Democrats, welcome to Nader's party
Urban Hiker
Posts: 1,312
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=796DE379-3048-5C12-009DDD99A7A0BF06
Democrats, welcome to Nader's party
By: Jeremy Lott
June 11, 2008 07:00 PM EST
Anybody who hasn’t been living in a sealed underground bunker for the past eight years remembers that then-Vice President Al Gore narrowly missed becoming president in 2000 — winning the popular vote but losing the Electoral College because of a handful of votes in Florida, of all places.
Few, however, may recall that Gore ran as a fairly conservative Democrat — certainly far more conservative than the Nobel Prize-winning party animal he’s become.
The Gore who ran for president in 2000 was unabashedly more hawkish than George W. Bush, who stumped for a “humble foreign policy.” Gore had voted for the first Iraq war, encouraged congressional efforts to step up the pressure to oust Saddam Hussein, and chose as his would-be vice president Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, a fellow war Democrat.
Sure, Gore employed some canned populist rhetoric. What Democrat doesn’t claim to side with The People against The Powerful at some point? But on foreign and non-green domestic issues, the Tennessean was quite a ways from being an orthodox liberal.
Gore supported the death penalty, had impeccable free trade credentials and was interested in “reinventing government” initiatives that outsourced many civil service jobs to private contractors. He put forward a savings-matching plan to help reform Social Security that was endorsed by some on the right. National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru argued that the vice president’s plan was, in parts, slightly more free-market-oriented than what Bush was proposing.
If Gore could come that close to winning on what we could call a New Democrat agenda, why, in 2004 and again in 2008, has his party abandoned this and instead put forward progressively more liberal nominees?
Last time, the überliberal Sen. John F. Kerry had to fight off the more radical challenger Howard Dean. This time, the very liberal Barack Obama bested Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was forced to run far, far to the left of her husband’s record.
Dean now wields more influence than Kerry from his perch as chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Poor Lieberman has been cast out of his old party for refusing to change. What caused this shift?
It can be explained in two words — though be forewarned, they’re fighting words to some: Ralph Nader.
What? You were expecting George Bush?
It’s tempting to claim that Bush radicalized the Democrats, but it’s simply not a convincing explanation. Bill Clinton had become the first Democratic president since FDR to be elected to two terms. He did that by convincing voters that his was that rare middle ground between bleeding-heart liberals in his party and those heartless Republicans.
The consumer crusader and activist Nader had run for president before, but in 2000 he ran hard against Clintonism on the Green Party ticket. Nader was sick of the triangulation. He wanted to topple the nation’s “corporate paymasters,” raise taxes, socialize medicine, reregulate everything that moves, kill free trade agreements, and not only strengthen unions but return them to their old place of prominence in the American work force. He actually talked of repealing the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act.
Many liberals remain furious at Nader for that campaign. His percentage of the vote wasn’t earth-shattering, at 2.7 percent nationally, but those turned out to be crucial votes. Gore lost by about 500 dangling chads in a state where voters cast nearly 100,000 ballots for Nader.
And yet, it’s becoming ever clearer that by playing the third-party spoiler, Nader won the argument about the future of the Democratic Party. He clearly won the policy argument, with both Hillary Clinton and Obama promising to expand government health care, “end the Bush tax cuts,” chip away at NAFTA and other free trade policies, put real teeth in union recruitment efforts and sign stringent environmental legislation.
Nader’s challenge convinced the powers that be in the party that they simply cannot afford to let a serious challenger get to the left of the party’s presidential candidate. That helps explain why Dean was given the DNC chairmanship over a Clinton loyalist and why concerns about electability were brushed aside to make way for the junior Illinois senator’s nomination.
There is another sense in which Nader won. Think of the angry Netroots that raged not just at President Bush but at compromiser Hillary Clinton. Think of the large crowds of young people who came out to see a candidate who promises “hope” and “change” — i.e., a lot more government meddling. Think of the torrent of reformist legislation that’s set to be passed by the next Congress, whose composition is almost certain to be both more Democratic and more left-wing.
Let’s not fool ourselves. It’s Nader’s party now.
Jeremy Lott is the author of “The Warm Bucket Brigade: The Story of the American Vice Presidency.”
© 2008 Capitol News Company, LLC
Democrats, welcome to Nader's party
By: Jeremy Lott
June 11, 2008 07:00 PM EST
Anybody who hasn’t been living in a sealed underground bunker for the past eight years remembers that then-Vice President Al Gore narrowly missed becoming president in 2000 — winning the popular vote but losing the Electoral College because of a handful of votes in Florida, of all places.
Few, however, may recall that Gore ran as a fairly conservative Democrat — certainly far more conservative than the Nobel Prize-winning party animal he’s become.
The Gore who ran for president in 2000 was unabashedly more hawkish than George W. Bush, who stumped for a “humble foreign policy.” Gore had voted for the first Iraq war, encouraged congressional efforts to step up the pressure to oust Saddam Hussein, and chose as his would-be vice president Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, a fellow war Democrat.
Sure, Gore employed some canned populist rhetoric. What Democrat doesn’t claim to side with The People against The Powerful at some point? But on foreign and non-green domestic issues, the Tennessean was quite a ways from being an orthodox liberal.
Gore supported the death penalty, had impeccable free trade credentials and was interested in “reinventing government” initiatives that outsourced many civil service jobs to private contractors. He put forward a savings-matching plan to help reform Social Security that was endorsed by some on the right. National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru argued that the vice president’s plan was, in parts, slightly more free-market-oriented than what Bush was proposing.
If Gore could come that close to winning on what we could call a New Democrat agenda, why, in 2004 and again in 2008, has his party abandoned this and instead put forward progressively more liberal nominees?
Last time, the überliberal Sen. John F. Kerry had to fight off the more radical challenger Howard Dean. This time, the very liberal Barack Obama bested Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was forced to run far, far to the left of her husband’s record.
Dean now wields more influence than Kerry from his perch as chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Poor Lieberman has been cast out of his old party for refusing to change. What caused this shift?
It can be explained in two words — though be forewarned, they’re fighting words to some: Ralph Nader.
What? You were expecting George Bush?
It’s tempting to claim that Bush radicalized the Democrats, but it’s simply not a convincing explanation. Bill Clinton had become the first Democratic president since FDR to be elected to two terms. He did that by convincing voters that his was that rare middle ground between bleeding-heart liberals in his party and those heartless Republicans.
The consumer crusader and activist Nader had run for president before, but in 2000 he ran hard against Clintonism on the Green Party ticket. Nader was sick of the triangulation. He wanted to topple the nation’s “corporate paymasters,” raise taxes, socialize medicine, reregulate everything that moves, kill free trade agreements, and not only strengthen unions but return them to their old place of prominence in the American work force. He actually talked of repealing the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act.
Many liberals remain furious at Nader for that campaign. His percentage of the vote wasn’t earth-shattering, at 2.7 percent nationally, but those turned out to be crucial votes. Gore lost by about 500 dangling chads in a state where voters cast nearly 100,000 ballots for Nader.
And yet, it’s becoming ever clearer that by playing the third-party spoiler, Nader won the argument about the future of the Democratic Party. He clearly won the policy argument, with both Hillary Clinton and Obama promising to expand government health care, “end the Bush tax cuts,” chip away at NAFTA and other free trade policies, put real teeth in union recruitment efforts and sign stringent environmental legislation.
Nader’s challenge convinced the powers that be in the party that they simply cannot afford to let a serious challenger get to the left of the party’s presidential candidate. That helps explain why Dean was given the DNC chairmanship over a Clinton loyalist and why concerns about electability were brushed aside to make way for the junior Illinois senator’s nomination.
There is another sense in which Nader won. Think of the angry Netroots that raged not just at President Bush but at compromiser Hillary Clinton. Think of the large crowds of young people who came out to see a candidate who promises “hope” and “change” — i.e., a lot more government meddling. Think of the torrent of reformist legislation that’s set to be passed by the next Congress, whose composition is almost certain to be both more Democratic and more left-wing.
Let’s not fool ourselves. It’s Nader’s party now.
Jeremy Lott is the author of “The Warm Bucket Brigade: The Story of the American Vice Presidency.”
© 2008 Capitol News Company, LLC
Walking can be a real trip
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”
~ Theodore Roosevelt
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I know rank choice voting (a Gonzalez platform issue) is one thing that Newsom took up after narrowly winning the election.
I can't find a source. Maybe it was in the question/answer part of Gonzalez's visit to Seattle and hasn't been included in the YouTube summary of that day.
Anyway, my point is that when certain ideas get enough attention and politicians feel they may lose some of their voting base if they don't adopt those positions, platforms change.
I think we've barely scratched the surface in swaying liberal democrats towards more progressive ideas. However, if we continue to influence them in stepping further and further to the left, great. If not, I'm happy to continue working with those people who only get a few percentage points of votes, because they best represent my ideals and values.
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.