Skip to main content

I'm not sure exactly whether I buy this, but it's certainly intriguing. . .

From Third Party Watch a couple of days ago:

Jeremy Lott makes his intriguing case in Politico that the Democratic Party has been captured by Ralph Nader: “It’s Nader’s party now.”

Back in 2000, Lott says, Al Gore ran as a “fairly conservative Democrat — certainly far more conservative than the Nobel Prize-winning party animal he’s become”—and he was more hawkish than Bush, who was promising an “humble foreign policy.” Enter Nader, running to Gore’s left and throwing the election to the Republicans in Florida with his 100,000 votes in that state.

Ever since, says Lott, the Democrats have put forward progressively more liberal nominees, partly to protect their flank from the left:

...it’s becoming ever clearer that by playing the third-party spoiler, Nader won the argument about the future of the Democratic Party.


These snippets made me interested in reading the original Politico article, which includes more detailed analysis:

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.


Whaddya think?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...