Make 'em squirm, Ralph!

Ah, the sweet nostalgia of seeing Democratic Party loyalists unsheathing the long knives they keep sharpened especially for independent progressives who speak the truth!

Now that Ralph Nader is running for president, it's a chuckleworthy spectacle to watch liberals flop about the political arena like a school of small fish on a boat deck. Yes, I admit taking a certain measure of mischievous delight in the contrarian position that having more alternative voices in America's national discourse is a good thing. As unfashionable as it may sound, I enjoy hearing a broad range of political perspectives during an election season. As I see it, the problem with electoral politics in America isn't that there are too many voices in the mix, but too few.

Here's the twisted basis of the argument against Nader's candidacy: Nader shouldn't run because some people might like what he says and vote for him! Sure, Democrats gloss this over and skip ahead to the tactical conclusion that Nader will "re-elect Bush" or some such muddle-minded claptrap. But perhaps the bottom line is that they just don't want Nader, whose campaign is 100% free of corporate money, to speak the truth about corruption and reform in America, while Democrats remain tongue-tied by their backroom deals with big-bucks contributors. Perhaps that's why I have yet to hear a single argument being made against the substance of Nader's political ideas; all I hear are rants against his very presence in the race. You gotta laugh at a political party that calls itself "Democratic" then convulses with epileptic anger when a citizen actually attempts to engage in democracy.

Let's see if I've got this right: When George W. Bush steamrolls the nation into endless war on a platform of cynical lies, Democratic politicians applaud the patriotism and pick up the check. When Ralph Nader enters the (democratic?) electoral arena on a platform of idealistic truths, Democrats go absolutely berzerk as if one of their corporate masters has missed a big payment on the regular bribe schedule. It's hard not to conclude that the Democrats' contempt for progressives who agitate for social justice outweighs their contempt for neoconservatives who agitate for violent empire. And this is the party that feels arrogantly entitled to all progressive votes in America?

In reality, liberal angst toward Nader's candidacy is profoundly misguided. Ralph Nader's candidacy will not cause George W. Bush to be re-elected. In fact, I believe that Nader could play an important role in helping John Kerry win the election in November. By making Kerry compete for progressive votes, Nader could keep Kerry real, so to speak, and prevent the spineless tendencies of the mushy middle from sapping all life from his campaign, as happened to the Gore-Lieberman campaign in 2000. As the saying goes, the only thing in the middle of the road is yellow stripes and roadkill.

Indeed, Michael Lerner makes a strong argument, in the current issue of Tikkun magazine, that the "Anyone But Bush" attitude of Democrats is a big part of what's fundamentally unattractive about the Democratic Party:

Will the resounding commitment of liberals and progressives to the notion of 'Anyone But Bush' do any more than guarantee the re-election of Bush for another four years?

The Democrats are in danger of sidelining their most principled voices and once again (as in the Clinton-Gore years) appearing to care more about what's popular than what's principled, with the possible consequence of becoming less popular.

I have no problem with any of their leading contenders, but if, for example, Kerry is perceived to win the nomination not because of what he stands for but rather because he has been judged electable, that itself may become the reason he won't be.

...Instead of speaking to the deep yearning of Americans for a world of kindness and generosity, for moral goodness and spiritual coherence, the Democrats and their supporters have generated (or some might say capitulated to a media-generated) language of technocratic practicality that will dissipate the very support they so desperately seek in the elections of 2004.

The fact is that you cannot win Americans over to an alternative to the radical ideology of the neoconservative Right that has been the foundation of the Bushites' success by providing them with a variety of cautious half-measures lacking any coherent intellectual foundation or vision. The unbearable lightness of the Democrats—their inability to stand for anything at all—has been with us since the 1990s, when Congressional Democrats were unable to construct a liberal or progressive alternative to Gingrich's very effective (though from our standpoint reprehensible) "Contract with America," which boosted Congressional Republicans to majority status in the 1994 elections. Even in 2002 those Democrats managed to take a perfect moment for re-ascendancy and present themselves as the party that had no unifying theme or message.

...If we are trying to decide whether a candidate believes in a coherent worldview that coincides with our own deepest ethical and spiritual truths, we can make that determination ourselves by listening to what they say and have said and done in their public lives. But if we are trying to decide whether they are electable, we give the power to the media and the pollsters to tell us who we should be backing. The result is that many of the candidates who most closely represent the American people's highest ideals can be pushed out of the race, opening up the way for a candidate who fulfills the ideals of those who own and control the media.

Thank you, Michael Lerner.

I remember casting votes in elementary school, during which the teacher would have all the kids put their heads down on their desks before raising their hands to vote. The idea was to encourage kids to vote according to their own honest opinions (imagine that!), rather than simply following the popular kids in order to be part of the winning group. In adult life, supporting a presidential candidate because of "electability" is tantamount to looking nervously around the classroom to see how the popular kids are voting before raising your own hand. Is that really a meaningful basis for deciding who should occupy America's most powerful office?

Just to make sure, though: There are about a dozen swing states where I believe nobody should vote for Nader. In order to ensure this, I believe that Nader should not (and probably will not) be on the ballot in those states. That takes care of the problem of draining votes from Kerry. The other 38 or 39 states are pretty much decided already. In New York, Kerry will win by a landslide even with Nader in the race. My voting for Nader won't hurt Kerry's chances one bit.

This is to say nothing of the fact that there are dozens of independent and third party candidates running for US president in 2004, aside from Ralph Nader. Why is it that only Nader has come under fire? Once again: because people like what he says.

The silliest thing about all this is that if Democrats spent as much energy fighting for sensible electoral reform as they spend on trying to prevent Nader from running, the entire problem could be solved and the US could join the rest of the democratic world in having important third parties and fourth parties and fifth parties involved in national politics. The simplest reform to US elections, which would eliminate all this bickering, would be instant runoff voting, in which voters rank candidates in the order of their preference. In other words, imagine if you could vote for Nader as your first choice and Kerry as your second choice. If your first choice weren't one of the top two candidates, then your second choice would get counted. This way, everybody votes for whoever they truly believe in, no votes are cast in vain, and there's no more confused ranting about "spoilers". It could be a novel concept: a "democratic election" rather than a "media charade".

So get a grip, Democrats. Stop whining about who's running and start affirming a vision that moves people. Stop giving your voting power to the corporate media and start trusting the higher ideals of the American people. Stop acting too wimpy to compete for votes and start waging political battle built upon ideas and agendas that address the great issues of our time.

Then I'll consider voting for the Democratic Party again. Until then: Run, Ralph, and make 'em squirm!

Comments

[Jimm]

Kai,

Dazzling. Clear thinking and straight shooting.

Bring on electoral reform!

[freelixir]

Jimm, this Kai individual needs to be in the loop.

Pronto.

[Jimm]

Nader haters,

Back up. This isn't about Kerry.

It's about electoral reform.

Doing the right thing.

Honoring democracy.

Choice.

[Kai Chang]

Jimm and freelixer,

Thanks so much for the kind words. It's always good to know there are sane folks around.

What does it mean to be "in the loop"? How do I get there?

Peace,
Kai

[Jimm]

Just joking bro. I'm freelixir, and was having some fun.

I really enjoyed the piece, especially the reasoned conclusion for electoral reform.

Peace.

***

As for "in the loop", that's a surprise.