how Nader wasn't wrong.

[ulysses]

The Democratic party ignores, or takes for granted, its traditional base it its own peril.

Corporations may themselves not be evil, but corporatism, or government of, by and for big business, most assuredly is.

In order to function, democracy requires a level of citizen participation that one major party hasn't discussed in generations and that the other major party is only now rediscovering.

[FDRrocks]

1. I agree...

Fascism dressed up as Democracy. Fascism in the sense of "integration of corporation and government."

When did the corporate charter system disappear? That seemed like a pretty good deal to me.

[Rashind]

2. Corporate charters!

I'm glad someone else has heard of these. Oh man I'd love to possess a governor, Ahnuld, for instance, and revoke wal-mart's charter in that state. Could you imagine a wal-martless california? Hell, I'd move there. :evilgrin:

[FDRrocks]

4. Without having a indepth knowledge of it...

It seems like it was an ingenius idea, designed to protect the country from becoming what it has become.

Oh well :(

[ShimokitaJer]

3. He was also right when he said...

that four years of Bush would be what it takes to motivate the Democratic party to change and the non-voters to get involved. Neither Nader nor any of the rest of us knew what extreme lows those four years of Bush would achieve, but he has certainly proved prescient.

The unwillingness of the party leadership to shift from the money base of special interests to the ideological base of their voters shows how firmly entrenched the old corporatist habits were. It is still far from certain if this will be the election in which the Democratic party manages to return to the ideals it has always claimed to represent, but very rarely supported. Will it take four more years of Bush to convince the DLC that now is the time for change?

[ulysses]

5. The DLC doesn't need to change.

They need to go away, and quickly. As far as I've been able to tell, the organization exists to prove two points - the need for Dems to have corporate money and the need for Dems to become ever more conservative. I don't mean for this to be a Dean thread, but his campaign has put the lie to #1. Putting the lie to #2 will take more time and other candidates and positions, but it will come.

[ShimokitaJer]

9. That campaign gives me hope

But not necessarily for a Dean presidency. I support his campaign, but even if Dean loses the nomination, or the election, the movement that built him into a viable candidate is not going to go away. It really is more of a third party right now than a part of the Democratic party. Whether Dean's supporters remain within the party or turn their energies toward a real third party, few of them are going back to being non-voters. It's a real force, and combined with the blogosphere, with MoveOn, and with similar organizations, I remain optomistic about the future.

Then again, I didn't believe Congress would ever vote for IWR, so it shows what I know.

[ulysses]

13. heh.

Then again, I didn't believe Congress would ever vote for IWR, so it shows what I know.

Win or lose with Dean, we may desperately hope that you're right this time.

[lastknowngood]

10. nader is part of the problem

Nader helped shrub get in power and has screwed up the suprem court
for the next 40 years. They are the last bastion of freedom because
they determin what rights you have or don't have and there is no
apeal. If that egomanic splits the democratic party by even geting
1% he will help ensure the shrub's second term. It's time for all
good men and weoman to come to the aid of our country and unite
against this evil criminal enterprise called the bush administration.
Let's all decide to work for that goal and end every complaint against the democratic candidates not of our choice with an indictment of the shrub and his evil empire. Sory for the nader
slam but he realy has become part of the problem.

[ulysses]

12. trace the problem back a few steps.

Had Nader run in a time when the Democrats still, without question, represented people instead of corporations, you'd still know Nader, if at all, as some guy who wrote a book about a car.

The DLC created Nader 2000.

[mike_c]

21. same tired old arguments...

...that don't become any truer no matter how many times they're repeated. Welcome to DU, lastknowngood-- you'll find an entire sub-culture here who believes that Ralph Nader is the Great Satan. However, that doesn't change the things he was right about, or the reasons so many of the party's liberal base were attracted to the Green party in 2000. History, unlearned, tends to repeat itself.

[Terwilliger]

38. only one problem

why isn't it more important for the Dems to stand up for what they should than Nader's pointing out the problem? Why is whatever the Democratic party does the only choice? What part of democracy is that?

I think the problem is the fact that the Democratic party has lost its willingness to lead people.

[newyawker99]

47. Hi lastknowngood!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Ardee]

48. have you read his words?

If you have gone to his website, read his essays, heard his campaign speeches and actually thought about them you would post a different opinion.

All the Nader bashing is a smokescreen to keep people from seeing the failures of the Democratic Party,Nader bashing is nothing but a scapegoat for the leadership failures of the dems.

[tnlefty]

19. Although I support Dean I must give credit where it is due

I know that some have referred to Sharpton as a clown, among other things, but I do think that he has contributed to the debates and has said a lot of things that needed to be said.

Earlier today I heard him say something about the people within the party who had been disenfranchised and are now awakening. He went on to say something about 'elephants in donkey suits' in the party.

[ulysses]

22. here, here.

Sharpton and Kucinich both have contributed enormously to the saying to things that need saying, and I very much hope that they continue to do so.

[Terwilliger]

6. THAT, sir, is the question

I think they're still plunging forward with old ideas expecting a different outcome.

[ulysses]

7. I think they're scared shitless, and as a result

are changing some, if only in cosmetic ways. Old ideas with a hit of air freshener, maybe. :)

[tom_paine]

15. I don't know if I agree with that assessment

I still hold on to the idea that the Party-Loyal Right-Wing Sub-Media, having thoroughly looped what remains of the Formerly Free Press in their wake has created the "Republican Matrix" (as Tom Tomorrow calls it), which is deadly to those who believe it's lies.

Like the rest of the Empire's citizenry, Democratic Congresspersons are also surrounded by the Right-Wing Fantasy Bubble that spews out the TV at them. They have bad information and have fallen for sucker plays...just like we all (or almost all) did during the Last Days of the Old Republic when we sat on our asses watching that Imperial Roman Circus that was the Attempted Coup of 1998, convinced that everything was ok and the Old Republic was strong, instead of dying.

Plus, politics inevitably makes people conservative (not politically speaking, but the "cautious" definition of the word). I worked briefly in state-level politics and things must be truly bad to see Dean and the others saying what they are about the Busheviks. That is an incredible occurrance, in a political sense, if you think about it, for Dean to speak so directly.

Now, I am a moderate who comes down to the right of most DUers on many things. I do tend to differ from the other moderates in that I disagree that stifling ourselves with timid caution and becoming more conservative is the way to victory.

Having said that, I'm not sure the Democrats' confusion and dismissing of their base is all their fault (naturally it takes two to tango) but for the last 15-20 years the entirety of Corproate TV Pravda (and Raygun's artificially-produced "teflon" is proof that this is no overnight occurrance, but a long-term issue) has been telling them that this is exctly what they must do in order to win.

Then, along comes Clinton who does pretty much just that (to some degree, not completely), running as an Eisenhower Republican, a creature that has all but vanished in today's Empire, which validates the strategy.

My take on that was that Clinton adapted to successfully combat the symptoms, but the disease rolled merrily along, continuing to warp the fabric of American Sanity and changing mores and beliefs as swiftly as only psychoengineered propaganda with a Billion Dollar "Innoculation" Machine. So that, while Clinton's success was total, it was only temporary, tailored to a situation that was a frozen moment of mobile transition.

The situation has changed beyond all recognition. And in Clitnon's success lay the seeds of future troubles that are being discussed here.

That my take on it.

[mot78]

8. I agree with Nader on several issues but he does more harm than good

He should be speaking out in a way that doesn't give * plurality "victories".

[ulysses]

11. participation in the democratic process

by running for office is harmful how?

[tom_paine]

18. Splitting the Left during a time of crisis is harmful

If the Old Republic was healthy and strong, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I would have no problem with Nader doing what he has done.

But it's not. We have suffered two coups really. The Attempted Coup of 1998 and the Bloodless Coup of 2000. Then the Stolen Election of 2002, delivering Georgia to the Busheviks through a series of electronically mediated "upsets" not to mention Minnestoa, Colorado, and a couple others (some non-electronic).

The fact of the matter is if the Left chooses this moment to split up, I believe it's next reunificiation could well be in the Arizona Gulags.

That has been and always will be my point. Let us deal with teh crisis that threatens us all..stopping the Busheviks and their Impeial Plans of fraud, theft and murder.

You make some good points about the roots of the problem, with which I agree, but that doesn't change the fact that if the Busheviks aren't stopped then this beatiful nation, the Ameican Experiment in self-rule, is OVER.

No one is more disturbed than me that the Democratic Party is in many ways to the right of me, a very Center-Left person, and I certainly agree withw hat you say about th Dems suckling at the Coproate Teat and forgetting who they are and falling for the same shit over and over.

But in 2004, there is going to be only ONE nonviolent way to stop the Busheviks and their roller coaster ride to Tyranny, and that is to elect the Democratic Candidate for President (even that might not work).

As I see it, that is an ironclad fact, too.

[ulysses]

25. was 2000 a time of crisis?

I thought we'd come to the millennium in pretty good shape, at least according to the Clintonites.

The fact of the matter is if the Left chooses this moment to split up, I believe it's next reunificiation could well be in the Arizona Gulags.

As I've said I don't know how many times before, the fact or not of that left split in 2004 is in the Democrats' hands. Putting it in the laps of voters really won't gain us much.

You make some good points about the roots of the problem, with which I agree, but that doesn't change the fact that if the Busheviks aren't stopped then this beatiful nation, the Ameican Experiment in self-rule, is OVER.

I know that. You KNOW I know that, but you're still ignoring the fact that people vote for the candidate that represents them, or they don't vote at all.

But in 2004, there is going to be only ONE nonviolent way to stop the Busheviks and their roller coaster ride to Tyranny, and that is to elect the Democratic Candidate for President (even that might not work).

I'm not advocating a vote for Nader in 2004, nor do I think that I ever have. That doesn't make him any less correct in his positions in 2000.

[denverbill]

14. Ralph Nader is dead right in his accusations.

But he is dead wrong in his methods.

The Democratic Party has been taken over by corporatists. Instead of a living wage and national health care, we have NAFTA and a widening wealth gap.

The wealthy have the Republicans to look out for them. If the Democrats are doing the same, WTF is the point of voting?

[ulysses]

17. was the method wrong for the time?

I have this theory (quite possibly wrong as hell, but hey) that Nader 2000 has very much affected several of the campaigns this year. It got the attention of a lot of people, and I think that's to the good.

[denverbill]

24. You might be right.

It's noteworthy, IMO, that Nader has announced he won't run against Kucinich, and would probably not run against Dean.

You obviously realize I support Dean, and one of the biggest reasons I support him is that he has support from thousands of little guys like me. Unfortunately, even if Dean is nominated and elected, he'll still be dealing with a Congress which is either Republican or which is dominated by corporate-type Democrats.

About all he can do is stop the worst of the damage they can do.

[buddhamama]

16. no no no

he is evil that Ralph. he has got you brainwashed, Ulysses.

neither party really wants more participation; just enough to squeak out an election seems to be fine by them. you and i both know that, if the U.S. had a more engaged citizenry then the pols would held accountable for their actions and that is the last thing they want.

*disclaimer--speaking in general terms. obviously upstanding, honest, caring pols do exist.*

[ulysses]

20. I am ignorant and weak of mind, yes.

Ralph is, like, a god to me.

;-)

[buddhamama]

23. even the ignorant and weak of mind

get it right sometime(on the issues, not Ralph being a god, although it is your right to worship whomever you'd like)

so, why does it appear to you Ulysses, that the DEM party is rediscovering their base and, potentials voters too?

[ulysses]

34. fear, and the recognition

that the DLC strategy was wrong. I don't expect that it'll be a lasting lesson, at least in most quarters or at all without ongoing instruction. :)

[corporatewhore]

26. Here is a quote tthat sums up my feelings

"Having to decide between Tweedledum and Tweedledee -- that's not a choice -- that's a threat. Our electoral system favors a two-party race, and we should reject it. We have to start working towards a democratic system that doesn't force people to vote for the lesser of two evils (or the evil of two lessers). We can't keep jumping from election to election, voting for one moron because we're terrified that there's something worse. Now's the time to stop legitimizing this process and take a stand for fundamental, long-term change. It's more important to call attention to the farce of electoral politics than to split-hairs by choosing between Tweedledumb andTweedledee (or The Mad Hatter, the Queen of Hearts and the Doormouse for that matter)."

- The Edible Ballot Society

[jpgray]

28. How does Kucinich fall into that?

He still believes the Democratic Party is worth progressive support, and so do I. When we have wholly abandoned all progressive ideals, I'll give Nader a look. I like to see progressive policies enacted more than I like to see people talking about them.

[corporatewhore]

29. Actually Kucinich is for IRV and election reform too

I first saw him at the national campus greens convention and he said he was doing missionary work for the dems hehe !!!!!

[jpgray]

30. Me too. :-)

My politics are very similar to those of the Greens.

[jpgray]

27. No, he was quite wrong about the sameness of the two parties

There is a world of difference bewtween the viewpoints represented in the Democratic Party, and those represented in the Republican party. As long as we have names like Kucinich and the Progressive Caucus, Sherman, Byrd, Wellstone, Harkin, Feingold and others on our side, I don't quite see how that makes us equivalent to DeLay, Santorum, Frist, Hastert, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney.

Will both parties roll over for corporations? When all is said and done, yes, but I prefer the Democratic method of rolling over any day to the Republican. Moreover, if any chance exists to beat back this slew of deregulation, it lies with the Democrats and not with the Republicans. We still have plenty in the party (who are in Congress) who do not care for deregulation and corporate welfare, and as long as they represent me I feel I should not let anyone say "the parties are the same". Kucinich has not forsaken his base. Wellstone represented me and many others in my state of Minnesota excellently for many years.

So Nader is mistaken. There are differences there, and there are values still in the Democratic Party worth fighting for.

[mike_c]

31. I like getting flowers and a hug first too...

...I prefer the Democratic method of rolling over any day to the Republican.

...but the end result is much the same.

[jpgray]

32. Again, not true

Compare the fiscal policy of modern Republican and Democratic administrations. Okay, now compare the labor policy. Now compare the regulation policy. Now compare the enviornmental policy. Now compare the judicial appointments. Now compare the civil rights records. Now compare the foreign policy. You can't tell me the results are the same.

[ulysses]

33. you'll note that I didn't list that.

I don't think Nader meant that literally, and I don't think any significant number of his supporters in 2000 did either. I do think that many or most of us were dismayed enough by the *shrinking* difference to want to send a message to the Democrats to wake the fuck up.

As long as we have names like Kucinich and the Progressive Caucus, Sherman, Byrd, Wellstone, Harkin, Feingold and others on our side...

I give unstinting thanks for those folks, but they're not the ones who currently decide the direction of my party.

but I prefer the Democratic method of rolling over any day to the Republican

And I prefer not rolling over to the Democratic method of rolling over.

[jpgray]

35. I would prefer not rolling over as well

But as long as there is *zero* chance of that happening, I prefer the slower, more sedate method. Again, there is always a chance the Democrats will roll back some of the wanton deregulation, whereas there is no chance that the Republicans will do so. If a progressive candidate had a chance at parity with the more corporate candidates, I would send money and vote for that candidate. The system at this point will not allow a progressive candidate to survive, so one must necessarily arrive in "corporate" clothing. Again, this will only happen with a Democratic candidate.

I would consider voting for Nader in any year but this one. This group is incredibly dangerous, and there will be no time to build a progressive majority in this country if it is ruined before we have the chance. In the past four Republican administrations, only the figureheads have changed. The "boys" have remained the same since Nixon's days. The choice in my opinion is exacerbate this mess until it becomes a disaster, with all the death and suffering that will accompany it, or slow things down with a Dem and hope for the best. I pick the latter, I suppose.

But Nader gave a great performance on Crossfire recently, and whatever I think of his personal choices (labor rights for his workers, investments, etc.), his politics are usually dead on and he is a valuable critic of the Bush administration, and a good voice from the left.

[ulysses]

37. no.

But as long as there is *zero* chance of that happening, I prefer the slower, more sedate method. Again, there is always a chance the Democrats will roll back some of the wanton deregulation, whereas there is no chance that the Republicans will do so.

The "slower, more sedate method" only puts us to sleep and lessens the chance that we'll hold the Dems to anything more meaningful than token resistance to the GOP.

And yet I support Dean for this time round. It really comes down to us and vigilance, not a single candidate.

[jpgray]

41. Well, there's always the chance the GOP will finish what it has started

The party's goal is consolidate and hold power for as many years as possible--electoral theft, term limit revocation, fair means or foul, there are plenty of options on the table. If this happens, there will be no chance for reform or change for a terribly long time. This wouldn't be the first time that "let's pick the quicker road to disaster" turned out to be longer and much more painful than riding the downward cycle and fighting every battle that can be fought. Conservative thought will not dominate politics forever in this country, and rather than go on a fascist joyride for a dozen or so years to wake folks up, I'd just as soon have a Democrat in office in 2004 so we can take a few breaths.

I imagine there is a line that once crossed will wake people up from their complacency. Continued Republican administrations will plunge way past that line and cause needless suffering to many people around the world. A Democrat administration may bring us back a little, or it will drag us slowly towards the line, giving more opportunity to denounce the direction the country is taking, and allowing us to cross the line for as little time as possible.

Not sure if that will make sense, but there it is. :) Yeah, I'd love to vote for Nader, but that would not be voting my conscience.

[ulysses]

42. I have no doubt that they'll try.

All the more reason, to my mind, to have a viable and willing opposition at the ready. The lack of that opposition, in large part, is what gave rise to Nader and the Greens three and a half years ago. It's that simple.

[jpgray]

43. Well, here's hoping we have a viable and willing opposition

In my opinion, a slower slide will give time for that opposition to build. In Weimar Republic Germany, it took a great deal of suffering and unemployment to build a revolutionary fervor in significant numbers of citizens, and even then the government was able to control them with violent reactionry tactics. Of course, fascism is the ultimate reactionary government, and that's what they ended up with. In this case, fascism is what people will be fed up with, since we are less a failed and reactionary Social-Democracy than we are a corporate state.

Our complacency will be our undoing. Bush can do no wrong in the TV newscasts, and for most, that's all they'll ever know of him. Until his bungling affects them personally, they'll never question what they hear to an appropriate degree.

I agree that Nader represents dissatisfaction with the Democrats, and it is deserved dissatisfaction. But with the climate of complacency, he just isn't an effective option. Perhaps later on, a third party will be a viable option.

[Iverson]

46. a detail

"Our complacency will be our undoing."
"But with the climate of complacency, he just isn't an effective option. Perhaps later on, a third party will be a viable option."

You seem to be arguing that we should accept as a given that very thing that is our undoing.

I agree that a slower rate of additional disaster is better than a faster rate of additional disaster, but in this formulation, there is never a time of working against disaster. It is always left to a theoretical "later" when conditions improve. Meantime, we must all understand that they won't improve, and in fact we must be complicit in making them worse (just a tad slower than that bad guys).

That's viable!?!?!?

I'm done with that. I have to set a good example for my children, and accomodating disaster meekly ain't it.

[Printer70]

36. If Clark wins, Nader is back with a vengance

If Clark wins, can you honestly say Americans have a clear choice? They have militarism on both sides and one side that favors corporatism while another side, Clark, who opposes re-regulation (criticized Dean when Dean gave a speech about it). There will be no real choice.

[NNN0LHI]

39. And if Dean wins Nader will be happy? Is that what you are saying?

Fuck Nader and the horse he rode in on.

Don

[ulysses]

40. let's hear it for insightful analysis.

:eyes:

[lastknowngood]

44. my bad for thinking we were about saving our country

if we are split and an threat against our very existence is united
we lose and we lose not only our rights but the rights and hopes of
future generations. If you have given up on our country then don't
waste your time bitching, just bury you head in the sand and wait
for the death camps. You don't often find perfect good in the world
the Dalia Lama is an exception, so we have to decide if we stand
between the darkness and the light and stand united or become another
footnote in history. I spent 7 years in the army, four during the
vietnam mess and if people had been united we could have saved 58,000
american lives and an untold number of families from the damage of
war for profit. If we don't stand together aginst this evil how will
you explain it to your children or theirs, our country stands on the
edge of a knife your actions will decide. Darkness or light

[Dr Fate]

45. I'm more worried about Nader being wrong in 2004...

...I hope we can all get together and get rid of Bush...