The worst part is, I *can* believe he's doing it again

[jducoeur]

So there we were, sitting around this morning as Meet the Press came on. The guest was Ralph Nader, and the opening question was basically, "So -- are you running?" And he said, "Let me set the stage for the answer..." and began rattling off how many people in the country are independents, and desperately opposed to the big two parties.

I could feel my blood pressure rising as soon as he opened his mouth, and simply flipped the channel. He's not nearly as subtle as he thinks he is, and I'm not nearly as ecstatic as he clearly believes I should be. Once, he could make a reasonable claim at being a new and different voice. Now, though, I see him as just as ego-driven as any politician. And worse: unlike most of them, he doesn't seem to know it. He's simply the spoiler on an ego trip again, and I have lost whatever respect I might have once had for him...

ETA: I rather like dryfoo's usage of "nadered" as a verb...

Comments

[dlevey.livejournal.com]

Personally, I think he has misspelled his name. Shouldn't it be "Nadir"?

[talvinamarich.livejournal.com]

"He seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work." -- Barack Obama on Nader.

[evil-macaroni.livejournal.com]

Fuller quote via the Stranger:

"You know, he had called me and I think reached out to my campaign — my sense is is that Mr. Nader is somebody who, if you don’t listen and adopt all of his policies, thinks you’re not substantive. He seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work. Now — and by the way, I have to say that, historically, he is a singular figure in American politics and has done as much as just about anybody on behalf of consumers. So in many ways he is a heroic figure and I don’t mean to diminish him. But I do think there is a sense now that if somebody is not hewing to the Ralph Nader agenda, then you must be lacking in some way."

[metageek.livejournal.com]

Heh. :-) The thing is, I still have a high opinion of the work he did way back when. The notion that, once upon a time, cars were made without seatbelts still floors me. But, yeah, these days he doesn't seem to have any redeeming value left.

I'm older than you, obviously

[lauradi7.livejournal.com]

I remember my parents having seat belts custom installed into my mother's car. It was a novelty to have two cars in a family to begin with, and I guess as hers became the driving kids to piano lessons car, they felt it was worth the cost to have the seat belts put in. (And they were *seat* belts. It was a long time before shoulder harnesses turned up).

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

I'm not voting for him.

I was quite amazed at the vitriol that his last attempt engendered in the national media; people entirely lost their rationality over a man doing something completely legal.

[rufinia.livejournal.com]

Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

If so, the law should be changed.

[jducoeur]

Do you seriously believe that? Do you actually think that everything that is not unambiguously right should be illegal? I'm really having trouble taking your comment as saying anything else, but I think it's nonsensical.

Or to put it another way: I believe that Nader running for President is foolish, egomaniacal and destructive. But I will defend to the death his right to do so anyway...

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

Me? No, I don't. Did you notice that "if" in there?

*IF* someone thinks it's really wrong, then that person should do what they can to get the law changed; doing anything else is irresponsible for them. However, I can't think of any way to write law prohibiting the sort of thing Nader is doing. But considering the level of vitriol I saw last time, surely there are some who would really like to outlaw third parties, or late candidacy, or something.

But I will defend to the death his right to do so anyway...
We are in agreement.

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

"*IF* someone thinks it's really wrong, then that person should do what they can to get the law changed; doing anything else is irresponsible for them."

I still don't get this. There's lots of room between 'really wrong' and 'should be illegal'. It's not inconsistent to call something wrong while still believing it should be allowed.

Just to take one cogent example, I agree that Nader running is 'really wrong'. On the other hand, outlawing third parties would make the current problems worse, not better; the "biparty system" is a big part of what's wrong with American politics.

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

It's not inconsistent to call something wrong while still believing it should be allowed.

True. I think perhaps you and I have run into different types of people who say things are wrong -- most of the ones that come to my mind are the sort who really do think wrong things should be illegal as well.

[jducoeur]

The minor point first:

But considering the level of vitriol I saw last time, surely there are some who would really like to outlaw third parties, or late candidacy, or something.

Strawman point, I think. I've never seen this idea advanced -- not once -- and I've been following politics reasonably closely for about 20 years now. It's possible that someone, somewhere thinks this, but I don't think most of the people pouring vitriol on Nader do.

But onto the main point:

Did you notice that "if" in there?

Yes, I understand that you're talking a hypothetical. I'm disagreeing with that hypothetical, in the strongest terms. Specifically, I disagree with this statement very strongly:

*IF* someone thinks it's really wrong, then that person should do what they can to get the law changed; doing anything else is irresponsible for them.

Absolutely incorrect, as far as I'm concerned. That isn't what law is *for*. Indeed, this sort of thinking is the source of much of the bad law that's out there.

Law, when properly applied, largely *isn't* about "right" and "wrong" -- that is, morality and ethics. It *can't* be, because there broadly isn't clear societal consensus about those areas. And really, as you say here:

However, I can't think of any way to write law prohibiting the sort of thing Nader is doing.

most of them can't be written into good law.

Good laws are about fostering and preserving civil society. That often overlaps with matters of morality and ethics, but differs in that good law is necessarily *practical* in nature. It's all about the sorts of outcomes that we want to foster.

The Nader thing is a fine illustration of this point. I am absolutely *disgusted* by Nader at the moment: I think that his narcissism is going to do nothing but harm, and I believe that he is *wrong* on many levels. But as a broader point, it's vitally important that this sort of "wrong" be permitted, because there is no practical way to distinguish between this instance and one where it is crucial that an acceptable third party step forward to change the terms of engagement in the usual American policial duopoly. So from a *legal* standpoint, this must be legal, despite this case being deeply wrong from an *ethical* standpoint.

We commit a thousand wrongs every day: petty cruelties and injustices to our fellow man. All of these are unethical; depending on your system, many are usually immoral. But most of them are and should be *legal*, because that's not what law is for. Attempts to make such things illegal usually cause more problems than they solve, precisely because the law cannot admit as much nuance as ethics can, and right vs. wrong is all about nuance. You don't deal with ethical problems by law; you deal with them by education and example. Too often, that point is forgotten, on both the small scale and the large...

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

I had meant to write last night, that I was stepping back from this argument, because I was unable to formulate my responses well, even to my own satisfaction. I apologize for not doing that sooner, and sparing you the writing of your note.

[jducoeur]

'Tsalright. It was an interesting topic to muse on, if nothing else. (And gave me something to mentally compose while I was sitting in the dentist's chair this morning...)

[serakit.livejournal.com]

The thing with Nader is that he really is unelectable, but he takes away people who might otherwise swing the election in a close year.

[jducoeur]

Yep -- that's part of why it makes my blood boil a bit to see him being so selfish again. The indications I've seen indicate that, if it wasn't for his minuscule but crucial effect in 2000, we might have been saved the depredations of 8 years of Dubya...

[herooftheage.livejournal.com]

The problem with the idea that Nader spoiled the election is that everyone knew he was in it in sufficient time to strategize. While it's very tempting to say that Nader's 90,000+ votes would have put Gore over the top in Florida, that ignores all the other ways the eigenstate could have collapsed, as it were, focussing on the one you'd have liked to have happened. Whatever else the Republicans are or aren't, they've been pretty competent at election politics in the recent the last 30 years or so. An election without Nader in it might have caused a different strategy to be used by the Republicans, to who knows what effect. They certainly had the money for it - I remember in the last election, both candidates left on the order of $75M+ unspent on the table (in Kerry's case, that was just sinful.) I don't know what the case was in 2000, but I'd guess there was money to be spent, if one side thought more spending was needed.

It isn't even clear-cut that Nader didn't help the Dems out. Remember that the Dems were all worried about Nader's spoiler effect during the 2000 campaign - that's the sort of thing that might have gotten Democrats off their butts and into the ballot boxes to make sure Nader didn't ruin things for them. I just looked it up - over 1,000,000 more people voted in the 2000 Florida election than voted in 1996. Something galvanized them - though of course it galvanized both sides. Who's to say that without Nader's worrisome effect that Jeb wouldn't have easily delivered the state to the Republicans?

He's a fact of life on the American political scene, much like William Jennings Bryan was, back at the start of the 20th century. Both parties simply need to take what steps they can to cope with the problem.

[jducoeur]

Granted, there is no such thing as certainty in such matters. Still, my take on the odds both before and since are that he probably caused damage. I didn't see any indication at the time that he affected Republican strategy notably, save to make them feel slightly less insecure about their chances. And I saw no indications that his presence caused any *more* Democrats to get out and vote. I'm under no illusions that all, or even most of the people who voted for him would have broken for Kerry. But I believe *some* would have, and virtually none would have gone for Bush; in such a preposterously tight election, that matters.

And the fact that there was sufficient lead time for strategy isn't necessarily telling: that's assuming there's anything that strategy could really *do* about it. In this particular case, it isn't clear to me that there was. Going negative on Nader would probably have backfired, by granting him more attention and legitimacy as a candidate, and dirtying Kerry's image. Similarly, changing direction to match him probably would have legitimized him more, as well as losing votes from the center.

(Of course, to be fair, Buchanan had much the same effect on the right. But it's hard for me to get as annoyed with him, given that he didn't hurt *my* side of the argument.)

I'm not saying that he *definitely* made the difference. All I have to go on is my admittedly uncertain instinct and analysis, based on what I do know. But both of those lead me to *suspect*, pretty strongly, that his influence was a negative one. Allowing the inherent uncertainty to prevent me from making future decisions is too close to analysis-paralysis for my taste -- at some point, I have to say that I understand things well enough to form a reasonably informed opinion.

Both parties simply need to take what steps they can to cope with the problem.

Oh, absolutely. But that doesn't stop me from being annoyed at him for *being* the problem. (Fortunately, I suspect that he's going to be a lot *less* of a problem this time around, especially if Obama gets nominated. I suspect Nader will be utterly marginalized in that case...)

[herooftheage.livejournal.com]

I hadn't been thinking of the 2004 election so much as the 2000 one, which I think Nader's largest effects, if any, were. I have a hard time blaming Nader for Bush when Gore somehow failed to carry his home state of Tennessee, which would have been enough for him to win the election. That fact alone makes the Nader bashing sound like sour grapes to me.

And the fact that there was sufficient lead time for strategy isn't necessarily telling: that's assuming there's anything that strategy could really *do* about it.

Well, there's always things like allocating more candidate time and funds in an area where you think Nader might hurt you. As I mentioned above, Kerry left a lot of money lying on the table, presumably for court fights if he won narrowly, since he didn't try for any in his losing cause.

[jducoeur]

I hadn't been thinking of the 2004 election so much as the 2000 one

*Blink*. You are, of course, correct -- I'm mixing up my Democratic candidacies, and meant Gore, not Kerry. Not sure if it's work, lack of sleep, or some combination of both that seems to be hosing my associative memory.

As for the sour grapes, that's not quite it. It's more a matter of political philosophy. To me, politics are necessarily a very practical exercise in trying to cause the best outcome; that leads me to be somewhat impatient with what I see as quixotic exercises, especially when they appear to me to be fine examples of making the best the enemy of the good. (That is, opposing someone who is pretty *close* to your position in a way that is likeliest to mainly help those who are much, much further away.) Doing that once I am willing to forgive as a mistake; doing it repeatedly I have little sympathy for...

[its-just-me.livejournal.com]

I'm just appauled.