Tuesday, July 13, 2004
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.
0 comments
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.
Comments:
Post a Comment
