Whistling in the Dark

There's an excellent article in the Nation this week. It's written by Ronnie Dugger with the evocative title "Ralph, Don't Run!" It's about the goals of the Green Party in the 2000 election, how they've contributed to the current electoral climate, and what progressives and liberals need to do to move forward into the future.

It's also about Ralph Nader, and about his pyrrhic run for the presidency in 2000, and his intentions for 2004. As you'll recall, Nader claimed that there was no effective difference between George Bush and Al Gore in 2000, so there was no reason for the Left to support the Democratic party. His campaign was one of the contributing factors in the Gore defeat, between his splitting non-Bush support in New Hampshire and letting Bush take those electoral votes (which put him over the top) and the unquestionable fact that without a Nader campaign in Florida, Gore would have been the clear winner instead of the obvious but disenfranchised one. From all accounts, Nader was pleased with his role in the 2000 election -- he had had considerable impact on the election, and proved himself a force to be reckoned with.

And, as Dugger writes in his article, it directly led us down the course we find ourselves on now. A course that is an unmitigated disaster for progressive and liberal politics. As he says:

His selection as President by the Supreme Court in 2000 was a presidential and judicial coup. Progressives may believe this coup stains his Administration as illegitimate, but apparently he and his inner group take it as leave to cast aside the Bill of Rights and international law. Now the President is out of control and threatens American democracy and the peace of the world. At home, there is mounting evidence that we are living in a land ruled by a crypto-fascist government: The FBI spies on law-abiding political organizations and churches, citizens are deputized to spy and inform on one another, an underground parallel executive government has been activated, lawyer-client consultations are bugged, the government keeps citizens locked up without lawyers or hearings and talks of using the military to police the United States, and the Pentagon is making a vast database of the American people. We are being cudgeled into agreeing to wars of aggression, to make first use of nuclear weapons and to put weapons in outer space. Setting a lethal example for other nations, the Bush government prepares to initiate an attack on a small nation 6,000 miles away and asserts the right to wage a war with no discernible end by attacking any nation that one man--an unelected President who has rarely traveled overseas--determines to be harboring terrorists or seeking weapons of mass destruction. This same unelected President schemes to exempt Americans from the jurisdiction of the new International Criminal Court, which punishes crimes against humanity. The will to dominate the world is explicit when he tells Congress he will not allow "any foreign power to catch up with" or surpass "the power of the United States." If Bush and the Pentagon control the government through 2008 we will become a militarized nation bent on world domination, a third-millennium Rome. Intensified terrorist attacks on us and a series of widening wars can be expected. All of this is dramatically worse in kind and degree than what Al Gore would have done as President.

Dugger is unquestionably right. In terms of internationalism, civil rights, civil liberties, the role of the President in our government and our place in the international community, George W. Bush has caused widespread damage. Now, with the midterm elections, he has power to push his agenda that even Ronald Reagan never had. Now, the lion's share of the blame for this has to fall on the Democratic Party, whose moral cowardice and corruption have damaged their vital role as the loyal opposition.

But it is also clear that spoiler elections, especially those to make a point, cannot be a part of the 2004 election. The left cannot simply entrench in their own little camp, talking only to each other and willfully ignoring the real world consequences of their actions. It is vitally important that George W. Bush and the Republican agenda lose in 2004. At stake is America itself -- the land of the free. At stake is our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, our sacred Liberty, our right to choose and our right to dissent. Also at stake is America's role in the international community -- are we to be a leader, an example, and a paragon not only of strength but virtue? Or are we to become nothing more than an Imperial power, projecting our strength wherever we wish until the International Community becomes fed up with it and unites against us?

From the point of view of Liberals and Progressives, the above should be obvious. And their course should be obvious -- a systemic, broadbased, grassroots campaign to retake the Democratic party and reestablish it as a legitimate, philosophical and moral alternative to the Republican machine. The Democrats have clearly shown that pandering to the Republican base is no way to win elections. They lost the Senate over it, in fact. Now it is time for the Democratic Party to reembrace its populist roots, for progressives to become a bolstering and supporting wing of the Party, of Left and Center agendas to be reconciled. The Democratic Party must become about something once again, and the Liberals must be the ones who spearhead that movement.

Only, Ralph Nader intends to run for President again in 2004.

Let me repeat that.

Ralph Nader intends to run for President again in 2004.

With the growing antiBush movements in the left, it is clear that Bush will lose if a unified opposition is presented to him. In fact, it's possible that a converse event to the 2000 election will take place, and Bush will take a majority of the Popular Vote but lose Electorally. If, on the other hand, Liberals put their energies into a hopeless Green campaign and non-republican Moderates put their energies into a Democratic campaign, Bush will win reelection. The Republicans will win reelection. And quite frankly, I'm scared of what they will do to America.

Why is Nader intending to run? Because in the end, he's an egotist. He enjoys being the spoiler. That's just not a good enough reason to allow George Bush another four years in the White House. In the end, his central thesis is wrong. The Democrats and the Republicans are not identical, and it does matter very much who is in charge.