April 05, 2004
Open Letter to Nader Supporter
I posted this as a comment on another weblog and it got some good response. It's similar to what I've written before, but I think I pulled it together pretty well.Remember that politics is about reconciling passion with what is possible.If you vote for Nader, the objectives you care about become less possible, not more. There just isn't a way around that. If you vote for Nader, you're basically saying that your personal passions are more important than enacting change.
This whole thing is about a misunderstanding on what it means to have integrity. You're told that if you don't vote your "true conviction", then you're settling, compromising, et cetera, and that committed citizens don't do that.
That's not integrity. You're being manipulated. The truth is that you are being put in a double-bind, where you're damned either way. Either you go against your convictions, or you make it more likely that Bush will be elected. The situations SUCKS and we can all agree on that.
But the way to oppose a double-bind is not to choose one side and then close your mind and claim victory. You actually have to take the double-bind apart.
The double-bind is the electoral college, which is structured in such a way so that it only works well when it's only between two candidates. Work to change it if that ticks you off. Your efforts are better served working to change the voting system so the spoiler effect doesn't happen.
And the double-bind is also Ralph Nader, because it was his choice to put you all in this position. I say his choice, because he actually did have a costless alternative.
Think about it - if his goals were merely to represent your views and to build support (and remember, he's just an independent now, not even trying to build a third party) - he could have run in the Democratic Primary. There's nothing that says in order to run in the Primary, you have to compromise your platform in any particular way. But he chose against it for selfish reasons.
In short. Ralph's goals are not yours. Ralph's actions are not aligned with his stated intent. He knows he won't win. Remember that to win he needs to win several states outright, at least the 11 largest. Even if he gets 20% support nationwide, the E.C. means he won't win a single state. He knows he can't beat the E.C. and there is no other way for him to win. He knows that if he can't win, his presence makes it more likely that Bush will be elected. He knows that Bush being elected will mean the government has less audience for his passions than Kerry would. And he is running anyway. And so Nader is similarly putting himself in a double-bind, forcing himself to choose between his passion, and results.
It is a false choice. Nader's made his choice and he probably isn't saveable. But the tragedy here is that he's conning his supporters, people like you who might still actually care about affecting change.
Politics is about reconciling passion with what is possible. You can't forget that, because when you do, you actually *undermine* what you are passionate about. It is your *choice* to participate in a voting system, but when you do, it's your responsibility to know what the possibilities of that system are. You have to submit to the system if you choose to work within it. It is your *choice* to support Nader, but it's your responsibility to realize that voting for him reduces the likelihood of your passions being represented. And it's your responsibility to make sure that your actions are aligned with your intent. There are better ways to advocate your beliefs than to cast a pointless and *counterproductve* vote for Nader.
"Politics is about reconciling passion with what is possible"..awesome quote! Yours?? Mind if I post it on my blog with attribution??
Great post as well!
:-)
Posted by: calichick at April 5, 2004 09:09 PMsure, go for it. I've probably seen something similar before, but I came up with the phrase myself.
This is the problem I have with the criticism Nader is getting, it runs similar to the other comment posted in his defense. Nader sticks to his principals and manages to raise debate above the mere rhetoric as much as he can, which is apparently nearly impossible with the current mediaopoly, so it is hard for me to criticize these qualities. And that doesn't mean I feel like I have to vote for him. But for this rare display of some sort of sincerity people want him to shut up and sit down because he alone jepordizes the Democrats potential presidency. Is Is the Democratic party that fragile? Nader seems to be a convenient scapegoat. Depending on how you want to manipulate the statistics you can argue Nader didn't have much impact or that Pat Buchanan had the same affect. However, it is no secret now that voting for Nader is a highly charged decision and the media attention this position has attracted has made it all to clear the potential damage to Kerry. But why not criticize these voters that are going to the polls to vote for Nader. Why does Nader get blamed for other people having agency? And this is an election the Democrats should be landsliding. Bush is a candidate who should be worrying about impeachment and not re-election. People are just dying to have some one to root for right now. So don't the democrats then deserve some criticism for their inability to deliver an inspirational agenda/candidate/platform? But no one wants to talk about that, the game is blame Nader. It is important to speak of the impact of a vote in relation to dethroning our president but we can't criticize any candidate for running. It is the people that get to choose (theoreticaly) ...remember?.. not the candidates. Everyone knows what could happen if they vote for Nader. If Bush wins, therefore, it is not Nader's fault but our own. How about some responsibility, particularly in a nation that is in such desperate need. Lets get back on topic... today Bush, tomorrow the rest of the institution. If we want to talk about getting Bush out of office we can mobilize a vote, unite and still include Nader as an insightful point. We are not total morons who can only see black and white. Let's acknowledge that we are going from a cold hearted madman to a less than luke-warm Democrat for expediancy, but simultaneously, through a voice like Nader make it understood the popular issues that we want addressed. Am I just dreaming here or are we all so ignorant that we can't understand issues beyond "good and evil" (or my spelling).
Posted by: stamp at April 5, 2004 11:19 PMstamp, I like your comment.
I am curious if you would be willing to click through the material I pulled together for my reasoning of why Nader shouldn't run here, and then let me know if any of that affects your thinking?
If you vote for Nader, the objectives you care about become less possible, not more.
It's a truism in American politics that nothing is ever fixed until there's a crisis. The Dems have absolutely no reason to advance more open methods of voting. They share power with the Republicans, and further opening the field to strong independants and Greens means less power for the Democrats and a dilution of their voter base, as people start to ask why the good things these candidates talk about aren't included in the Democratic platform. The two-party system isn't going to reform itself.
But say Ralph 'spoils' the election, again. Wouldn't it then be in the rational interests of the Democrats to push voting reform, to insure that minority wingers don't cost them any more major national elections? You know damned well that this is why Nader has as much of a voice with the Dems as he already does. Because there's a perception that he's diluting the Democratic power-base.
Just one hypothesis.
My main reason for leaning towards voting Nader is exactly this kind of subversive levelling of the field. The Dems aren't going to deal with these issues without being forced to. And until these issues are addressed, I think the best we can hope for is an oscillation between semi-benign Democrats and fucking insane Republicans in the white house, as we've been seeing for the last two decades. We've voted short-term plenty of times now, and the problem, insane republicans, persists. A new strategy needs to develop, some way to widen the national discourse, and put some reael goddamned dialectic back into the political process. Enough of the rhetoric.
A vote for Nader, in this context, is far more powerful than a vote for Kerry, in the sense that my vote doesn't typically mean shit. Christ, I don't think I even have a demographic at this point.
And if you think I'm 'undermining' my beliefs with a vote, I'm sorry. I'll try to remember that the next time I'm petitioning for mental health reform, that everything I'm doing is worthless because I've been conned into voting Nader. Or maybe I'll just get over my one-three-hundred-and-thirty-millionth of the political process and go about enacting some actual change.
Posted by: kaibutsu at April 6, 2004 12:40 AM
It's a truism in American politics that nothing is ever fixed until there's a crisis.
This is such a stupid statement that I am not even sure where to start with it. First of all, the meaning of "fix" implies that there's a problem, so of course 'nothing is fixed until there's a problem' is true in a trivial sense.
But you're using this as a justification to break something. That's completely irresponsible. There are so many judgments you are making here - that just because *you* think something is a problem, means it's a problem; that the only way to demonstrate a problem is to cause damage; that it is impossible to affect positive change without causing the breakage first.
You know what? You're mad, and you're frustrated, and I don't blame you. But it's irresponsible to take those emotions out on the realities of others that may feel differently than you, especially when your actions can lead to the nation not being democratically represented. You're saying that even if it were obvious that the nation preferred Kerry to Nader, and Kerry to Bush, you would willingly take an action that would lead to Bush winning. That's anti-democratic. If you're going to flirt with being a revolutionary and trying to assert a minority will onto others, then grow some balls and join a real revolution rather than fucking around with actions that won't even help *your* objectives. Start advocating your own minority rather than Bush's.
You know, there's one more thing I thought of that shows how counterproductive this is.
The "subversive" argument to vote for Nader is to display to... someone... how broken the system is, evidently to motivate them to fix it.
And yet, this breakage benefits the Republicans. So they won't be motivated to fix the "problem". So the intent is more to motivate the DEMOCRATS to change things.
And yet, the only way that this can be demonstrated as a problem is to break it so that the Democrats lose. To motivate the Dems.
But then the action will result in the Democrats losing. i.e. not having the power to change it.
So you're so mad at the government for not helping you, that you'll convince one side to help you by taking away their power to help you, and convince the other side to ignore you by rewarding them.
Just shows how self-corrupting the whole thought process is. There's a *great* way to affect change.
A friend likened it to a student that refuses to do their homework because they are mad at the teacher.
Well said. As you said months ago in an earlier entry,
"One cannot vote one's principles in an unprincipled system."
This whole situation of folks continuing to suport Nader reminds me of the scenario where a student refuses to do his homework to spite the teacher. "Oh yeah?! I'm going to make a statement against you and 'break' this system and refuse to participate in it the way it works.. and you'll see!"
And the student fails the class and the teacher is at best, annoyed. is that really the way to get your point across?
Can't you already hear Bush chuckling already? If change is truly what you want, you have to first accept the situation for what it is before you can change it at all. Those of you who are insisting that you need to vote for Nader are refusing to accept the situation the way it really is and want to close your mind to the reality that you will be giving Bush more chance and thus, like Curt said, undermining the ability for things to change. You are "refusing to do the homework" in hopes that it will somehow matter.. refusing to understand the way the system works, essentially sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling, "Nyah, Nyah, Nyah, I can't hear you!! I'm voting Nader!!!"
You cannot create change until you are really honest about what the situation is and what is going to happen from your choices of actions. Make smart change, not reactionary change because you're pissed off and want to butt your head against the system. You're only helping Bush. Insist that Nader find other ways to speak out against this system he's so against in a way that doesn't risk another 4 years of Bush. Take a look at Dean, for example.. the way he is creating another alternative for change. He didn't just disappear and wipe his hands clean, saying, 'Well, that's that. I gave it a shot."
The system doesn't respond to your emotions and your passions. It responds to your actions. Passion is not well served by being unrealistic. The best way to serve your passions is to understand what is possible. And so I overlap Curt in saying work to change the Electoral College, the voting system to allow for third party candidates.
Posted by: Tamara at April 6, 2004 02:21 PMI am beggining to think the American public is hopeless. Can nobody see how a third party candidate is useful? Why is it we only fear Nader? Is it 2000 jitters. Do people think Nader wants Bush to win? Do we assume Nader is just stupid? I think folks need to understand the complexity involved in an election when it is not simply A or B choices.. or A and A-ish. If we stop arguing over how Nader is ruining everything and accept responsibility for how we vote then I think we can use Nader as a tool rather than a scape goat. Kerry cannot challenge Bush without jepordizing his moderate position. However, nader has nothing to lose. Can we imagine what would happen if a smart, incisive, and thoughtful candidate like Nader were able to engage Bush either directly or through the media. Bush would look ridiculous and lose credibility. We can listen to Nader without destabilizing Kerry. At the same time Nader can make Kerry aware of the popular issues and let him know anti-Bush is not going to be good enough. If we can stop being scared of Nader and get smart, start a dialogue that is more complex than good/bad "good and evil" then Nader does not have to be a threat. And neither do I blame anyone for voting their conscience. In the end that is what we all do. one conscience says Nader is right, another say Nader is good but Bush is worse and Kerry will do. If we start criticizing voters for voting their conscience then what is left? I cannot and will not tell anyone who to vote for or shun anyone for looking at the candidates and making a choice. That is the point of a democracy. If we force Nader out of the race to limit voter choice than how is that so different from the biased Florida shananigans. Republicans made it difficult for Democrats to vote for their candidate (Gore) for the sake of Bush's victory. How is it Democrats are now in a position where they want to make it difficult for Nader supporters to vote for Nader for the sake of Kerry's victory. I think this is truly hypocritical and rather than mislead one another and criticize Nader we need to begin to take responsibility, address complex issues, and mobilize. Let Nader do his thing and we can do ours... get Bush out.
Do i think Nader should run? Definitely.
Will I vote for him? No way.
But I get to decide and that means something.
It should be clear by now that the means do not justify the ends and it is time to put machiavelli to rest.