response { Naderish Voter

Evil Bobby has a piece about Naderish Voters to which I feel I need to respond.

To set my stance on this I will provide a little background. First, so its out of the way, I voted for Nader in 2000. I vote progressive and liberal, almost any candidate on the left of the spectrum that I feel represents my views. I am a member of the Green Party and a member of the DFL, even though the DFL makes you sign that loyalty oath. I support the DFL because lately they have been fielding candidates I feel I could stand behind. The DNC, I have far more loyalty to the DFL than I do the DNC. At the national level I think the Democrats have some work to do, they have had a few gems like Kucinich, who I supported in 2004 until he stepped out of the race after the primaries.

2000 though was like another time. I am quite upset with people, and especially liberals who have found a convenient scapegoat in those who voted for Nader in 2000 for our current woes. They tend to not want to look back at the ills that were in the party (representation of themselves) back in those days, where a large faction of the more green and peace aligned were not seeing support in the DNC. No one, except maybe Rove, could have predicted the hell that has become America since 2000, and especially since 2001. 9/11 provided a catalyst that opened pandora's box and was like Christmas for the neo-cons. No one expected the SCOTUS to appoint a President. Nader did not lose the election for the Democrats in 2000, they lost it themselves. Remember Gore changing how he acted to seem more macho? That turned people off.

The generalization that Nader voters lost the election especially galls me in states like MN where I hear quite a few DFLers jump on the Nader bashing bandwagon. We have an Electoral College. Gore won MN, by a safe margin. Bush won because of the all or nothing system that awarded Florida's votes to him. Want to blame someone? Blame all of us for not wanting to institute better electoral reforms such as run-off voting, splitting (or abolishing) electoral votes. Blame the MSM if you feel you need a scapegoat. But don't blame your fellow liberals, especially the ones with consciouses and who are free and independent thinkers. The Democrats need to be reminded of their progressive and liberal roots from time to time. They aren't perfect. No one is, especially in this country.

Blaming Naderish voters won't fix the Bush situation. Nor is it justified. America in its early times used to have more than 2 parties. But today, at least at the national level one could almost argue we have one party with two faces.

(O.K. back to work since I'm supposed to be paying attention in this meeting)

1 comment:

celesathene said...

Additionally, there are galling assumptions being made - that no good scientist would stand by and allow to fly - when it comes to 3rd party voters and the 2000 election. The first is that the majority would have voted Gore. This I think is a reasonable possibility, but we don't know. The second, and the most egregious, is that without the 3rd party option these voters would have voted at all. I suspect these people voted because they were motivated by Nader. I too have cursed Nader, but the fault lies not in the third party, dear DNCers, but in ourselves. Gore lost because his vision, the party's vision (does it exist any more?) was not apparent or appealing to enough voters.

Personally, I will vote Kucinich until the big one because I want to send a message that the Dems need to pay attention to their liberally liberals.

Abortions/gun control/health care/marriage/drugs for all! Death penalty/special interest money for campaigns/business money for campaigns/Fox News for none!