"Mad" Miles
03-02-2008, 01:46 PM
Dearest Waccobbididdlies,
Recently, when in response to Ralph's announcement that he was running again for the fourth time as a third party/independent presidential candidate, the usual calumny that he caused Gore to lose in 2000 was once again thrown down.
Instead of picking up the gauntlet, as I have in the past (the results can be seen in the Greens vs. Democrats debate on this board about a year ago and prior) I stifled my rage and let it go.
(Yes, even yours truly, "Mad" Miles doesn't vent at every opportunity. Just selected ones.)
Then I read the following just now. It is a good partial response that I thought some might find interesting.
It was forwarded to the [email protected] ([email protected]) list today.
(I don't have a specific online source/attribution other than that. Its origin was not included by the forwarder who sent it to nionsc.)
***************************************************************
NADER AND THE DEMOCRATIC LIBERALS
SAM SMITH - The rampant hostility towards Ralph Nader among liberal
Democrats raises some uncomfortable questions about that wing of the
party. Here's a guy who - unlike any recent Democratic presidential
candidate - represents everything a liberal Democrat used to stand for
and he is treated as an egotistical pariah.
In fact, his ego is no worse than that of a favored Democratic
candidate who believes he deserves to be president despite have done
virtually nothing to prove the point.
There are, to be sure, good reasons not to go with Nader but they are
tactical in nature and therefore vacant of moral content. Foremost,
there is the argument - to which I subscribe - that ending the
Reagan-Bush-<WBR>Clinton-Bush era is more likely to prove beneficial than
Nader getting five percent of the vote. But having said that, I also
understand those who argue, "I simply can't go and vote for someone who
will deny a decent healthcare program and seems indifferent to the
collapse of constitutional government and to the ecological crisis."
I do not regard such people as fools, ego-driven or cultish. And I
certainly don't think they owe one penny to a Democratic Party that has
for decades increasingly betrayed its own heritage. I think of them as
good, well-motivated and honest people who are less cynically pragmatic
than myself.
It would be nice if liberal Democrats who like to talk so much about
choice, freedom and diversity would be more accepting of it in their
own politics.
But of even more concern is the fact that to despise Nader you have to
dislike what he stands for. Instead of it merely being a choice of
tactics, between passing or running, there is something deeper. It
would be difficult, for example, to be strongly in favor of single
payer and not at least feel some sympathy for Nader. It would be
difficult to believe strongly in a democratic system of government and
trash Nader's right to run. It would be difficult to recognize all the
issues the leading Democrats have ignored and not accept the
possibility that there may be some who choose something different.
The hostility towards Nader has echoes of the liberal hostility towards
Edwards, a partly class driven antipathy over deeper economic and
social issues from which many better educated and better off liberals
seem to feel immune.
The irony is that it is the Democrats' refusal to deal directly with
many of these issues that opens up the space which the GOP fills with
such crowd-pleasing vote getters as gay marriage, abortion and Obama's
middle name.
There are good reasons for voting Democratic this year, but they are
rooted in the inequities of our political system, pragmatic
considerations and the fact that you can't do much with only one or two
percent of the voters. These are not, however, moral reasons. So don't
brag about them and don't blame Ralph Nader for what happens as a
result. Give your vote to someone else but at least show Ralph a little
respect. And hope for the day you can vote for someone as good as Nader
who can actually win.
************************************************************
Me again, "M"M.
For the record, I supported Ralph in 1996 and 2000, I did not support him in 2004. I haven't decided if I'll support him this year.
If he becomes the Green Party of the United States of America's candidate, I will. I voted for Cynthia McKinney in our primary.
Yet I found the editorial cartoon about Ralph in today's PD, with him portrayed with a single bug-eye, quite funny. (Mostly because the artist captured his peculiar visage quite well.) Even if I disagree with its point that he is a self-involved egotist.
I also read an editorial, or letter to the editor, in the NYT's (I think, or was it the PD?) today slamming him for being mistaken about Gore in 2000 and never admitting his mistake, and thought the writer had a point. Albeit not that significant in the grand scheme of things.
If only Barack Hussein Obama was running for the GP nomination!
Oh wait, I forgot, the GP is only for naive idealistic fools who call for systemic change in the face of our looming and overwhelming problems.
And of course, American politics, as played by the big boys and girls is all about staying within the limits of possibility.
Happy politics,
"Mad" Miles
:burngrnbounce:
Recently, when in response to Ralph's announcement that he was running again for the fourth time as a third party/independent presidential candidate, the usual calumny that he caused Gore to lose in 2000 was once again thrown down.
Instead of picking up the gauntlet, as I have in the past (the results can be seen in the Greens vs. Democrats debate on this board about a year ago and prior) I stifled my rage and let it go.
(Yes, even yours truly, "Mad" Miles doesn't vent at every opportunity. Just selected ones.)
Then I read the following just now. It is a good partial response that I thought some might find interesting.
It was forwarded to the [email protected] ([email protected]) list today.
(I don't have a specific online source/attribution other than that. Its origin was not included by the forwarder who sent it to nionsc.)
***************************************************************
NADER AND THE DEMOCRATIC LIBERALS
SAM SMITH - The rampant hostility towards Ralph Nader among liberal
Democrats raises some uncomfortable questions about that wing of the
party. Here's a guy who - unlike any recent Democratic presidential
candidate - represents everything a liberal Democrat used to stand for
and he is treated as an egotistical pariah.
In fact, his ego is no worse than that of a favored Democratic
candidate who believes he deserves to be president despite have done
virtually nothing to prove the point.
There are, to be sure, good reasons not to go with Nader but they are
tactical in nature and therefore vacant of moral content. Foremost,
there is the argument - to which I subscribe - that ending the
Reagan-Bush-<WBR>Clinton-Bush era is more likely to prove beneficial than
Nader getting five percent of the vote. But having said that, I also
understand those who argue, "I simply can't go and vote for someone who
will deny a decent healthcare program and seems indifferent to the
collapse of constitutional government and to the ecological crisis."
I do not regard such people as fools, ego-driven or cultish. And I
certainly don't think they owe one penny to a Democratic Party that has
for decades increasingly betrayed its own heritage. I think of them as
good, well-motivated and honest people who are less cynically pragmatic
than myself.
It would be nice if liberal Democrats who like to talk so much about
choice, freedom and diversity would be more accepting of it in their
own politics.
But of even more concern is the fact that to despise Nader you have to
dislike what he stands for. Instead of it merely being a choice of
tactics, between passing or running, there is something deeper. It
would be difficult, for example, to be strongly in favor of single
payer and not at least feel some sympathy for Nader. It would be
difficult to believe strongly in a democratic system of government and
trash Nader's right to run. It would be difficult to recognize all the
issues the leading Democrats have ignored and not accept the
possibility that there may be some who choose something different.
The hostility towards Nader has echoes of the liberal hostility towards
Edwards, a partly class driven antipathy over deeper economic and
social issues from which many better educated and better off liberals
seem to feel immune.
The irony is that it is the Democrats' refusal to deal directly with
many of these issues that opens up the space which the GOP fills with
such crowd-pleasing vote getters as gay marriage, abortion and Obama's
middle name.
There are good reasons for voting Democratic this year, but they are
rooted in the inequities of our political system, pragmatic
considerations and the fact that you can't do much with only one or two
percent of the voters. These are not, however, moral reasons. So don't
brag about them and don't blame Ralph Nader for what happens as a
result. Give your vote to someone else but at least show Ralph a little
respect. And hope for the day you can vote for someone as good as Nader
who can actually win.
************************************************************
Me again, "M"M.
For the record, I supported Ralph in 1996 and 2000, I did not support him in 2004. I haven't decided if I'll support him this year.
If he becomes the Green Party of the United States of America's candidate, I will. I voted for Cynthia McKinney in our primary.
Yet I found the editorial cartoon about Ralph in today's PD, with him portrayed with a single bug-eye, quite funny. (Mostly because the artist captured his peculiar visage quite well.) Even if I disagree with its point that he is a self-involved egotist.
I also read an editorial, or letter to the editor, in the NYT's (I think, or was it the PD?) today slamming him for being mistaken about Gore in 2000 and never admitting his mistake, and thought the writer had a point. Albeit not that significant in the grand scheme of things.
If only Barack Hussein Obama was running for the GP nomination!
Oh wait, I forgot, the GP is only for naive idealistic fools who call for systemic change in the face of our looming and overwhelming problems.
And of course, American politics, as played by the big boys and girls is all about staying within the limits of possibility.
Happy politics,
"Mad" Miles
:burngrnbounce: