conservative ideologies. Nader's constituency spreads across all parties, from fiscal conservatives who are socially libertarian, to left-wing liberals concerned about corporate control of government. These voters represent a natural growth area for a Democratic party that is based on fiscal prudence, election and campaign finance reform, and socially liberal values.

In this campaign season, Democrats have to remember that it's not about beating Bush. Beating Bush is the first step, but there has to be a real destination. I eagerly await the Democratic convention, when I expect John Kerry will lay out a vision for the future of our country. I think that Kerry has determined that he would like to avoid winning this campaign in the gutter, and that means presenting the nation with a good ideas. Without a believable, worthwhile vision for the future of America, the Bush administration's dour, gloomy and paranoid vision of the world will dominate.

I had Crossballs on in the background just recently. For the uninitiated, Crossballs is a mock-talking-heads program, where real experts are duped into debating comics posing as experts. Anyway, the issue up for debate was the legalization of marijuana. The comedian, on the pro side of the debate, made the point that American role models such as Willie Nelson smoked pot. He then challenged the conservative female on the opposite side of the issue to name any American role model who did not smoke pot. Predictably, she produced the sparkling example of President Bush, and the comedian called her on it, asserting that President Bush snorted cocaine. When he demanded that she address the issue, she said "I won't respond to that, because you're high." Admittedly, the erratic behavior and wild claims of the comedian in the debate leading up to this point made that observation not wholly unfair. But does it really matter?

I saw this brief exchange as symbolic of this entire administration. The problem with the administration is that it only passes superficial inspection. That was true during the election, when Bush's foreign policy inexperience was shrugged, as were his business failures and his relatively diluted role as Governor of Texas, a state with a part-time legislature that still found the time to execute the retarded. And it remained true after 9/11, when the rest of us understood that the world had changed, but the Bush administration remained fixated on Iraq. Yet we were willing to believe that the President was resolute. Of course, now the gig is up. With an egg on their faces, the administration must suck it up and deliver straight-faced lies to the American people, and Republican partisans are forced to respond that they don't even have to respond - that either the questioner or the act of questioning is invalid. Dealing with question? That's just out of the question.

Sorry about the hiatus, I temporarily stopped caring about anything.

Ahh, so much to catch up on. Let's see. Kerry chooses Edwards and the Republicans call Edwards "a disingenuous unaccomplished liberal and friend to personal injury trial lawyers." Well, those were probably the two most predictable things to happen so far. I'm just pleased that honor and dignity has been restored to the White House, and that Bush himself did not take part in calling Edwards a liar. Bush only called Edwards incapable of being president (Admittedly, it was by implication - when asked what the difference between Cheney and Edwards was, Bush curtly responded "Dick Cheney can be president. The irony was that many of us already thought Cheney was President). In any case, I think that we're much better off with the President being 'above the fray' and leaving it to his hired goons to be looser with ethics. After all, Bush can't be held responsible for what he ordered his underlings to do. We learned that at Abu Ghraib.

What stands out especially from this anti-Edwards screed that the Republican Party has published is that it doesn't even make an attempt to convince anyone of anything rational. For instance, one of the headers on this page proclaims "Edwards' Anti Growth Agenda" [sic]. Now, growth is one of those things that everyone's for. Even economists like growth, for cryin' out glayven. But not Edwards. Apparently, Edwards prefers contraction and dire economic times. His policies are carefully formulated to destroy the American economic engine and mire our people in poverty for decades.

Similarly, this header: "Edwards Voted Against Support For Our Troops". Obviously, Edwards hates America, and particularly hates American soldiers. There couldn't be any other legitimate reason to oppose an appropriation bill involving the military.

But maybe these examples seem unconvincing. So here's my favorite header from the whole page: "EDWARDS IS PHONY AND DISINGENUOUS" The capitals are theirs, not mine. I guess the striking thing is that this web page is filled with assertions, labels, and demonizations, but features a breathtaking lack of cogent arguments or attempts at persuasion. It's basically just a sheet of talking points that the Republican faithful should believe in and get repeated as much as possible in various media outlets.

The danger of such an approach (you know, one that avoids issues, or logic) is that you end up tarring yourself with the same brush. Under the 'Edwards is Phony' header is a list of ways in which Edwards deviates from being 'rural'. Included on the list of failings is that Edwards has never done any serious farming, doesn't follow NASCAR races, hasn't been hunting or fishing in years, was once (but perhaps is no longer?) a country music fan, and, get this, he doesn't know the make and model of his truck!!

Now, maybe I'm just stupid for believing that reality has a role in defining a person, but I always thought that Edwards connected to rural folk because he grew up in a rural mill town. But what a stifling view of reality the Republican party betrays. Evidently, if you're rural, you farm, hunt and fish, watch car races, and listen to Billy Ray Cyrus in your Ford F-150. If you don't participate in these activities or love these pastimes, your experience is no longer authentic. Your roots are suddenly illegitimate. Edwards is a great story of an American family climbing from humble beginnings to great economic, professional, and political success. But apparently, it is a story that should have no relevance or be of any interest to rural Americans, because Edwards doesn't like country music anymore. More importantly, the American experience, is, in the eyes of the GOP, reducible to the most general of stereotypes. I feel like there's something profound to say about the ideas of populism and diversity, but maybe all I'm really sensing is the complete disconnection from these ideas that the GOP displays by its embrace of generalizations over individuality, predictability over authenticity, and gross categorization over actual engagement.

Ok, enough of this. I've got some things to say about Nader too, but they'll just have to wait for a bit.