I just finished reading Matt Taibbi’s The New Nixon in Rolling Stone. It’s written with Matt’s usual freshness. He’s not buying Clinton or Obama, calling them
…a pair of superficial, posturing conservatives selling highly similar political packages using different emotional strategies. Obama is selling free trade and employer-based health care and an unclear Iraqi exit strategy using looks, charisma and optimism, while Hillary is selling much the same using hard, cold reality, “prose not poetry,” managerial competence over “vision.”
“Kilgore” wrote about Democratic prospects over at Left in the West a few days back. It was a sad piece, reminiscent of 1968 (long before his time, I’m sure), when the only hope of stopping the war in Vietnam was presented in the form of two pro-war candidates. (But vote, dammit. That’s what makes us a ‘democracy’.)
Kilgore strategizes on the prospect of a Democratic victory – can Hillary beat McCain? Will Obama unfluff? And then this:
With Edwards out, the chorus from the diehards in the blogosphere that Obama and Hillary are Republican lite is going to intensify. We face the same danger that we faced in 2000, when many on the left felt that Gore just wasn’t good enough. Add in the fact that Hillary is disliked strongly by at least 45% of the population and I think we sill be worse off with Hillary as the nominee.
Well, here you go, Kilgore. I’m carping about Republican ‘lite’ candidates, but I’m more with Taibbi – these are not ‘lites’ at all. They are conservatives. That’s why the media fawned over them, ignored Edwards, and spurned Kucinich. The corporate media cannot stomach liberals, and will only grudgingly allow us to fantasize a little bit over what liberal potential we might realize if we elect one of two Republican Democrats. It was foreordained.
Side note: I’m 57. I want to collect Social Security in a few years. The system is solid through the 2040’s if we respect the concept of a trust fund. But Republicans have tried to destroy it, without success. Only a Democrat, in ‘Nixon goes to China’ fashion, can get the job done. So vote for Obama. Vote for Hillary. They are can-doers.
Which brings me home again. Taibbi:
That was where it all came rushing back. Hillary’s stunning [New Hampshire] victory had been in the books for mere minutes before we were all suddenly reminded of all the reasons we came to hate the Clintons over the years — why there were scores of very smart people who by November 2000 were actually willing to pull a lever for Ralph Nader rather than go anywhere near a Democratic Party ticket. Seven years is, it turns out, a long time, just long enough to forget that Clinton fatigue was what saddled us with George Bush in the first place.
Ralph Nader is exploring another run. We’ve been chastised now for seven years – Nader prevented Gore. Not true. Gore prevented Gore. Gore ran as a conservative. He had a conservative running mate. Nader that year put out t-shirts with ten principles on the back – things like environmentalism, feminism, social justice and grassroots democracy. Gore could have driven a fatal stake in Nader’s heart had he chosen to lead on just one of those principles. Instead, he opted for Shrum-tested center-righty nonsense.
He blew it. He ran away from his base. But there’s wisdom behind it. Democrats exist to absorb and neuter forces for change. When we place our hopes in them, we invite things like Gore’s 2000 campaign.
And we’re about to do it again.
It’s Nader time. Maybe he can kill the Hillary before she breeds. Maybe he can disillusion us of Obama. It’s the only hope I have of ever collecting Social Security.
Piece of Mindful 
Don’t know that anyone wants to hear that, but thanks for saying it.
LikeLike
IT’S NADER TIME BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LikeLike
Mark, do you have a contact number for Nader or anyone in his campaign? I seriously have a nagging question that I want the man to answer. I’ve asked it 5 times now, and it’s been ignored. So I want to go to the source.
If Nader is serious about fighting against corporate control, and for populist driven politics, then why didn’t he get behind Edwards when it would have made a difference?
LikeLike
I have no contacts. You might try the link above, in the post where I first mention Nader.
Implicit in your question is the notion that Edwards was worthy of support. Does mouthing a few liberal platitudes undo a conservative career? And look what he has done now – he’s taken liberal aspirations and dashed them on the rocks. If he was my enemy he could hurt me no worse.
LikeLike
Considering that I posted comment about the Nader exploratory website before you did, it should be a pretty good bet that I’ve already looked there.
I really think you should read that website again, and then compare it to what was on Edwards’ website before he withdrew. The similarities in platform are overwhelming. Perhaps with Nader’s loud help and populist soldiering, we could have made that work, before Edwards broke your heart. But what you’ve just written here isn’t that we should believe what’s right, but rather in the person who makes us feel okay about believing what’s right. Apologies, Mark, but I’ve never voted identity and I’ve never voted for ego. Forgive me please, but that’s just the way I roll.
LikeLike
How did Edwards’ position compare to Nader’s on the Iraq war in 2003? Oh yeah, that’s right… Edwards was in the process of caving at that time, because he was awfully frightened that he wouldn’t look tough on defense for his upcoming Presidential run.
Yeah, that’s the guy I want running our country. He voted his conscience on that one.
LikeLike
And in 2003, Nader was courting extremist Republicans for money so that he could ‘teach those dastardly Democrats a lesson’. ~touche~
So, does Nader believe what he claims to believe? Or does he see himself our savior; all that, then some, a bag a’ chips and just a little bit more? The evidence right now points to the latter.
LikeLike
Okay. All snark aside, there are a few truths that need to be embraced. The first is that no candidate *ever* will agree 100% with what you want throughout the history of their living. Republicans get that. Often, Democrats do not. Witness the viralant reaction to George McGovern. Second, Republicans learned long ago (in the Nixon years, codified by Reagan) that if you require from others a consistency that you’ve no intention of asking from your own, you keep the others divided and bickering over absolutes that were never their venue to begin with. Absolutes belong with the conservatives, the 60’s Democrats/70’s-today’s Republicans. But like all who suffer narcissistic foibles, they see the other as not living up to the ideals they have set. The other should never have embraced those absolutes, but we have because the Republicans project it well … even if they haven’t the courage to wear it. They are, quite simply, better at gaming the system than we are.
But … Nader, and many others, know that if the system can be gamed, then it is broken. They seek to break the system further by demanding (yet again) absolutism that they won’t ask of themselves. That right there should prove the circular reasoning involved. The system can’t be broken if the very tactics that lead one to believe the system is broken are employed to show the proof that the system is broken. Nader has nothing to teach the Democrats that they don’t already know, except that there is something wrong with them that they don’t agree with Ralph Nader. That’s not a lesson anyone can afford to have their nose rubbed in. YAY! Ralph Nader ruins the country in order to show people how stupid they are for not following his plan to save it. Yeah, that’s a real great lesson that I’m glad your children will have to learn … and pay for.
The lesson should be that we put the smack-down on the people that gamed the system in the first place. That isn’t the Democrats. That’s the Republicants. Once we’ve consigned them to oblivion, then we can deal with the party that actually has no clue. In a street fight, you don’t attack your buddy for trying to avoid the fight. You attack the asshole that picked the fight. After that, then you have authority over your buddy who wouldn’t rise to the occasion. Not one minute before.
LikeLike
Where to begin … it should be somebody. That it is Nader, fine. He’s not the most likable character, certainly not charismatic. But he points out something that needs to be pointed out …
A guy said to me in 2000 – why are you supporting Nader when you’ll get most of what you want from Gore? You’ve pretty much just said the same thing. And here’s the sticking point – we don’t get most of what we want from conservative Democrats. We actually lose ground. I tried to point out above that if we election either Hillary or Barack, we’re probably going to lose Social Security. If we elect a Republican, we’ll unite and defeat them, just as we did in 2006. But when Democrats triangulate on you, you’re screwed.
And that’s the point. That’s why we have to play hardball with the Democrats. If you make nicey with them, they will screw you just like Bill Clinton did for eight years. You have to threaten them, and no one is doing it. Kucinich tried, Edwards half-assed it. Now we’ve got two conservative Democrats running, and it’s 2000 all over again.
I ain’t stupid, I ain’t stubborn to the point of cutting off my nose. I know you never get everything you want in politics. I don’t want everything. But I do want a big thing or two. Supporting Democrats, we get judges and not much more. There’s reason there to strong arm them, but we can’t get you mainline Democrats to see beyond the labels.
I can see one reason to support Democrats over Republicans – we get better judges. On all the other stuff – the war, the economy, Social Security, the environment, their record is (or will be) no better. So in the end, for that reason alone, it’s probably marginally better to support a Democrat. But in the meantime not to extract a price for your support makes no sense.
You make no sense. You sell your vote cheap. You ask nothing in return. You refuse to bargain. If I were an athlete, I would not want you for an agent.
LikeLike
Alrighty then. Let’s see. The Naderites cry: Do what I want or I will hurt you. The Naderites objective: Seek me out and bargain with me (give me what I want) or I will hurt you. The Naderites cowardice: dealing with Democrats because they know that they have no power over the Republicants who have actually SCREWED THEM OVER. The Naderite effect: supporting Republicants.
You’re right, Mark. My vote is cheap compared to yours. The difference is, I pay my way. You have me pay yours, or at least you are deluded into thinking so. But here’s the real question: who ups the price, me or you? If you keep voting for what you are terrified to confront, by casting ballot against those who won’t kowtow to your petulant will, then you are raising the price for us all … and then wailing that I’ve cost you more. BS. You cost us all more, and it sure as shootin’ ain’t my fault.
I am playing hardball, Mark. When are you going to join the fight against those who really want to hurt you, instead of pretending that you’re fighting those who don’t bathe your feet when you want it?
LikeLike
Just can’t get past this idea that the Democrats are working for you. I was there during the Clinton years. He invented the term triangulation – Republicans and “New” Democrats ganging up on liberals to pass the Republican agenda. That’s what spawned Nader – we couldn’t even trust our own party to toe the line.
And you want us to do whaaaa… with Republicans? I can’t do anything about them. They don’t listen to Democrats. But I do prefer a screwing by my enemies over that of my freinds.
LikeLike
No, Mark. This is the very point you stubbornly, stupidly, obstinantly can’t get beyond. I don’t think the Democrats are working for me. The vast majority of Democrats don’t think that. That’s why we’re majorly fucking PISSED OFF!. But the Democratic bullshitters aren’t openly working against me either. The Republicants are. You prefer to pick at the tiny scab and let the break go unhealed. How brave of you.
LikeLike
You’re not making sense. You’re saying we should focus outward and ignore the real problem, false leaders. You’re saying we should support those leaders even as they work against us. That, in your mind is how we defeat Republicans. You’re not making sense.
LikeLike
If Ralph Nader is knowingly playing spoiler, attempting to punish Democrats by giving us *more* Republican leadership, then he is actively and openly working against me. The part that you would support that effort is what makes no sense.
LikeLike
He can be brought into the fold. The Democrats need only stay true to their base, and Nader will support them. You misunderestimate him.
LikeLike
Really simple reason why Nader should be shot if he runs again: the Supreme Court. Only two of the nine justices are Democrats, and one, maybe both, of them won’t outlive another Republican President. (Stevens is about to turn 88.) And Roe v Wade — and the entire concept of penumbral right to privacy — hangs by one vote right now.
So it’s stupid to try to make a point, or say that if we let the Republicans win we’ll actually net out some kind of gain. We can’t afford to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Hillary sucks. Obama’s not perfect. All Republicans (in the current political situation) are ruinous. Nader can’t win. Given the choice between sucks, ruinous, can’t win, and imperfect, I’ll pick imperfect every time.
LikeLike
You’re confusing Nader running with letting Republicans win. Democrats can always win if they choose to run towards, and not away from their base. That’s why we have a Nader – to remind them. That’s all Gore ever had to do.
LikeLike
Mr. Tokarski, I have no doubt you will get the administration you so richly deserve. I understand why you don’t want to vote for the lesser of two evils, but make no mistake, one IS lesser than the other, significantly so. And I would point out that the religious right has moved the Republican party to the right NOT by supporting 3rd party candidates, but rather by working within the party. Perhaps that’s something progressives/liberals could learn from them.
I get the feeling you would not have supported giving aid to Stalin during WW2, cause hey, he’s evil too, right? And where would we be now if we followed that path?
Another example. Let’s say I give you a choice, either choose to get punched in the face or play a game of chance, where there was a 99.99% chance I shoot you in the face and a 0.01% chance I give you a million dollars and a puppy. Both of those options suck, right? I suppose you would say, “Well, getting shot in the face is bad, but so is getting punched. I’d rather go for the second choice, at least there’s a chance I’d get a million bucks and a puppy!” Right?
LikeLike
You seem to think I don’t get what you’re saying, given your examples. Oh I get it. We’re marginally better off with Democrats. My point is that liberals have tremendous power, and choose not to use it, instead casting their lot with Democrats. Democrats exist primarily to prevent the rise of a third party. They absorb progressive energy and dash it into the rocks.
Some of us want more and don’t like settling for less, or in the case of the current congress, virtually nothing.
LikeLike