Ralph Nader

Why Progressives Keep On Losing and the Right Keeps On Winning

Richard Eskow — Sat, 09 Apr 2011 13:45:59 -0400

Congratulations! The "grand compromise" will cut nearly thirty nine billion dollars in needed government spending, which proves how "serious" everyone is about reducing the deficit. The grand compromisers could have cancelled the next ten years of tax subsidies for oil companies and cut the deficit by forty billion, but apparently that's not how serious people do things.

If the Republican Party were singing to its base today, the song would be the theme from Friends, "I'll Be There For You." And the Democrats would be singing "You Always Hurt the One You Love." We're being told we should celebrate a "compromise" in which Democrats gave up $38.5 billion in spending cuts, when the original Republican demand was for $32 billion. That means the Democrats only gave the Republicans 20% more (20.2135%, to be precise) than they originally demanded.

Okay, guys. You get an extra 20% -- and not a penny more!

Once again the unpopular views of a minority have been imposed on the majority. Others will rant and rave about the Democratic leadership, and in fact that process has already begun. But progressives in this country should be asking themselves a serious question: Why does the Tea Party seem to be so much more effective than the left as a movement?

It's a complicated question that deserves in-depth discussion, but some of the things that may be impeding progressives include excessive party loyalty, the desire for a charismatic leader (the "XFK phenomenon"), and the urge to prematurely celebrate accomplishments that are flawed and incomplete.

Why?

Why did Tea Partiers win such a major victory? Money, for starters. The Tea Party's generously funded by billionaires like the Koch Brothers, and ultra-conservative policies are given "nonpartisan" ideological cover by right-wing billionaire Pete Peterson and his network of allies and paid savants. Corporate campaign financing, now made limitless by the GOP's ideological packing of the Supreme Court, allows the mega-corporations of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to impose policies that crush the middle class and smaller businesses. And decades' worth of funding for ad campaigns and "conservative think tanks" (an oxymoron, perhaps?) continue to lay the groundwork for destructive moves like the one we saw last night.

Progressives can't change the money equation without campaign finance reform, so that needs to be a priority.

And progressives can't be blamed for helping to elect a president who either misrepresented his positions on a number of issues or reversed himself once he was elected. (A sample: the health excise tax, which he opposed and later actively worked to enact; the individual mandate for health care coverage, which he opposed and then supported; some matters of civil liberties; and science policy).

But it's not as if progressives don't have any cards to play. Their policies are very popular, while those of the Tea Party and the Republicans are equally unpopular. Strong majorities in both political parties oppose cuts to Social Security and want to see the payroll tax cap raised, for example. Most people want the government to do more to create jobs. Only six percent of those polled think that reducing the deficit is Congress' highest priority. More people would like to see more done to end poverty.

If these popular positions weren't always being labelled "progressive" in the media, they'd probably be even more popular. The White House and other Democrats would be forced to respond to public pressure.

Despite the naysayers, the nation elected a President who presented himself as an unambiguous progressive and gave him both houses of Congress too. So it can be done. So what keeps going wrong, over and over?

24-Hour Party People

I didn't vote for Ralph Nader in 2000 or 2008. I've always believed that political change is best effected in this country through the two-party system. But that idea can be taken too far. The Democratic Party is a tool, a means to an end and not an end in itself.

And there's a world of difference between supporting the Democratic Party and supporting incumbents in the Democratic Party. The Tea Party did a very smart thing last year: They kicked out a few independents who didn't support them politically. Too many progressives followed the President's lead and pledged their fealty to Democratic incumbents who had devoted themselves to undermining causes supported both by progressives and the majority of Americans across the political spectrum.

Not everyone did that, of course. Progressive groups like Blue America are doing a brilliant job of targeting problem Democrats and promoting progressive challengers, and the union movement performed a valuable service for all Americans by supporting Sen. Blanche Lincoln's challenger in the Arkansas primary.

Challenging incumbents doesn't just help the progressive cause. Paradoxically, it helps the Democratic Party too, by forcing it to clarify its "brand" and espouse more popular positions than those it now holds.

Remember what Harry Truman said, which we will liberally paraphrase as follows: In a race between a Republican and a Republican, the Republican wins every time.

If progressives want to identify and work within the Democratic party, that's a worthwhile endeavor. But their relationship to the party should mirror what Thoreau said about his relationship to the world: Be in it, but not of it.

Premature Exhilaration

Progressive activists should celebrate accomplishments in health care and financial reform, but they should never forget what went wrong and why. Progressives were much too quick to celebrate both the health care and financial reform bills before they were done, and while issues of critical importance were still being debated.

We heard it during the financial reform debate. Progressives were all too quick to label the draft bill a success, even while it lacked (and continues to lack) critical provisions on "too big to fail" banks and the so-called Volcker rule. That removed any leverage the left might have had to win a better bill that had more restraints on banks (and would therefore have been more popular with the public).

As so often happens, we heard lectures from Democrats and some progressives about "what's politically possible." Yet when progressive measures found their way into open debate -- a process that was often blocked by Democrats like ex-Senator (and now film industry lobbyist) Chris Dodd -- we saw right-wing stalwarts like Sen. Tom Coburn and establishment Republicans like Sen. Chuck Grassley cross the aisle to support them. We also saw the Senate's only Socialist, Bernie Sanders, team with right-wing libertarian Ron Paul on a measure to audit the Federal Reserve.

The progressive inclination toward "premature exhilaration" over flawed Democratic bills is often matched with a flawed sense of what's politically possible... and politically popular.

The Right likes to call the health bill "Obamacare." A better name would be "BaucusConradNelsonLincolnLiebermanAndSomeOtherSenatorsCare." The president maintained a characteristically hands-off approach as the details were being worked out in the Senate, only stepping in at the last minute to push a provision he had specifically opposed as a candidate. If Democratic Senators had been under the same kind of political pressure that the Tea Party is now applying to Republicans, we'd have a significantly better (and significantly more popular) bill.

Instead the left was eagerly applauding a bill before it was finished, despite the fact that it was (and is) seriously flawed. Those of us who were strongly criticizing its weaknesses were subjected to a barrage of harsh and often personal attacks from progressives who accused us of undermining the President.

Once when I was on The Young Turks, a liberal writer said "If it's such a bad bill, why does Bernie Sanders support it?" I explained that Sanders held out for a long time and only signed on after he was given billions of dollars in additional funding for community health clinics. My answer then (and now) was this: "Bernie Sanders got billions of dollars for clinics in return for supporting this bill. What did you get?"

Tea Partiers instinctively understand that kind of strategy. In exploring the question "Was John Boehner bluffing all along?" Steve Kornacki also illustrates how a movement that places its goals over a political party's success can get results that are disproportionate to the popularity of those goals.

The "XFK" Phenomenon

Then there's something that might be called the "XFK Phenomenon." Progressives of a certain age recall the exciting days when JFK became president (I was six, so the memory's vague) and when RFK energized disillusioned young people and a broad range of other Americans. (I was fourteen then and very political, so I certainly remember that.)

A lot of progressives have been waiting, through decades of gloom and disappointment, for the next Kennedy-esque figure to lead them out of the gloom and rescue a suffering nation. This charismatic figure has no name, face, race, or gender. He or she is an "X" to be filled in with the dreams and yearning of a movement that longs for leadership.

A lot of people thought that Barack Obama might be that "XFK." I'll confess, I eventually came to think so myself. Other people thought it might be Hillary Clinton, or even (odd as the thought seems now) John Edwards.

Isn't it time to let go of that yearning? Activists succeed when they stop following leaders and start acting for themselves. The Tea Party is seen as a leaderless movement. By having no alliance to a party or a politician, it holds a credible veto threat over the Republicans and their leadership. There's something to learn from that.

Whatever your feelings about President Obama, he's not "XFK." XFK never existed, and like Clifford Odets' "Lefty," he ain't comin'. Activism starts at the ground floor, not at the top. While the President may not be today's JFK, much less its FDR, like any politician he's open to persuasion from progressives and the Democratic base. But progressives have to be willing to persuade - as gently or as strongly as the moment demands.

2021 Vision

Say what you will about Rep. Ryan's budget proposal, it's a vision. By proposing to dismantle Medicare for people retiring in 2021 and afterwards, he's laid out a radical alternative to today's policies. By slashing taxes for the wealthy and proposing deregulation for all industries, the Ryan plan envisions a future America: one where the environment is despoiled, the poor go unfed, and the middle class faces a lifetime of financial insecurity following by an old age of sickness and penury.

It may not be a good vision, but it's a vision.

Where's the progressive vision for 2021? Where's the dream people can seize upon and make their own? Where's the ideal that can energize activists? Where's the extreme position from which the Democrats can be "bargained down" so that they, too, can only get 20% more than they asked for when the negotiations began? If they're not going to do it, we have to do it for them.

Here's a start: First increase Social Security retirement benefits by 15%, across the board, by lifting the payroll tax cap and imposing a financial transactions tax. Second, increase income taxes on a sliding scale that goes up to 60% for the highest earners in the country. (It's been as high as 90% during periods of our greatest prosperity.) Third, add $500 billion to our stimulus spending over the next two years, and keep adding it until unemployment is down to 4%. Fourth, immediately add a public option, "Medicare For All" plan that's voluntarily available to Americans of all age brackets.

Have fun. Add your own visions. Dream. Then demand your dream. It's working for the Tea Party, and it can work for you.

One thing's for sure: The old definition of insanity, "doing the same thing and expecting different results," still holds. Whatever the progressive movement's doing right now, it's not working as well as it should. It's frustrating, but it's no reason to give up. Like a guy with a guitar said a century ago: Don't mourn, organize.

THANK you, Eric Boehlert!

Michael Kwiatkowski — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:00:14 -0400

If you haven't read Smirking Chimp writer Eric Boehlert's excellent column regarding the shameless double standard in media coverage of John McCain, now is the time to do it. There are some grammatical errors, but beyond those, the piece does a superb job of pointing out the tepid criticism of just one of the Republican candidate's endless series of lies — compared to its record of pouncing on nearly everything, no matter how innocent, uttered by Democratic candidates as pathological deceptions. Boehlert systematically dismantles the new Lie being promulgated that the media has somehow "turned" on McCain.

Barack Obama does not support the return of the Fairness Doctrine. He should, if for no other reason than it would place some restraints on media goons who play favorites during electoral cycles. Please use the comment feature for ideas on how we can get the Democratic candidate to change his mind.

EDIT: Some jerk at Smirking Chimp thought it would be funny to get the thread I cross-posted there shut down, so I am upset to report that there is no discussion of how to pressure Obama to support the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine allowed there. Please feel free to discuss ideas here, or at my forum. Thank you.

How not to talk to progressives on the campaign trail.

Michael Kwiatkowski — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 09:57:27 -0400

Barack Obama has clinched the Democratic Party's nomination to run for president, and because this is a crucial election year it is only natural for Democrats to try to win over progressives — especially the disaffected variety turned off by your candidate's hard right turns. If you plan to do this, choosing to ignore Obama's strategy of pandering to right-wing and bigot voters who'll never cast ballots for him, good for you. But there are a few tips you'll want to keep in mind as you venture forth.

1.) Whatever you do, don't threaten people with a McCain victory if they don't vote for Obama. For one thing, people don't like to be threatened; for another, if a voter isn't convinced that your candidate will govern any better than McCain, it's a fairly useless thing to do anyway. It's best if you avoid doing this altogether.

2.) Whatever you do, do NOT bash Ralph Nader or any third party candidate. Criticize if you will, but do NOT attack. The reason for this is that true progressives, while partisan in a broader ideological sense, are not so in terms of supporting specific political parties. More often than not, we vote for individual candidates who have the records to back up their rhetoric than we are to vote along party lines. If you must criticize Ralph Nader, focus on this argument: "it takes an organized political party to win power, starting from the ground and working up, and though I respect Ralph I don't think he's going about this the right way." Don't mention ego or stealing Democratic votes (ballots belong to no political party), even if that's what you think, because neither argument is true and it has a tendency to turn people off who might otherwise consider your candidate.

3.) Listen to what people's concerns. Remember, Obama is running as the pseudo-change candidate. Even if true progressives feel compelled to vote for him out of misguided notions of pragmatism, they still care about the issues that matter. Don't brush them off or try to convince them that once Obama is elected they needn't worry, because they have every reason to worry. Don't be condescending; listen to people.

4.) Finally, talk about the issues, know them by heart, and have solid responses to questions — especially those coming from Nader or McKinney supporters. Obama MUST be able to address their concerns. If he can't, and if you can't, you're better off not bothering.

That's pretty much it. If you follow these steps, you might succeed in swaying a few progressives. If not, don't complain when you receive the proverbial cold shoulder.

Why Clinton is going to become the Nader of 2008

Michael Kwiatkowski — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:59:29 -0400

Everyone's talking about Hillary Clinton's win in Pennsylvania yesterday over rival Barack Obama. Ten whole percentage points: may I make whoopee in my pants, now? It's still not enough to help the senator supposedly representing New York catch up to the one supposedly representing Illinois in terms of pledged delegates.

Clinton's broke, trailing her Democratic rival by a small but undeniable margin, and now reduced to threatening to nuke Iran in the event it uses its non-existent nuclear weapons to attack Israel (let me reiterate: Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, a finding held by all sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies—so the fact that Clinton and Obama keep acting as though the opposite is true means neither of them has a fucking clue on anything, and why we're supposed to trust their judgment when they can't even call bullshit on the lies being shat out by the Bush-Cheney regime is beyond my comprehension). Meanwhile, John McCain gets to have the media give him another round of reportorial oral sex for his "decency" in choosing not to run a dirty ad against Obama.

As recently as last month Zogby and other polls were showing the senator pretending to represent Arizona narrowly ahead of either of his Democratic rivals for the dictatorship. The Republican is using the time between now and the general election to win back his party's crazed right-wing base, raise money, and plot out his general election strategy. Do I even need to continue explaining what this all means?

Hillary Clinton wants the presidency so bad she is willing to tear the Democratic Party asunder in order to get it, leaving it too battered and weak to win in November. She absolutely cannot let it go, cannot allow an upstart like Barack Obama to "steal" what she thinks is hers by inheritance. And it sure as hell doesn't help that Obama is too big a pandering, hard-headed phony to be able to seal the deal and win a clear mandate from Democratic voters by embracing the Edwards-Kucinich bloc. No, he'd rather use them and dump them to the curb, and his piss-poor performance at the last debate proved he, too, is running out of steam. Like Clinton, he never expected to have to compete this long for the Democratic nomination, and he is becoming dangerously low on ideas.

So no matter how the remaining primaries play out, this fight is going all the way to the convention in August. All because Hillary Clinton won't let go of the illusion that the presidency is somehow hers. If 2008 accomplishes anything, it may be to finally rid Ralph Nader of the blame (wholly undeserved) for destroying any chance Democrats might have had of winning back the White House this century.

Somebody pass me a brick, so I can throw it at my television set the next time I have news coverage of the campaign on. Oh, wait, I have my steel mace for that. Never mind. At any rate, I'd be really grateful for some ideas for how we might avoid this fiasco—because if we can't, the massive ego of Hillary Clinton is going to rain shit down on all of America.

The Do's and Don'ts of campaigning against Ralph Nader

Michael Kwiatkowski — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:30:08 -0500

Since it's a given that Nader-haters are going to spend a lot of time this year trying to remove him from the presidential race, it helps to bear in mind that there are right ways and wrong ways to do this, and for that reason I'm giving you a "do and don't" list so that you may be successful.

DO: Accentuate the differences between your candidate's positions on the issues, and Nader's.

This one's pretty tough, because it may have the detrimental effect of turning progressive voters off of your candidate. After all, you can't expect most people to just vote against their beliefs -- especially when the reasons you might give for doing so don't stack up. So you'll need to know a bit about the people you're talking to. Since your candidate is a corporate Democrat, a "centrist", you'll want to target self-described "centrist" voters. This can be difficult to do, since the political pendulum is swinging to the left, and has been for some years now. But if you're set on trying to convince people to go with your candidate instead of Ralph Nader, you're going to have to find these voters. They're not many, and their numbers are becoming fewer, but they're out there. It's just a matter of finding them.

Then again, if you insist on trying to falsely portray your candidate as a progressive, you might want to skip this first tactic altogether, since chances are no argument you can make is going to convince people your candidate is more progressive than Nader.

DO: Make sure to do everything in your power, big or small, to force your candidate to run on progressive policy positions.

There IS NO fixed political "center". It shifts as time passes and demographics change. Likewise, extremes of both right and left in politics have a habit of altering the politics of lay voters. Right now the electorate is moving to the political left, because twenty-eight years of Republican misrule in government have shown just how destructive it really is. It serves your candidate no purpose to run to the political right, speaking in complimentary terms of Ronald Reagan or putting out a health care plan that benefits the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. The American people are hungry for real change, and they demand it. That means your candidate must run to the political left. This shall not be an easy task; in fact, it may be an impossible one. But you must try anyway. Because if your candidate manages to squeak by this election and become president, the public absolutely will not abide being let down. And they will punish the Democratic Party for failing to live up to its promise of change.

DO: Everything in your power to help get real progressives elected to public office, especially Congress.

Not even Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton is going to veto a health care bill passed by a Democratic Congress, no matter how good or bad it may actually be. So it is imperative that you do everything in your power to make sure enough progressive Democrats are elected to Congress, and that they sign on to efforts at passing HR 676.

DON'T: Argue that your candidate isn't a Republican.

Because, well, look how "well" that worked out for us in 2004. Yes, people are aware that your candidate isn't a registered Republican. They don't care. Trust me on this. After all, Joe LIEberman is not a registered Republican, and we all know what he really is. The same may be said of DINOs such as Iowa's Leonard Boswell, Maryland's Steny Hoyer, and Illinois' Rahm Emanuel. So trying to justify your candidate by saying he or she is not a Republican isn't going to work. It doesn't mean anything to voters who've lost jobs to NAFTA because of your candidate's continuing support of that trade deal, or to voters who cannot get decent health care because your candidate worked to gut it as a state senator.

I mean, what is the purpose of making this ridiculous argument, anyway? It's like asking people to pick diet soda over regular, "New" Coke over "Classic". More often than not, people shall choose the real deal over some pretender. History bears this out. Yes, Republican politicians are evil bastards. Voters know this, and better than you care to think. But those same voters also know that Republican politicians don't try to hide where they stand. DINOs do. And your candidate is, whether you want to admit it or not, a DINO. You're better off not making the "he (or she) isn't John McCain" argument.

DO: Point out Ralph Nader's ethical lapses in campaigning.

This is very likely the best argument you can make when trying to convince voters not to support Ralph Nader. Why? Because there is pretty strong circumstantial evidence that, in spite of his claims that the two party system is corrupt, he is nevertheless willing to take money from one of the two political parties he regularly criticizes.

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

See, Democrats aren't the only ones who lie to themselves about how big an impact Ralph Nader has on electoral outcomes. Republicans appear to buy into it, too. Or perhaps they don't, and are simply exploiting this unreasonable and factually challenged notion in hopes that they can get Democrats to waste time, energy and money trying to keep Nader off the ballot (as opposed to campaigning for their candidate). Either way, Ralph appears to be accepting assistance from Republicans.

Maybe he thinks, in a jaded and cynical sort of way, that if the Democratic Party insists on waging war against him he might as well fight back and stick it to them by taking Republican money and support. I don't know. What I do know is that if you're going to campaign on the argument that the two-party system is hopelessly corrupt, taking money and support from one political body does seem hypocritical. So Nader does have a weakness, and this is it: the lapse in ethical judgment.

DON'T: Threaten voters with four more years of Republican misrule.

For one thing, most reasonable people don't believe this; they see it for the hogwash it is. For another thing, they wouldn't care if they did believe it, because most people don't like to be threatened and have a nasty tendency to respond negatively. So whatever you do, don't threaten voters with another Bush term if they cast their ballots for Ralph Nader. It won't work, and in fact is likely to have the opposite effect. Remember, too, that people subscribed to this argument in 2004 and they plainly saw that it turned out to be a losing strategy -- Nader received far fewer votes that year than he did in 2000. So few, in fact, that any perceived impact upon it was negligible. And John Kerry still lost, because he was a weak candidate who ran a weak campaign. Threatening more Republican rule if voters don't cast ballots for your candidate is a losing strategy.

DON'T: Waste time, effort, or money trying to keep Ralph Nader off state ballots.

This only serves to confirm to many voters that the Democratic Party really isn't fundamentally different than the GOP. It is a proven fact that the Republicans have cheated their way into the White House, and are likely to do so again this year, because they denied voters the right to cast ballots and because they removed (or tried to remove) candidates from state ballots. In Ohio in 2006, the GOP tried unsuccessfully to remove Democrat Jennifer Brady from the state house district 16 race. Why should Democrats emulate that sort of bullshit behavior? The Texas party eliminated Dennis Kucinich from its primary ballot for refusing to sign a Republican-style loyalty oath, for crying out loud! When you engage in that kind of behavior, you really are proving Nader's point. And you do NOT want to do that.

It is also time, energy, and money, that is far better spent simply trying to sell your candidate to the public. If you choose to waste it trying to engage in GOP-style efforts to keep Nader off the ballot, you have less time to make convincing arguments for your candidate.

Okay then, those are some sage words of advice for those of you who insist on trying to run your candidate for president by going after Ralph Nader. Later this week: "Do and Don't" lists for Clinton and Obama.

And so it begins -- AGAIN.

Michael Kwiatkowski — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:59:15 -0500

And so it begins -- AGAIN. The irrational hatred of, and attacks upon, Ralph Nader. And all for the "crime" of (Gasp!) exercising his Constitutional right to run for president. And you just know it's going to happen: the same irrational attempts by Democrats to keep him off the ballot in 2008 as in 2004, wasting precious time and energy that would have been far better spent simply promoting their party's nominee -- with the same result as last time, too: turning potential voters away from the Democratic Party in a year in which we need as many as we can get.

I don't know how many times it needs to be stated before it sinks in. Ralph Nader did not cost Al Gore the 2000 election. George W. Bush, Jeb Bush, John Ellis (a Bush cousin), Fox Noise Channel, Database Technologies (now ChoicePoint DBT), the Supreme (Kangaroo) Court, and -- much as you hate to admit it, even though the man himself does -- Al Gore...all these people cost our last legitimately elected vice president the 2000 presidential election.

They had help, of course, from Bill Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress in 1998. Clinton, for being dumb and selfish enough to cheat on his wife and lie about it under oath, and the Congress for pursuing a political witch-hunt that culminated in railroading a sitting president into committing perjury in a case that had nothing to do with his extramarital affairs. The scandals, be they exaggerated or fabricated, sufficiently weakened the president and created a mentality in which his legitimate successor felt obligated to distance himself on the campaign trail two years later.

All these things combined to nourish the conditions required for the shrub and his campaign to steal the presidency. And they received absolutely no assistance from Ralph Nader. Yet far too many Democrats insist on blaming him anyway. Why?

According to this web site, the official tally of Florida ballots handed Bush the White House by a margin of 543 votes. Nader, who ran that year on the Green Party ticket, received 97,488 votes. Embittered Democrats, unwilling to accept that had their candidate won his own home state of Tennessee, he would have gotten sworn in as president despite the election theft in Florida, figured that Nader had somehow stolen votes that rightly belonged to the Democratic Party.

It's a stupid example of excuse-making, for the following reasons:

1.) Even if those 97,488 had a significant impact upon the outcome of the 2,000 general election (then-Florida state secretary and head of the Florida Bush-Cheney campaign Katherine Harris, with a fraudulent list of "ex-felons" supplied by Database Technologies, purged between 58,000 and 90,000 legally registered voters -- mostly Blacks, Hispanic, and Democratic -- from the rolls, depending on whose numbers you go with), there is no credible reason to believe all or most of those voters really would have cast ballots for Gore had Nader not been running. Less than half, according to CBS, would have voted for Gore; but at least thirty percent said they wouldn't have voted at all. That leaves roughly fifty percent who would have cast ballots for someone other than Gore, had Nader not been on the ballot. Which kind of lessens the impact of Nader-voters on the 2000 election, considering the next two points.

2.) Registered Democrats in Florida who either stayed home and didn't vote in Florida, or cast their ballots for Bush. Why does no one attack them?

3.) There were other political parties with candidates on the Florida ballot in 2000, and could just as easily be blamed for costing Al Gore the election as Nader. And yet, no one blames the Libertarian Party's Harry Browne for costing Gore the election. Nor, as Allison Kilkenny points out, do GOPers obsessively blame Pat Buchanan for siphoning votes away from the shrub. Maybe that's because the Republican candidate, as KilKenny observes, squeaked to "victory", so if Bush had failed to steal the White House it might very well be Buchanan and not Ralph Nader being attacked at every turn. But then, Nader keeps on running for president, while Buchanan has been content to spew his idiotic venom on MSNBC, so who knows. Anyway, I'm getting away from myself. The tally of Independent political party votes in Florida 2000, other than Green Party ballots, breaks down thusly:

Reform -- 17,484

Libertarian -- 16,415

Natural Law -- 2,281

Workers World -- 1,804

Constitution -- 1,371

Socialist -- 622

Socialist Workers -- 562

Write-in -- 40

That is a total of 40,579 voters who cast ballots for someone other than Al Gore. Yet who among the candidates in those other political parties receives the hate and scorn heaped upon Ralph Nader? Not even one.

How many times does it need to be stated? Nader did not "steal" votes from Al Gore; the vice president simply didn't make a strong enough case for why voters should have cast their ballots for him, and that allowed Team Bush to steal the election. This is FACT. But far too many Democrats keep refusing to accept the truth. Most people, when losing an election, take a few minutes (or years) to reflect upon what they did wrong so that they don't repeat those mistakes the next time around. As evil and destructive as they are, the Republicans managed to do this following the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections. They focused their efforts on winning and keeping the Congress, and by 2000 had successfully united their party enough to squeak their guy in. So in spite of their losses in the presidential elections, the Republican Party did learn from its previous electoral mistakes.

But not Democrats, especially not the top-tier ones, who -- unfathomably -- still cling to the notion that somehow they are entitled to votes in spite of all evidence that they haven't earned those ballots at all.

There may be a valid campaign strategy to put up against Ralph Nader. His positions on policy, for example, but if you consider yourself Progressive you may want to avoid making this the hallmark of a campaign for the Democratic nominee. Instead, Democrats should try to focus on how and why their candidate can implement the Progressive policies Nader champions. This, however, requires that the Democratic nominee actually run on Progressive policy positions, so be sure to do everything in your power to make your candidate do just that.

Don't try to sell your candidate as the lesser of two evils. It's not enough to say that your candidate is not a Republican; that only states a technical fact, it doesn't explain why your candidate is better. Example: Joe LIEberman. Have you got my point, now? Given the choice between 'New' and 'Classic' coke, people will pick the real thing every time. And whatever you do, don't condemn people for not supporting your presidential candidate, or try to threaten them with four more years of Republican misrule if they don't. That's the surest way to turn voters off. Even if you can't convince voters to back your presidential candidate, you still might sway them on voting for Progressive Democrats in U.S. Congressional or state-level races, so it does you no good to alienate voters with attacks on them for not liking your guy (or gal, if you're a Clinton supporter and she wins the nomination).

The point is to cease making Ralph Nader the source of your anger and blame for the 2000 disaster, and above all, to move on. Continually harping on the man serves no purpose other than to confirm what he and those who agree with him have already concluded: that the Democratic Party is, fundamentally, no different than the GOP -- at least in terms of electoral, political, and ethical behavior. And that really needs to stop. If not, then don't go whining and placing blame on Ralph Nader when the Democrats lose again in November.