How informed are Nader voters?

This is not a thread about Nader. I really don't think he'll play a big difference, because I think most Nader voters are intelligent enough to know that we can't afford to have Bush for another four years. I also think that many democrats that were fooled by Bush being a "moderate" will vote democratic once again.

But it's also obvious from a few polls, that Nader's support is coming directly from Kerry's support.

How much do Nader supporters pay attention to politics? By this, I mean the actual process? Do many have a realistic idea of how it works? I mean this seriously. Many of them seem to understand the problems relating to globalization and were sane enough to oppose the war, but I still hear the ridiculous claim that Kerry will only be slightly better than Bush, or similar such nonsense.

Do many Nader supporters understand he did make a difference in the last election in crucial swing states?

The fact is, there were even websites set up last time and there was a lot of outcry over how close it would be beforehand. There was a reason Nader trader websites were created. Sure enough, it was very close -- it's amazing enough Gore didn't also lose Oregon, Wisconsin, and Iowa as well, considering Gore had such small margins of victory. Nader could have easilly made those much worse.

It's true Gore made plenty of mistakes, but most of those were strategic and superficial -- concerns that shouldn't exist for Nader voters.

The best answer would be, no, they are not very well versed in how politics actually works. That seems clear from numerous comments, that treat the ordinary processes of politics as anything from betrayal to criminality.

"War requires funds, you know,"

"I am a man of principles, Sirm and chief among them is flexibility."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

:)

TWL

Four of those things require assent from a Legislature that is likely to be controlled by the Republicans: they are not within the power of any President to achieve by fiat.

Withdrawl of soldiers from Iraq is within the purview of the President, but even Rep. Kucinich does not propose immediate withdrawl. He speaks of withdrawing troops within ninety days of a United Nations commitment to supply a replacement force, and there is no telling how long Security Council assent to that would take to achieve, or whether a sufficient force of replacements could be assembled within that time limit.

In short, Sir, no one either proposes, or would be capable of executing, the policies you are desirous of. That is the reality of the situation before us.

"Reality is that which, once you cease to believe in it, continues to operate."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

so I would not start any flaming.

But to address your response, it is better to give up without trying?

TWL

It certainly seemed an unexceptionable comment to me, and a very popular list in these parts.

My own view, Sir, is to try for what can be achieved. It is part of the strategist's art to apportion ends to the means available to achieve them, as acting otherwise will generally result in ruin and defeat. That is something it seems good to me to avoid.

On two of your points that remain in my recollection, there do seem some things that are achievable.

Adjustments in the various trade agreements are obtainable, even from a Republican Legislature, particularly cloaked as preservation of jobs in our country. Good ones to concentrate on are enforcement of workers rights and environmental standards in other countries, that would tend to drive up the price of relocation to such venues, and the cost of labor there. Less good would be equalization tariffs, that would only depriove people in developing countries of work without bringing any compensating benefit.

Many features of the omnibus surveillance act are unpopular even with the Republican Legislature, and the thing is scheduled to sunset in any case. Most objectionable features can probably be eliminated; some are merely adjustments of existing law to changed technologies, and there is no point to not incorporating these in statute.

"Politics is not the art of the possible. Ity consists in choosing between the disasterous and the unpalatable."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

If you want to take that kind of trouble-go ahead LIVE WITH Yourselves...A-Gain:puke:

that most Nader voters, at least last time around (and I was one, and won't be this time around) were people who are extremely well-informed about politics, policies, and the political process in America. Who know all too well about the give and take, the rat's nest that is called "bipartisanship" and the deal-making that goes on, the process by which riders are added on to legislation, the negotiating around who gets what pork and when, who gets what committee chairmanship in return for support for X bill, or whose favorite judge gets a vote in committee in return for a YEA vote on some piece of trade legislation coming up for a vote...and so on.

Many Nader voters went for Nader precisely because they are so disgusted by that process.

Many Nader voters, to be honest, were (and some still are) thinking about things in the following way:

The GOP and the establishment Dems are very close, too close, on many issues (NAFTA, GATT, Welfare Reform, Corporate Conglomeration, Deregulation, Telecom, campaign finance, labor laws, union busting, and so on)...

There is no way within the current framework to empower the liberal wing of the Democratic Party...

The only way forward therefore, is to enable the GOP to get into power, to enact their favorite bills, policies, to nominate and seat their judges, and thereby provoke a backlash from the very large number of voting and non-voting liberals who are apathetic, disempowered and hamstrung by the Democratic political establishment.

For me, I am now working on and thinking about doing the same kind of thing within the democratic party, and I do not think that the old saw about "the worse things get the better they will be later"...which sums up (incompletely) the thinking of many 2000 (and possibly today) Nader supporters.

Do not be dismissive or condescending - you may certainly disagree with the intention or rationale behind voting for a third party candidate, but make no mistake, a large number of Nader supporters are among the most politically active, aware, and well-versed folks in the country, who have been fighting for liberal, green, womens, and other "progressive" issues for years and years and years...

Only I think you must admit, Dannyred, that the "things have to get worse before they get better" strategy was only shared by core, highly politically active Greens. The vast majority of Greens were hopelessly idealistic and really believed that if the Green Party got 5%, the world would change.

At the same time, I feel that overestimating the political smarts of the "has to get worse before it gets better crowed" is a huge mistake. These people may have their heart in the right place, but they can be hopelessly vain and bullheaded. They should have known a Green intervention would lead to a backlash against the Greens--it's not like we weren't there to warn them in 2000. Characteristically, they didn't listen. I know it's stupid to pile onto them but at some point we have to recognize what we are dealing with.

It's not that Green activists are stupid--they aren't. It's not that Green voters aren't more educated than major party voters--they are. It's just that the smartest strategists (that is, those who do politics for a living and think about it all the time) tend to be involved with the major parties--that's where the money and recognition is. This is a huge advantage that cannot be easily discounted.

I seems to me Nader voters are up on issues -- other wise it would seem unlikkely they would support him. HOWEVER -- they, along with Ralph, have a severe problem understanding the electoral process as defined in the Constituion, and statistical realities of a 3rd party race.

In other words, he is going to lose and everyone knows it.

upthread, that characterization is, in my experience, incorrect.

Most of the Nader voters I know are extremely knowledgable about issues, about the electoral process, and about the statistical realities of third party and independent runs for President.

1) Issues - Nader voters, greens, socialists, and other Left Progressives are generally about as "up on the issues" as anyone, often more so.

2) Electoral process, and the general legislative process - again, these are folks who generally spend a LOT of time reading about, agitating around, and participating in local, state, and national elections, who spend a LOT of time pushing for, marching for, writing letters for, and running advocacy groups focused on legislative fights around Affirmative Action, Welfare, Environment, Womens, Minorities, Death Penalty and so on.

3) Statistical Chances and 3rd party/indpendent...again, most of these folks have no illusions about Nader, about a green candidate (which Nader is not this time) a Socialist Candidate, or Wobbly, or whatever...they want to a) send a message to both the GOP and (more specifically) the Democrats. b) They are hoping to break the 5% barrier, and get federal matching funds to grow their party or form a party, and c) Some (not all, by any means) are actively and consciously thinking about how best to get people active, to make the Left more vibrant, attractive, and relevant, and to shake up the two party system...many (again, by no means all) think that the best way to do this is to get the GOP in power (in order to expose the insects under the rotting log and let everyone see just how bad they are) and to break the Democratic lock on various "liberal" constituencies by exposing the Dems as weak, compromised, compromisers, and sell outs.

Make no mistake, for some, especially the solid core, these decisions are extremely conscious.

Excellent response. I find that Nader voters I know are people who I consider very aware of the issues. They are people I can have in depth conversations with concerning the BFEE, NAFTA, global situations, corporate control, etc.

TWL

BUT

For sake of argument, I conceed 3, and make #4--

4: It is a tragic philosophy to feel the need to destroy the country that you love to prove that you were right.

That is sort of akin to arguning with someone over the existence of gravity, and proving your point by jumping off a mountain. Hearing as you breath your last "Gee you are right" doesn't seem at all worth the price. Unfortunately, the consequences of a third party in a race designed for two, The greens are not jumping off the cliff by themselves, they are taking the entire left with them.

For sake of argument, I conceed 3, and make #4--

4: It is a tragic philosophy to feel the need to destroy the country that you love to prove that you were right.

That is sort of akin to arguning with someone over the existence of gravity, and proving your point by jumping off a mountain. Hearing as you breath your last "Gee you are right" doesn't seem at all worth the price. Unfortunately, the consequences of a third party in a race designed for two, The greens are not jumping off the cliff by themselves, they are taking the entire left with them.

the strategies employed by Lenin against the Social Democrats, or the Third International against the second.

Basically, the Lenin/Trotsky/Luxemburg folks felt, and many soldiers, sailors, and workers felt alongside them, that the Social Democrats, the Mensheviks, the Second International had betrayed the cause of peace, socialism, and progress by signing on to support the Kaiser as he started WWI...and felt that the Kerensky government, populated by Social Democrats and "liberals" had betrayed the initial Russian Revolution by continuing to participate in the war.

On a smaller level, the same conflict played out in Belgium, France, and England.

If you replace the Social Democrats or the Second International with today's Democratic Party, and replace the Bolsheviks or Leninists or Third International with the Greens...and shift everything about 100 miles to the right on the political spectrum, you can see the argument, see the thinking, and (while you may certainly not agree with the thinking, strategy or tactics... and political junkies STILL argue about those events to this day) you will have a better analogy.

See, by crushing, splitting, and demoralizing the Second International and the associated "soft left" Social Democrats, the "hard left" was able to win a large base of support, enter the fray, and gain a strong foothold...in some cases strong enough to take over an entire nation and rock the world, and in other cases to almost succeed.

They certainly ended WWI, regardless of their other successes and failures.

My personal opinion is that in politics, what works once is not necessarily going to work again, and, as we are seeing with the ongoing slow-motion collapse of the image and the reality of "boy genius" Karl Rove, what works once, in some cases, is LESS likely to work again!!!

Anyway, that's the better analogy, and a better glimpse into the thinking on the hard left.

One problem with the "Russia in 1917" analogy is that the Communists were blessed with the best wedge issue possible--the war, which the population hated, while the Social Democrat intelligentsia didn't have a clue. It was, IMO, something of an historical anamoly. And of course it goes without saying that Russia was far from ready for revolution. The abuses of the dictatorship that followed may well have knocked out socialism as we know it--future socialism will probably have to be grounded in non-Marxian ideology for strategical reasons. I still cringe when I see the communist avator--so evocative of Stalinist massacres.

A better analogy, IMO, for why the 3rd party strategy is mistaken is probably the conflicts between the Communists and Social Democrats in Weimar Germany, which contributed to the triumph of the fascists.

That is the problem.

Mind you, I said on average. There are some naive, young Nader voters who really don't know anything more than the "both parties are the same" meme, but they're concerned enough to vote. For them the vote is a form of rebellion against the establishment. Most are pretty informed, though, but lot of the time they put all their trust in sources that are just as skewed as rightwing sources, meaning that the information may be accurate, but it's chosen to paint a particular picture. Their big problem is that they have a totally tin ear to the mood and inclinations of the country and seem to think they can create an electoral revolution, which is a dubious prospect at best, with a tiny minority of the electorate. They're very hazy on cause and effect.

They'd be better off and we'd be better off if they spent that energy popularizing their issues, rather than throwing the election to the RW in the hopes that the lives of ordinary people will become so miserable that the revolution will happen. All you get for those efforts is more misery heaped on those least able to mitigate the effects of a radical rightwing government, whereas, if an issue has captured the imagination of the electorate it can cut across party lines and create a populist demand for action. That is the way that Greens and other third parties should approach their causes.

If only the Greens could understand these issues. However, their circular logic always goes back to the innate corruption of the 2-party system (the man), and it's hard to get them to break out of this circle and see the real consquences of GOP policies on real lives.

Nader voters are generally more educated/informed than average, but they feel alienated from the process, and don't pay much attention to it. Of course, it's not like the typical Democrat or GOPer is more informed about the process, either. But the truth is that the vast majority of Green voters I knew (mostly college kids in my case) voted the way they did because their friends were doing so, it was the cool thing to do, and they culturally identified with the Greens and couldn't culturally identify with Gore. Lieberman's selection merely backed this up. Many Greens would have voted for Clinton or Edwards or some other young, energetic, good-looking Democrat with some ties to the counterculture.

The most process-oriented Green voters (last time around) argued that if Bush was elected, it would be better for the country anyway because it would radicalize the populace. This was essentially Nader's position. They failed to see, however, that it would also mean the end of the Green party.