The Nader Fallacy

[ALago1]

Perhaps the most widely touted argument that both Nader and his supporters use to justify his candidacy is as follows:

"The Democratic Party has become an operative of the DLC, a centrist pro-business conglomerate that has sacrificed the party's original ideals. Hence, to get the party back to where it originally stands on the political spectrum, we must protest it via a third party, ultra liberal vote. In doing so, we will force the Democratic Party leftward to stand up for liberal values."

Let us assume that the Dem party is an operative wing of the DLC and furthermore assume that the DLC is a centrist organization. Does it follow that we must vote third party to engineer a shift in political ideology?

The answer is no.

Unfortunately, the centrism of the DLC is what got Bill Clinton elected twice and Al Gore unofficially elected in 2000. The U.S. is a centrist country when it comes to economic and fiscal policy, and center-left when it comes to social issues. We, as a whole, are presently wary of big government and favor a strong military in hopes that it will keep us strong. Regretably, we are alsy skeptical of universal single payer healthcare and a fair progressive tax structure as well.

So, to those who say that should the Dem party nominate someone like Kucinich we wouldn't have to worry about Ralph, they are correct. We would bring in those 5% fringe dems who may go Green in 2004, but would likely sacrifice 30-40% of the party who is fairly moderate in most areas.

The best way of promoting a revolution in liberal ideas is to start from the center within our current institutions and move outwards via incremental change. It won't be quick and would require time and discipline.

So, to those who feel marginalized by the current Dem party you can vote third party and take part in a futile shift in the balance of political power in the U.S., or work within our existing institutional structure for the long haul.

I hope you choose the latter.

[rockymountaindem]

1. But pragmatism is soooooo boring.

I mean, everything else happens so fast these days, why can't we all just get what we want right away?


I think Bush has the same thoughts, just from the other side of the spectrum.

[ALago1]

2. "I think Bush has the same thoughts, just from the other side..."

Hmm interesting. I never thought of that but you may very well be correct. Hiding behind a centrist facade and slowly trying to lurch the electorate further right.

[Fenris]

8. Of course he is

Did we learn nothing from the Candidate Bush vs. President Bush debates on the Daily Show?

[ALago1]

3. Kick

I have class and won't be back until tonight, so can't reply until then.

[HFishbine]

4. "would likely sacrifice 30-40% of the party who is fairly moderate"

That's pure speculation and contradictory to the facts. See this thread:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=386044&mesg_id=386044

[Nederland]

13. Confused

Your link has nothing to do with whether or not people would still vote Democratic if the nominee were further to the left. The link you provided dismisses the notion that Nader "stole" votes from Gore. The two premises are completely different.

[jonnyblitz]

5. i have heard some say that the only reason why CLinton won

in 1992 was because of the 19% who voted for Perot. I am not personally claiming I believe this I am just regurgitating it. :shrug:

[dansolo]

11. I thought the split was fairly even.

I recall that the split was nearly even between people who would have voted for Clinton, people who would have voted for Bush, and people who wouldn't have voted.

[RichM]

6. Re: "We... favor a strong military in hopes that it will keep us strong."

Aside from the redundancy of the phrasing, this is a ridiculous interpretation of the process. Ever since WWI, the US government has gone to stupendous lengths to propagandize & terrify the population into accepting the need for an enormous military apparatus. They wouldn't have done this, had they not believed that the population wouldn't go along with it otherwise.

The truth is that the population is instinctively quite skeptical about the huge military, & only if they are continually subjected to massive scare campaigns, will they consent to the military madness. The public is not well-informed, but they sense intuitively that they are being swindled by all the military spending.

The simple fact that you see "Terror Alert: Code Yellow" in the corner of your TV screen today is proof that the government still believes the populace needs constant doses of scare tactics, to keep them in line.

[PVnRT]

7. In other words

if you're on the left wing of the party, your opinion doesn't matter, but you damn well better give us your vote!

[cspiguy]

10. and keep our mouths shut once elected. The experts will

take care of us... Grrr.

[redqueen]

9. I do not agree with your assertion

that 30 - 40% of Democratic voters are so 'moderate' that they'd choose bush over Kucinch OR Nader.

[cspiguy]

12. 50% of voters will never have even heard one of Kucinich's positions

let alone Nader's. They don't watch debates or sunday morning elite shows, they might catch GMA but are working, taking care of kids, soccer, etc. with a beer and a dance on Saturday night. If they actually paid attention long enough and had the positions laid out clearly enough they could possibly - maybe probably - vote for a candidate that promised universal healthcare, major (structural) income redistribution, guaranteed employment, and planet-saving environmentalism.

[library_max]

16. Except that they've voted against all those things consistently

since the late seventies (voted against some of them since the beginning). This is the same old, "If only they knew what I know, everyone would agree with me" fantasy. It's not so, and even if it were so it's not helpful because it assumes an impossible condition.

[redqueen]

18. Do you or do you not admit that most of the electorate favors

UHC?

[library_max]

19. They tell pollsters they favor it until presented with a plan.

Once there's a plan, any plan, they're against it. This is definitely a road we (the US) has been down before.

[redqueen]

21. Do you place the same credence with that

as with the results of the iraq war polling? Many here will post ad infinitum that Americans supported the war. This despite the simliarity to the results you mentioned here (i.e. once presented with details of how we would be doing it without the UN, they did not support it).

[library_max]

28. It's beyond question that a majority of Americans supported it at the time

Remember, that was before the WMD lie had been exploded and the cakewalk turned into a quagmire and the natives with roses somehow turned into suicide bombers.

Whether a majority supports it now is a tough question. I think the division is around the 50-50 that other issues tend to fall into. But I agree that knowledge of the facts of the matter is so murky right now that it would be very difficult to place much credence in any poll.

And this illustrates one of the problems with polls. People don't necessarily vote the way their poll responses indicate they would. That's why it's better to look at the way given issues have influenced past elections than to look at poll results.

[redqueen]

31. So you discredit the qualified support for UHC

but given the same kind of qualifying results against something you choose to believe, you just disregard it?

Amusing.

[library_max]

34. If it's funny, share it with the rest of us.

I don't understand your post at all. What are "qualified support" and "qualifying results"?

The poll results that supposedly show most Americans in favor of UHC have repeatedly failed us in specific political contests where the rubber meets the road. How opinions about the Iraq war will influence the 2004 election remains to be seen. What's comical about any of that?

[library_max]

14. 30-40% is almost certainly an exaggeration,

especially given the degree to which Bush has polarized the electorate. But it's safe to say that as nominee Kucinich would drive away more center voters (many of whom would then vote for Bush) than the left voters he would attract.

[redqueen]

15. I think we've gone down this road before

:hi:

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[library_max]

17. Poll after poll supports my position.

What supports yours?

[redqueen]

20. Millions of Americans who don't bother to vote n/t

[library_max]

22. What???

Bbbllllbbbblllbbbbllllbbbb (shaking head vigorously from side to side).

Millions of Americans who don't bother to vote support what now? By definition, they don't support a blessed thing. It's sheer fantasy to assume that they believe what you believe politically.

:silly:

[redqueen]

25. No, it isn't

Have you talked to them? *sigh* I can almost hear the wheels turning, and in order to haed off any of the inevitable, and inexcusable - 'have you asked all of them?' pointless canards, I'll just ask:

Have you talked to any of them, at all? Ever? I have, quite a few.

Granny D also has. People should check out what she has to say about it.

Some are lazy, some don't care. Most -- by my estimation the vast majority -- see that no matter which way they vote, they won't get what they want / need, so why bother?

[library_max]

29. I talk to lots of people like that too.

But the entire sum that you, me, and Granny D have talked to represents a statistically insignificant percentage of the whole. And it's not a valid sample either, because people tend to talk to people who share many, if not all, of their own views.

There have been studies of nonvoters. No, I don't have those studies in my pocket. But they indicate that nonvoters split about the same as voters regarding left-right and Republican-Democrat, to the extent that they give a damn at all. And what hopes do you have of mining votes from the hardline don't-give-a-damn faction?

[redqueen]

32. None

If you'd been reading carefully, you'd have noticed that I have said nothing about the faction you refer to.

I am referring to the faction which recognizes both parties as being whored out to corporations. I have high hopes of mining votes from both parties, as well as from nonvoters, if a candidate were to address the problem of the 'for sale' sign on washington.

This is in addition to the faction which realizes that both parties are more concerned with placating the rich (the better to mine their deeper pockets) than addressing the needs of the poor.

[library_max]

35. But those two factions, as statistically significant percentages,

exist in your imagination and the imaginations of others who like to believe in the Silent Progressive Majority. I'm sure lots of people you talk to agree that there's too much money in politics and that politicians are too accommodating to the rich. But if you were a right-winger, the same number of people you talk to would believe that everyone who opposed the Iraq war is a traitor and that Reagan ought to be on the dime or Mount Rushmore or both.

If you can get your friends to vote for the Democratic nominee, great. The election probably won't turn on it, but who knows? However, abandoning the center to court purely theoretical votes on the left would be a losing strategy for the party or the nominee to adopt.

[Nederland]

30. Talking is not Polling

The fact that you have "talked" to quite a few of these people does not mean that you can accurately predict how non-voters as a whole feel about the issues. Unless you happened to talk to a diverse, statistically balanced group of non-voters spread across the US, your conversations with people cannot tell you anything with any reasonable degree of accuracy.

[redqueen]

33. This is why I've always wondered why Thomas Paine called it

"Common Sense"

*sigh*

[Nederland]

36. True

At the time Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense, 2/3 of the population disagreed with him. Ironic, isn't it?

[GreenPartyVoter]

23. You got my vote THIS time. Give me election reform

after I help put your guy in office, and you'll probably get my number two slot on all future ranked ballots. *unless the Socialists are running some amazing candidates, in which case you'd get thrid, but probably would still win with that anyway.*

[sangh0]

24. Vote for who you want

but it won't give you the right to issue commands to the entire DNC, just as MY vote doesn't give me that right either. If you want the party to change, then go out and convince the majority of Dem voters that you're right.

[GreenPartyVoter]

26. NO. It has to be election reform. It's the only solution to this problem

That way I can vote for who I want and not have to have Dems harangue me for it my entire life. It also means you WON'T have people making demands on your party anymore because we (all third parties) can try and make a real go of it on our own.

Trust me. We are better off building a coalition of progressive parties that can take over the House than we are bickering the way we do now and getting nowhere.

[sangh0]

27. Good luck with that

How's the third-party-coalition-thingy going?

[GreenPartyVoter]

37. Well, I'm here as an ABB voter

so it's working to some extent for the moment.

You'll know more, though, after we get some major election reform. With ranked voting we'll see for the first time how people actually would prefer to vote and we'll be better able to gauge the politics of mainstream America.