At The Progressive, we are more sympathetic than most to third party efforts and Independent candidacies. It's a tradition here. After all, this magazine was founded by Robert La Follette, who ran for President as a Progressive in 1924, and we supported the Progressive Party in the 1930s. In 1948, we endorsed Norman Thomas for President. In 1980, we gave a fair hearing to Barry Commoner and his Citizens' Party. And in 2000, we did the same for Ralph Nader and the Greens.
We also understand the historic role that challenges to the two party system have played in raising crucial causes that major parties eventually adopt: from abolition of slavery to the eight-hour day, from unemployment insurance to Social Security. We embrace the fundamentally democratic goals of the Greens and others to improve upon our outmoded method of electing officials and to bring about instant runoff voting or a system of proportional representation. And we recognize the need to take on the two party system today and to break free from the corporate paymasters that underwrite both parties. ("Nearly half of Kerry's biggest financial supporters contributed more money to Bush than to Kerry himself through January 30," notes the Center for Responsive Politics.)
But this season, we look upon Nader's run for President with profound misgivings.
The rationales for Nader's candidacy last time around simply do not stand up today.
He was running, he said then, to help construct a durable third party, the Greens. But he kissed the Greens goodbye in a December 22 letter that was remarkable for its scolding tone. Nader criticized "the maturity of the Greens as a political party" because it wasn't sure of the wisdom of running any Presidential candidate in the face of the Bush onslaught. He blamed the Greens for having "an uncertain compass regarding what should be a bedrock, genetic determination to run Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates all out--which is what, after all, national political parties--as opposed to movements--do."
Last time, Nader had not only the Green Party but a semblance of a mass movement behind him: He was the candidate of Seattle, he was the embodiment of the anti-corporate spirit that infused the efforts to block NAFTA and the World Trade Organization and motivated those in the living wage and anti-sweatshop campaigns.
This time, however, that mass movement has not, in any meaningful way, expressed support for his effort. If anything, progressive activists were begging him not to run, and he refused to listen.
"It was one thing for Nader to run as a Green with the explicit support of all kinds of progressive organizations," as Michael Albert of Z magazine wrote. "That was a reasonably democratic process at work. It is another thing for Nader to anoint himself to run."
By going it alone, Nader abandons the work of building an institution, which is especially odd for him, since he views himself as the Johnny Appleseed of citizen groups. This time, he risks appearing individualistic.
In 2000, Nader also said he was running because at some point the Democrats needed to be taught a lesson that they could no longer take progressives for granted and could no longer continue to lurch rightward. But he made that statement in spades in 2000, and, to a large extent, the Democrats heard it.
In a sense, Ralph Nader won the 2004 Democratic primaries because his message prevailed, as one candidate after another picked up planks of his platform or pasted in snippets of his speeches.
As Al Sharpton said in a CNN debate, "Many of us have said what Nader said in 2000. . . . There's nothing that I know of that Nader is saying that Kucinich and I are not saying in the primaries. So what does he need to say it in November for?"
Finally, Nader said he was running, back then, because the differences between the two parties were negligible on most issues. After three years of one of the most reactionary governments in the history of the country, this claim is harder to sustain today. Bush has been disastrous on the environment, on gay rights, on abortion rights, on labor issues (oops, there goes overtime!), and on tax policy. Perhaps some, if not all, of this was predictable at the time. By contrast, Bush's messianic militarism, his imperial unilateralism, and his assault not only on the Bill of Rights but also on the Magna Carta were more difficult to anticipate.
To some extent, Nader seems like a Rip Van Winkle who has slept through these harrowing years of Bush. When he announced on Meet the Press this February that he was running for President again, Nader said that the two parties are "converging more and more, where the towering similarities dwarf the dwindling real differences that the Democrats are willing to fight over."
We are under no illusion that the Democratic Party represents the be-all and end-all of electoral politics. But the rationales of 2000 cannot simply be reheated four years later.
Bush has a disdain for democracy at home that is unparalleled, except by Nixon in his most paranoid phase. And Bush's reckless, lawless foreign policy, undeterred by the United Nations and with no other great power in his way, places a global obligation on the shoulders of U.S. citizens.
For some of these reasons, even Noam Chomsky says vote Democratic, as does Jim Hightower, who says, "We've got to stop the pain."
We spoke to Nader on March 4 to get his side of the story. He told us he, too, believes there is an imperative to defeat Bush. "That's the key," he said, asking: "Who wants to retire Bush more than I?"
So why then is he running?
"I don't have the confidence that the Democrats know how to beat him," he said. He promised to "open a second front," raising issues that the Democrats are "not willing, too cautious, or too indentured" to discuss. He vowed "to keep the progressive agenda front and center," and he said he would "get more votes out, organize young people, and help citizen groups."
On the crucial point about whether his run would be helping Bush, Nader insisted, "I'm not taking votes away from the Democrats." He said he expected to get only 10 percent of his votes from people who would otherwise vote for Kerry. Instead, Nader said he is appealing to young people and those he calls "authentic conservatives," who are upset at Bush because of the deficit, the WTO, NAFTA, the Patriot Act, corporate welfare, and big government.
"If you want to vote for Kerry, vote for Kerry," he said. "But don't tell people they can't vote for me."
Nader also contended that "Kerry will be a better candidate if I keep tugging at him." Left to his own devices, Kerry would return to the center and abandon the progressive base, which he needs to win, said Nader.
In conclusion, he said, "Don't automatically assume there's a zero sum game. Have an open mind."
We have an open mind, but we don't find Nader's arguments compelling. He may be able to attack Bush with more vigor than Kerry on corporate issues, but it is unclear to us why that would make more people vote for the Democrat as opposed to Nader himself. We agree that many progressives who went for Nader last time will vote Democratic this time, but in the 2000 election, Nader drew almost twice as many Democrats as Republicans. And the harder he hits Bush from the left, the more difficult it will be for him to attract Republicans. (There is something peculiar about running as a progressive to get not progressive votes but those of Republicans and Independents.)
Nader has occasionally seemed almost blasé about the risk of helping Bush. "Relax and rejoice," he told his critics the day after announcing. "This candidacy is not going to get many Democratic Party votes." But a few could make a big difference. A Washington Post-ABC poll in March had Nader at 3 percent, with almost all of his votes coming from Kerry.
For most people who look in horror at Bush and Cheney and Ashcroft and Rumsfeld and Rove, relaxing is the last thing they want to do.
They want to stop the pain.
We also understand the historic role that challenges to the two party system have played in raising crucial causes that major parties eventually adopt: from abolition of slavery to the eight-hour day, from unemployment insurance to Social Security. We embrace the fundamentally democratic goals of the Greens and others to improve upon our outmoded method of electing officials and to bring about instant runoff voting or a system of proportional representation. And we recognize the need to take on the two party system today and to break free from the corporate paymasters that underwrite both parties. ("Nearly half of Kerry's biggest financial supporters contributed more money to Bush than to Kerry himself through January 30," notes the Center for Responsive Politics.)
But this season, we look upon Nader's run for President with profound misgivings.
The rationales for Nader's candidacy last time around simply do not stand up today.
He was running, he said then, to help construct a durable third party, the Greens. But he kissed the Greens goodbye in a December 22 letter that was remarkable for its scolding tone. Nader criticized "the maturity of the Greens as a political party" because it wasn't sure of the wisdom of running any Presidential candidate in the face of the Bush onslaught. He blamed the Greens for having "an uncertain compass regarding what should be a bedrock, genetic determination to run Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates all out--which is what, after all, national political parties--as opposed to movements--do."
Last time, Nader had not only the Green Party but a semblance of a mass movement behind him: He was the candidate of Seattle, he was the embodiment of the anti-corporate spirit that infused the efforts to block NAFTA and the World Trade Organization and motivated those in the living wage and anti-sweatshop campaigns.
This time, however, that mass movement has not, in any meaningful way, expressed support for his effort. If anything, progressive activists were begging him not to run, and he refused to listen.
"It was one thing for Nader to run as a Green with the explicit support of all kinds of progressive organizations," as Michael Albert of Z magazine wrote. "That was a reasonably democratic process at work. It is another thing for Nader to anoint himself to run."
By going it alone, Nader abandons the work of building an institution, which is especially odd for him, since he views himself as the Johnny Appleseed of citizen groups. This time, he risks appearing individualistic.
In 2000, Nader also said he was running because at some point the Democrats needed to be taught a lesson that they could no longer take progressives for granted and could no longer continue to lurch rightward. But he made that statement in spades in 2000, and, to a large extent, the Democrats heard it.
In a sense, Ralph Nader won the 2004 Democratic primaries because his message prevailed, as one candidate after another picked up planks of his platform or pasted in snippets of his speeches.
As Al Sharpton said in a CNN debate, "Many of us have said what Nader said in 2000. . . . There's nothing that I know of that Nader is saying that Kucinich and I are not saying in the primaries. So what does he need to say it in November for?"
Finally, Nader said he was running, back then, because the differences between the two parties were negligible on most issues. After three years of one of the most reactionary governments in the history of the country, this claim is harder to sustain today. Bush has been disastrous on the environment, on gay rights, on abortion rights, on labor issues (oops, there goes overtime!), and on tax policy. Perhaps some, if not all, of this was predictable at the time. By contrast, Bush's messianic militarism, his imperial unilateralism, and his assault not only on the Bill of Rights but also on the Magna Carta were more difficult to anticipate.
To some extent, Nader seems like a Rip Van Winkle who has slept through these harrowing years of Bush. When he announced on Meet the Press this February that he was running for President again, Nader said that the two parties are "converging more and more, where the towering similarities dwarf the dwindling real differences that the Democrats are willing to fight over."
We are under no illusion that the Democratic Party represents the be-all and end-all of electoral politics. But the rationales of 2000 cannot simply be reheated four years later.
Bush has a disdain for democracy at home that is unparalleled, except by Nixon in his most paranoid phase. And Bush's reckless, lawless foreign policy, undeterred by the United Nations and with no other great power in his way, places a global obligation on the shoulders of U.S. citizens.
For some of these reasons, even Noam Chomsky says vote Democratic, as does Jim Hightower, who says, "We've got to stop the pain."
We spoke to Nader on March 4 to get his side of the story. He told us he, too, believes there is an imperative to defeat Bush. "That's the key," he said, asking: "Who wants to retire Bush more than I?"
So why then is he running?
"I don't have the confidence that the Democrats know how to beat him," he said. He promised to "open a second front," raising issues that the Democrats are "not willing, too cautious, or too indentured" to discuss. He vowed "to keep the progressive agenda front and center," and he said he would "get more votes out, organize young people, and help citizen groups."
On the crucial point about whether his run would be helping Bush, Nader insisted, "I'm not taking votes away from the Democrats." He said he expected to get only 10 percent of his votes from people who would otherwise vote for Kerry. Instead, Nader said he is appealing to young people and those he calls "authentic conservatives," who are upset at Bush because of the deficit, the WTO, NAFTA, the Patriot Act, corporate welfare, and big government.
"If you want to vote for Kerry, vote for Kerry," he said. "But don't tell people they can't vote for me."
Nader also contended that "Kerry will be a better candidate if I keep tugging at him." Left to his own devices, Kerry would return to the center and abandon the progressive base, which he needs to win, said Nader.
In conclusion, he said, "Don't automatically assume there's a zero sum game. Have an open mind."
We have an open mind, but we don't find Nader's arguments compelling. He may be able to attack Bush with more vigor than Kerry on corporate issues, but it is unclear to us why that would make more people vote for the Democrat as opposed to Nader himself. We agree that many progressives who went for Nader last time will vote Democratic this time, but in the 2000 election, Nader drew almost twice as many Democrats as Republicans. And the harder he hits Bush from the left, the more difficult it will be for him to attract Republicans. (There is something peculiar about running as a progressive to get not progressive votes but those of Republicans and Independents.)
Nader has occasionally seemed almost blasé about the risk of helping Bush. "Relax and rejoice," he told his critics the day after announcing. "This candidacy is not going to get many Democratic Party votes." But a few could make a big difference. A Washington Post-ABC poll in March had Nader at 3 percent, with almost all of his votes coming from Kerry.
For most people who look in horror at Bush and Cheney and Ashcroft and Rumsfeld and Rove, relaxing is the last thing they want to do.
They want to stop the pain.
Election Day '09 was a roller-coaster for election reformers. Instant runoff voting had a great night in Minnesota, where St. Paul voters chose to implement IRV for its city elections, and Minneapolis voters used IRV for the first time—with local media touting it as a big success. As the Star-Tribune noted in endorsing IRV for St. Paul, Tuesday’s elections give the Twin Cities a chance to show the whole state of Minnesota the benefits of adopting IRV. There were disappointments in Lowell and Pierce County too, but high-profile multi-candidate races in New Jersey and New York keep policymakers focused on ways to reform elections; the Baltimore Sun and Miami Herald were among many newspapers publishing commentary from FairVote board member and former presidential candidate John Anderson on how IRV can mitigate the problems of plurality elections.