The post down below led to an exchange with Polish Wolf that programmers might call the “endless loop.” My point was that we are subject to tyrannical rule by lifetime-appointed judges, and that their decisions are so hard to overturn that few even try. Impeachment is a futile enterprise – just ask the John Birch Society. This is his last comment partly redacted:
Well Mark, we don’t know who Gore would have chosen, that’s true. But here’s the thing – on most of the decisions you hate the most, there are two sides, and justices on both sides. Not one justice who voted in favor of Citizen’s United was appointed by a Democrat. Thus, the idea that Gore would have appointed two justices who voted with justices appointed by Reagan and Bush, rather than justices appointed Carter and Clinton, is absolutely absurd and kills your entire contention that Presidential election aren’t important. George Bush holding office created a situation wherein Citizens United was possible – thus, the election of 2000, far from being ‘Kabuki theater’, was instrumental in increasing the power of the wealthy in the United States. … People who voted for Nader or stayed home that day allowed Bush to be elected.
One, I did not say that the 2000 election was Kabuki Theater. The current “debate” about the debt ceiling is that. The 2000 election was rigged, for sure, and the outcome tilted to elect the Bush cadre, and part of the infinite loop is our incessant bickering about whether we are better off with weasel Democrats or self-assured Republicans. The larger point contained in the post is that the United States Supreme Court acts as a Guardian Council, just like those who are the real government of Iran, unelected, robed, mystically imbued with profound wisdom, and completely submissive to the oligarchy. Jefferson angrily complained after Marbury v Madison that decision had turned the constitution to “wax.” Until we alter this system to remove tenure for judges and/or make is feasible to quickly and easily overturn corrupt decisions like Citizens United, we are a fake democracy.*
But we were fake anyway, as even the pre-CU campaign finance system used to support the “two” parties assures that outsiders like Nader are kept out of power.
But your contempt for Nader exposes you in ways that you do not intend. LB spoke of the fear factor – that Democrats are simply afraid of leaving the playground because the task of imposing real change on this screwball system is daunting. 
Nader brings your fear to the surface, and you react with bitter disapproval not of the corrupt system in which you participate, but of Nader.
Finally, to the more mundane matter of the failure to elect savior Gore, a man who refused to take leadership on progressive issues, who ran a weak and uninspiring campaign, and who, in the face of the James Baker-led theft of the office meekly backed down, Sam Smith reminds us that while Nader got only 3% of the vote, exit polls showed that 9% of blacks; 46% of those under 30; 49% of the college educated; 37% of the poor; 39% of working mothers; 11% of Democrats; 34% of union members; 13% of self-described liberals; 25% of gays and lesbians; 15% of Clinton voters in 1996; 25% of those supporting abortion … all voted for Bush. That is the percentage of those who actually voted. Most eligible voters seem to recognize that it’s a rigged system, and don’t bother. Gore did not reach that segment either.
Those are people who by your imperial standard should have voted for Gore! They betrayed you! And yet, your focus, your anger and indignation, is directed only at Nader.
What gives, Polish Wolf? Eh? Eh?
_____________________
*A third aspect of our screwball system that needs change is ten-year redistricting. As one Englishman observed, our system is odd in that we allow voters to elect office holders, but then turn around and allow office holders to select voters.
Piece of Mindful 
Mark – I’m in education, and I’ve quickly learned that every student has the strengths and weaknesses. Whether through innate ability, interest level, or conscious decision making, some students are not going to get above a C in Algebra, or English, or what have you. For those students, you have to be happy with a C – it means they worked hard, and made progress towards overcoming whatever has been holding them back.
Others, however, are easily capable of getting A’s, and it is exceedingly frustrating when they only get B’s. Politics are very similar – some people (I’d say the nearly thirty percent who no longer approved of Bush by the end of his term, despite voting for him) don’t care enough to inform themselves and make wiser votes; some (the 22 percent who had his back until the end) were wealthy enough that they benefited from his economic policies, or socially conservative enough that his stances on abortion, gun rights and gay marriage made up for his economic performance.
But you, Mark, ought to be an A student. People who voted for Nader clearly knew that Bush was bad news. How could they not? You obviously know that Citizens United is bad for Democracy and bad for causes about which you care. Why not support a candidate who almost certainly would have nominated justices who would oppose such a ruling?
LikeLike
School for me is an ongoing thing. Grade school was when I was a Republican and voted twice for Reagan. Then came high school, and I tossed Reagan, and could not make myself do the Bush thing. I graduated in 1992 by not voting for Clinton. He was post-secondary, a real introduction to the real world. He managed perceptions and behaved just as Bush or Reagan would have behaved, and no one seemed to notice. I got my degree, and entered the real world. Gore filled out a job application, and I turned him down. He wasn’t even good enough to fill Clinton’s shoes.
Now comes Obama, and it’s not so much that he is good at managing perceptions as that the Democrats don’t want to know what is real. He’s Clinton without the intern hanging off his dick.
Welcome to grad school.
LikeLike
Citizens United is bad for democracy. Democrats are bad for democracy. Republicans too. All three are bad for democracy. None of the above is the correct answer if your goal is democracy.
To recap, the correct answer is not: Vote Democrat.
LikeLike
Citizens united is bad for Democracy. Ok, I’ll accept that. Then it would seem that Justices Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor are good for Democracy. And all of them were appointed by? Democrats! And yet Mark and Ladybug are both against Democrats. Now, how are they also in support of democracy?
LikeLike
As I wrote down below,
I know you believe you are making eminent good sense here, and that if a student were to hand in those words on a test, you would give him an A. But that is rudimentary, and there is more depth to the issue than that. But to your point: Yes, if we can only have two parties financed by the oligarchy, and one presents itself as kinder and gentler than the other, if that is our lot, if we live in faux democracy where those two “choices” are our only options, and if we have no dignity and are OK with what crumbs are handed down to us, then you are quite right. Better judges is a good reason to vote D.
Here’s some food for thought. We really don’t know how S,B,G & S would vote if one more justice were appointed and they swung to the majority. Being in the minority and issuing opinions that have no punch is not a test of their rocks.
Example: From 2008 to 2010, the House of Representatives passed scads of good legislation. It all died in the senate. They knew this, and so were free to do as they wished and could freely please the base with ineffectual symbolic bills. It was not a test. There were three instances when they were indeed tested: Wall Street bailouts, extending the Bush tax cuts, and health care “reform”. They were under enormous pressure, and caved all three times.
But from appearances, theses were good liberals doing good liberal work. They accomplished exactly nothing.
Now you tell me that a Democrat appointing judges is free to pick the best candidate, and will choose a good liberal. Not likely. But we don’t really know what we have there. Do we.
As I concluded down below,
When you grade your students, do you require them to think things through, or are you satisfied with pat answers? What does it take to get an A from you?
LikeLike
My dear PW,
The ship is going down and nobody is allowed to man the lifeboats.
You leap to conclusions: “And yet Mark and Ladybug are both against Democrats. Now, how are they also in support of democracy?”
I said nothing about being against Democrats. More to the point, Democrats are keeping me from what I want: democracy. Democrats and Republicans have found clever unconstitutional ways to keep people I could vote for off the general election ballot. Anti-democratic don’t you think? I only vote FOR people I believe will represent my interests fairly, without lying constantly. This leaves one no other choice. It is not my choice, but one imposed by the two failing parties.
LikeLike