Okay, Kristin Prevallet's poetry kicks genuine ass. And I'm enjoying her new blog, Letters from Citizen Kay. But, damn god it, here we go again with the Nader thing. Kay has no problem with Republicans "mocking idealistic liberals" who want Nader on the ballot, and she proves it by joining in. But supporting Nader's campaign is not idealistic. In fact, it implies an understanding of the reality of political reform. Namely, that it will not happen without one of the two parties reluctantly greasing the wheel of change. The best way to bring a party, okay the Democrats, into that position is through a prolonged, systematized disorganization of the senses. Failing that, the only way to push the Dems to the point where they incrementally pass legislation that dismantles the two-party power structure is through a constant, threatening pressure. What is being threatened? Political victory. The very thing that Kay mocks the Republicans for focusing on because it treats politics as a "game to win." Who's idealistic?* Besides, winner-take-all elections guarantee a politics where gamesmanship is foregrounded. Third-party power is the means to better representation, to true representation period.
What's even more idealistic is Kay's "this day is not now" argument, which looks to some idyllic future where a progressive third party can run a strong campaign and not draw votes from the Dems. I'll admit arguments that say "This is not the way," but let's have no more "This is not the time" nonsense: it's just a cop out. Progressive-minded Dems and independents need to stand strongly behind Ralph Nader, speak out in favor of Ralph Nader, write to John Kerry and tell him you will be voting for Ralph Nader and against the racist, classist, homophobic, patriarchal system which winner-take-all elections perpetuate. Then, in November, vote for Kerry and send Dubya packing.
* Actually, Kay seems to be aware of her flip-flop into role of idealist—"Oh Republicans, where are your ideals"—but gum it all, I'm trying to make a quick point here.
Showing posts with label ralph nader. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ralph nader. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
Saturday, July 31, 2004
Alter It, Man
I admire Eric Alterman's political writing, respect his opinions, and look forward to his biweekly column in The Nation almost as much as I look forward to the alternating column of Katha Pollitt (whose politics, happily, are as progressive as her poetics are moderate). But I've grown tired of Alterman's ad hominem* filled arguments against Ralph Nader's candidacy.
In the latest Nation, Alterman refers to "Republican stooge Ralph Nader and his misguided supporters," in what essentially is a throw-away sentence that wouldn't be in the column if he weren't hellbent on getting a dig in. Now, I don't intend to vote for Nader this time, because I'd like to see Kerry beat Bush by as wide a margin as possible. Nonetheless, I support Nader's candidacy, and even see it as necessary. I don't think progressives in swing states would best be served by voting for him, but that's up to them.
(Actually, what I'd really like to see is a Wayne's World-like "Scooby Doo" ending where Kerry wins the election but then pulls off a mask and turns out to be . . . Dennis Kucinich, and everyone laughs as Edwards says "Ah shucks, Dennis," and Congress is cool with it, and the Supreme Court is cool with it, and Dubya-n-Cheney are charged with war profiteering, and al Qaeda disbands, and third-world slavery and first-world serfdom are finally abolished, and borders cease to exist, and above us only sky . . .)
Bush's unrelenting, far-right attack on the environment and his arrogant and negligent foreign policy (unnecessary war in Iraq, outright dippiness regarding North Korea) are enough to justify a vote for Kerry. But then how can I claim Nader's candidacy is also necessary? Part of the answer is hinted at in Alterman's own column when he bemoans "the Democrats' weakness in Congress." The Democrats are weak because they've been pandering to the so-called center for way too long. Most supported NAFTA; most accepted The Patriot Act without so much as a chirp; most refuse to stand up for relationship rights, reproductive rights, or even workers' rights; most could not rise to the challenge of the Enron scandal because they themselves had taken Enron money; most were quiet as Bush passed on the Kyoto accord, passed on the biological warfare treaty, passed on the International Criminal Court (lest we have no Guantánamo Bay); most have raised no voice against the increasing presence of religion in policy-making, as with stem-cell research and "the morning after pill"; ALL stood by silently as Tom Ridge was rewarded a new, couchy position, when he should have been booted for civil rites violations in his treatment of protesters before the 2000 Republican convention (The Nation reported on this story in the first year after it happened, but it's never made it to the mainstream media); the beatdown goes on and on.
The underlying problem of all these issues, the complicity of the Democrats, can only be truly resolved by dismantling our two-Party duopoly. America's antiquated republican-model democracy is failing, has failed. Regime change? Better a paradigm change. Only by running a national campaign which threatens a Party that needs to win, and whose long-term health may be at stake, is there even a remote chance for this issue getting the attention it deserves. Our government is not adequately representative. If it were, there's a good chance we wouldn't be saddled with those first two urgent problems which force a vote for Kerry. It's a cycle perpetuating itself. Nader is one of the few patriots willing to challenge the bipartisan hegemony which stands in the way of progress, of justice. Don't tell me he's egomaniacal for running. An egomaniac wouldn't take on an absolutely winless situation. He gets shit on from all sides. He's acting on principle in a land where public officials have washed all principle from their hands. His crusade is of a fundamentally democratic nature that will never have "the right time," because the establishment doesn't allow for it.
As Lani Guinier puts it: "our system of representation, based on winner-take-all elections, means that a majority of citizens in the nation at any given moment are not represented by people whom they chose to represent them and are thus alienated from meaningful democratic participation." Clearly something—it's almost to the point of anything—must be done to force one of the major parties to call for electoral reform. Instant run-off voting would be an improvement, but a system of cumulative voting would be the most fair, democratic, and truly American.
* Worried about using "ad hominem" as a noun, I turned to the super duper American Heritage Dictionary (which I just learned can be accessed online here). Not defined yet as a noun, it is mentioned in the usage note: "Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun . . . This usage may raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in journalistic style."
In the latest Nation, Alterman refers to "Republican stooge Ralph Nader and his misguided supporters," in what essentially is a throw-away sentence that wouldn't be in the column if he weren't hellbent on getting a dig in. Now, I don't intend to vote for Nader this time, because I'd like to see Kerry beat Bush by as wide a margin as possible. Nonetheless, I support Nader's candidacy, and even see it as necessary. I don't think progressives in swing states would best be served by voting for him, but that's up to them.
(Actually, what I'd really like to see is a Wayne's World-like "Scooby Doo" ending where Kerry wins the election but then pulls off a mask and turns out to be . . . Dennis Kucinich, and everyone laughs as Edwards says "Ah shucks, Dennis," and Congress is cool with it, and the Supreme Court is cool with it, and Dubya-n-Cheney are charged with war profiteering, and al Qaeda disbands, and third-world slavery and first-world serfdom are finally abolished, and borders cease to exist, and above us only sky . . .)
Bush's unrelenting, far-right attack on the environment and his arrogant and negligent foreign policy (unnecessary war in Iraq, outright dippiness regarding North Korea) are enough to justify a vote for Kerry. But then how can I claim Nader's candidacy is also necessary? Part of the answer is hinted at in Alterman's own column when he bemoans "the Democrats' weakness in Congress." The Democrats are weak because they've been pandering to the so-called center for way too long. Most supported NAFTA; most accepted The Patriot Act without so much as a chirp; most refuse to stand up for relationship rights, reproductive rights, or even workers' rights; most could not rise to the challenge of the Enron scandal because they themselves had taken Enron money; most were quiet as Bush passed on the Kyoto accord, passed on the biological warfare treaty, passed on the International Criminal Court (lest we have no Guantánamo Bay); most have raised no voice against the increasing presence of religion in policy-making, as with stem-cell research and "the morning after pill"; ALL stood by silently as Tom Ridge was rewarded a new, couchy position, when he should have been booted for civil rites violations in his treatment of protesters before the 2000 Republican convention (The Nation reported on this story in the first year after it happened, but it's never made it to the mainstream media); the beatdown goes on and on.
The underlying problem of all these issues, the complicity of the Democrats, can only be truly resolved by dismantling our two-Party duopoly. America's antiquated republican-model democracy is failing, has failed. Regime change? Better a paradigm change. Only by running a national campaign which threatens a Party that needs to win, and whose long-term health may be at stake, is there even a remote chance for this issue getting the attention it deserves. Our government is not adequately representative. If it were, there's a good chance we wouldn't be saddled with those first two urgent problems which force a vote for Kerry. It's a cycle perpetuating itself. Nader is one of the few patriots willing to challenge the bipartisan hegemony which stands in the way of progress, of justice. Don't tell me he's egomaniacal for running. An egomaniac wouldn't take on an absolutely winless situation. He gets shit on from all sides. He's acting on principle in a land where public officials have washed all principle from their hands. His crusade is of a fundamentally democratic nature that will never have "the right time," because the establishment doesn't allow for it.
As Lani Guinier puts it: "our system of representation, based on winner-take-all elections, means that a majority of citizens in the nation at any given moment are not represented by people whom they chose to represent them and are thus alienated from meaningful democratic participation." Clearly something—it's almost to the point of anything—must be done to force one of the major parties to call for electoral reform. Instant run-off voting would be an improvement, but a system of cumulative voting would be the most fair, democratic, and truly American.
* Worried about using "ad hominem" as a noun, I turned to the super duper American Heritage Dictionary (which I just learned can be accessed online here). Not defined yet as a noun, it is mentioned in the usage note: "Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun . . . This usage may raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in journalistic style."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
