Why Progressives Supported Ralph Nader in 2000: Al Gore's Politics Alienated the Democratic Base.

My Support for Ralph Nader, Ten Years Later: Lessons Learned
by Stephen Zunes
November 1, 2010

How Gore's Politics Alienated the Democratic Base

Many people have forgotten that before Al Gore became a progressive hero as the most visible leader of the movement to curb climate change - perhaps the biggest single issue of our day and for which he won the Nobel Peace Prize-he was widely-recognized as being on the conservative wing of the Democratic Party. As one of the three finalists in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988, Gore positioned himself clearly on the right, with Jesse Jackson on the left and Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis - the eventual nominee - in the center.

Gore was one of the most ardent Democratic supporters of Reagan's right-wing foreign policy agenda, supporting such dangerous and destabilizing Pentagon boondoggles as the B-1 and B-2 bombers and the Trident II, cruise and Pershing missiles, all of which significantly raised the threat of nuclear war. He also supported U.S. funding and training of the Contra terrorists attacking Nicaragua and the murderous junta in El Salvador. In 1991, he was among the minority of Senate Democrats who supported the Gulf War. He was an outspoken supporter of a series of right-wing Israeli governments, opposing the Palestinians' right to statehood alongside Israel or even allowing Palestinians into the peace process.

As the Democratic presidential nominee in 2000, his hawkish world view did not seem to wane. Even with the end of the Cold War, he supported increasing the already-bloated U.S. military budget. He was apparently ready to tear up the SALT I treaty - negotiated by Nixon and Kissinger and long the foundation of nuclear arms control - in order to pursue a dubious missile defense strategy. He opposed human rights provisions for trade agreements and even for arms transfers. He opposed the treaty banning land mines. He supported laws that threatened jail and fines for Americans simply for travelling to Cuba. He defended the ongoing bombing of Iraq and the starving of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children through draconian sanctions. He strongly supported efforts by the Word Trade Organization and International Monetary Fund to weaken environmental laws, consumer protection and labor rights in the name of "free trade," and was the administration's most visible advocate of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA.)

His positions weren't much better on domestic issues. He opposed raising the minimum wage to match the cost of living. He not only supported the death penalty, but made it far more difficult falsely convicted death row inmates to appeal their cases in federal courts. He supported the repeal of federal guarantees of assistance to poor children. He supported Federal Reserve policies of keeping wages low to prop up stock prices and taxing earnings from the stock market at lower rates then income from actual work. He supported the repeal of Depression-era banking regulations designed to protect small depositors and restrictions on derivatives that helped lead to the current financial crisis for which scores of Democrats are now being punished at the polls. He supported the Defense of Marriage Act in an effort to prevent gay and lesbian couples from having equal rights. (Earlier in his career, he referred to homosexuality as "abnormal sexual behavior" and voted against a bill that would protect patients with HIV from discrimination.) Even on environmental issues, his record was mixed, supporting efforts to undermine the endangered species act, pushing for nuclear power, and supporting an increase in clear-cut logging of old growth forests.

While most of us who supported Nader did not expect to agree with the Democratic nominee for president on every issue in order to vote for him, the fact that Gore took positions which only a few years earlier would have been considered to be in the mainstream of the Republican Party was simply too much to bear.

Please read the full article at:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/11/01

..."the fact that Gore took positions which only a few years earlier would have been considered to be in the mainstream of the Republican Party was simply too much to bear."

Well, I hope that EIGHT YEARS OF BUSH-CHENEY was bearable enough for you and every other stubborn mule who voted for Nader because "there was no difference between Bush and Gore." Yeah, right. :puke:

"Gore and the Democrats, by contrast, supported the archaic and undemocratic Electoral College system. It is ironic, then, that the Democrats continue to blame Nader and the Greens for Bush's election that came as a result of an unfair electoral system that they supported and Greens opposed."


.

...the electoral college was there (and still is). Nader's candidacy siphoned off votes from Gore in several battleground states including Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Florida. The first four (4) states, Gore still managed to win, though barely. But Gore lost the last two of those states, and with it the election.

Nader was a stubborn son of a bitch (to put it mildly) and at least he got to see everything he stood for and fought for his whole life get demolished by the Bush White House and the Republican Congress.

It wouldn't surprise me if the bastard runs in 2012 and causes Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee to become president.

It is obvious Gore had no intention of debating or exposing Bush for the dunce and crook he was. Nader attacked Bush constantly but the corporate owned media didn't cover him. And when Gore had the opportunity to speak out for the electorate and our democratic process and allow Nader to debate, Gore ran as fast as he could. The two major parties colluded with each other to prevent Nader from debating and to keep his message silenced. If Nader had been included in the debates he would have destroyed Bush and made him look like the laughingstock he was. But Gore and his corporate owned bosses were terrified of Nader. If Nader debated Bush then Gore would have been the beneficiary of Bush's destruction.

Nader is and always has been a progressive. Gore wasn't the progressive candidate in 2000. Hell, he didn't even use the debates to expose Bush's inept and corrupt record. In one debate Gore agreed with almost everything Bush said. A tenth grade debating student could have destroyed Bush, but because Gore was feeding from the same trough of corporate money Bush was feeding from he remained silent. When Nader said there was no difference he was talking about the corporate ownership of candidates. He was right then and he is right today. Nader is a true progressive and not owned by anyone. He is a national treasure.

...were nearly 95% on GORE, not Bush. Nader wouldn't have carried ONE SINGLE STATE had he run head-to-head against Bush. He ran just to "teach the Democrats a lesson" and was completely indifferent to the disaster he was about to cause. The year after the election, he started whining that Democratic members of Congress weren't willing to meet with his lobbyists anymore. Tough shit, Ralph.

Any liberal who voted for Nader in 2000 has NO RIGHT to complain about Bush-Cheney years. I hope you enjoyed watching everything you hold so dear to your heart crumble to the ground the last decade.

If democratic members of congress weren't for sale to the highest corporate bidders we would have a public option, publicly financed elections and citizen control of our country. As long as money is allowed to pollute every facet of our political process our country will continue its downward slide. In almost every election we are given a choice between candidate A and candidate B, both of whom had to sell our to the rich and corporations just so they would have the money needed to compete. Nader didn't cause the carnage of the previous 8 years, a corrupt system did. And Nader was the ONLY candidate running in 2000 who would have worked to change the system.

Your anger is misplaced. You need to research what other party's platforms have in them. The Green and Reform parties have a lot of truly progressive ideas in their platforms. If the two major parties know they have most of their members in their pockets they will continue to use and take advantage of them. Why should any part represent their supporters when their supporters will vote for them no matter what they do or don't do?

I don't know about you but I am not owned by anyone or any political party. I am not advocating voting for any political party, but rather for any candidate whi will work their asses off for progressive causes. I wish the democratic party would adopt and then FIGHT for progressive causes. In 08, people voted for change from the corporate carnage of the Bush years, but then once elected most democratic leaders immediately began compromising with the very thugs who almost destroyed our country.

Change cannot occur by selling out to the enemy. The reason for the lack of enthusiasm in the democratic base and independents is because their leaders failed to fight against the same forces of evil that controlled the White House and most of congress for most of the last 8 years. I would have rather democratic leaders who fought to the death for the progressive values they promised during the 2008 elections and lost, than to allow almost every bill to be watered down to the point where they were almost meaningless. If they had fought for people rather than corporations the people would be rising up in support and democrats would be posed to even gain congressional seats. People do not like to be manipulated or lied to. But they can always recognize and appreciate leaders who are fighting for them.

But can we ever have leaders who have the people's interests in mind if they first have to bow to corporate masters for the money needed to win? Strict and meaningful campaign finance reform wasn't even attempted by the democratic party even though they had huge majorities in both houses of congress. If they aren't going to try to change the corrupt system when they had so much control they certainly won't do it after they lose either house of congress. The reason for citizen apathy and outrage is because those who could have done so much, did very little. So much promise was squandered when it didn't have to be. And to let the ignorant and illiterate tea baggers outsmart democratic leaders is inexcusable. To allow their group of misfits to control the national dialogue on health care reform for more than six months without one strong rebuttal is beyond belief. And to discard any attempts at enacting real reform like the public option without even a fight is also inexcusable.

We are on the same side. I believe we want the same things for our country. But timidity in our leadership will never lead to meaningful change. What we need are people like Kucinich, Grayson and other bold leaders, not people who believe compromising with the devil is the best way to reform.

...as long as money exists, money will influence the government. PERIOD.

in Gore and Bush - in which case he was proven wrong - or you have to accept that he was saying that just to get attention for himself.

You might also look to 2004. In 2004, Kerry made an attempt to reach out to Nader and met with him. Nader had nothing but praise for Kerry - saying it is hard to dislike someone who led an anti movement when he was younger and that he was Presidential. But, he stayed in the race. He did not garner nearly as many votes as in 2000 - either because people learned or in 2004, it really did not make sense to say that Kerry and Bush (of whom more was known than in 2000) were the same - on Nader's issues.

Why should rural people not have a voice in the governance of the nation? Should only states with large populations or large urban centers be the only deciders of the course of the nation? This is one good reason not to support the Green Party, as far as I'm concerned.

And your voice drowns out Wall Street and corporate America?

Small farmers and other rural people don't run this nation!

You have no power.

Nor does the working class in our cities.

And why should less 20% of the population even decide what political party runs the Senate and White House?

That's the situation now, a vote from a resident of a rural state carries much more weight in the Electoral College than does the vote of a resident of a more populous state.

If you look at the electoral votes of a given state divided by the population, individuals in larger states have watered down votes.

Also, how much time do you think Republicans spend trying to win voters in, say, California or New York? How much time do Democrats spend trying to win Texas? Almost zero. Why? They aren't swing states and given their size it would require enormous expenditure to try to win them - only to have every single electoral vote going to the other guy.

In a national election the Democrats could campaign in Texas, and the Republicans could campaign in California to try to win (some) votes. In fact, every state would be in play and you'd see a lot more advertising on a national level. As it stands now candidates only focus on a few, critical swing states.

If anyone tells you that "banishing the Electoral College means that New York and California elect the president," or "large cities will elect the president," that means they don't really understand the difference between a popular vote and an EC vote.

For example, in the 1980 election, the networks called for Reagan before ANYONE on the West Coast had voted, so you have to wonder how many West Coast, Alaska, and Hawaii residents who might have voted for Carter just gave up and stayed home.

In real life, there are no purely red states or purely blue states. All states are purple, either reddish purple or bluish purple. But the EC means that a Democrat in Utah has no voice, just as a Republican in Massachusetts doesn't, because it maintains the fiction that Utah is all Republican and Massachusetts is all Democratic.

In real life, presidential candidates don't campaign much in small states. Kucinich got a lot of votes in Hawaii in 2004, because he was the only candidate that year to visit. But normally, there's no point for a candidate to visit a state that has only 3 electoral votes and that will still be voting when the networks call the election. Look at accounts of past elections and see how many times candidates went to California, Texas, New York, Ohio, Illinois, and Pennsylvania as opposed to the number of times that candidates went to North Dakota, Wyoming, Vermont, or Alaska.

Furthermore, small states don't necessarily have anything in common. What do New Hampshire and Hawaii have in common? What do Vermont and Wyoming have in common?

Here's what would happen in an all popular vote presidential election.

First of all, EVERYONE's vote would count. Even those of Democrats in Utah. Second, no candidate could take any state for granted. In a close race, it might come down to those last few votes in Alaska and Hawaii. Third, there would be no more Bush/Gore controversies. The candidate who won the popular vote would win. Period. With no Electoral College, it would have been President Gore, no questions asked.

The Electoral College was instituted because the Founding Fathers thought that most people were too stupid to vote. (When I look at the Tea Party, I do wonder if they were right...) The Constitution does not require that the Electors be chosen by popular vote, and originally, they were appointed by state legislatures, so the aim of the Electoral College is ultimately undemocratic.

We don't choose governors by an electoral college of counties (in Minnesota, the Republicanites would LOVE that). We don't choose mayors by an electoral college of wards. Land area doesn't vote. People do.

A voter in a state like Wyoming has over 300% of the electoral clout as the average voter, while a voter in California, the eighth largest economy on the fucking planet, has 84% of the average vote. http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=985

Complete and utter bullshit.

Hillbillies, cowfuckers, and rednecks should not have a vote over three times as powerful as someone in a state that is one of the primary economic and cultural drivers of the nation. That's madness, and it's the only reason the Pukes have even a shred of power in this nation.

There is something fundamentally unjust about low-population states having the same number of senators as a state that has the equivalent population of 52 of those low population states in a representative republic.

Those traitors!!

You wrote: "there was no difference between Bush and Gore."

Who are you quoting, yourself, the article or are you just making it up?

Like it is gonna make a difference..
As long as we have a democracy, I will vote for the most progressive candidate. I care not to vote far right vs. center right. I have no interest..

If three people are running, and two support the drug war, global war, and oppose single payer health insurance.. and one candidate that supports single payer while opposing the drug war, global war.. I'll vote for the cool dude. I really do not care one bit any more.

So, what's your point?

You might want to do that before commenting on articles.

Just a friendly suggestion.

of just about any real kind.

So, I just fade back and spend my little bit of energy on poverty. Not that it does much good.. it just isn't sexy.

"Not a dime's worth..." still makes sense. So, delete my post for having the guts to speak my mind, already. I'm getting past the point of caring.

Thta was a good read. Thanks for posting it

That's the actual headline. Yours gives a false impression of what the editorial is about. Why did you change the headline and copy so selectively in a way that doesn't communicate the main point of the editorial?

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/11/01

Like many people who campaigned and voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, the upcoming tenth anniversary of that disastrous election and awareness of the tragic results continues to haunt me. While it was perhaps the most serious political misjudgment I have ever made, it is important to recognize why at the time it seemed to be a quite rational course of action. It is also important to recognize what both the Democratic Party as well as progressives who are tempted to support left alternatives to the Democrats can learn from it.

And the caption " "My Support for Ralph Nader, Ten Years Later: Lessons Learned" appears at the very top of the body of the post!

How did you manage to miss that or are you nit picking?

So I take it you just don't like what the author wrote in the part of the article quoted which was highlighted by the writer in bold print and included in my headline.

This particular issue, why progressives supported Ralph Nader in 2000, has rarely been dealt with on Democratic Underground and deserved to be aired here. I'm sorry you prefer that matter not be discussed.

Well, why not say what it is you disagree with in the article rather than nit pick and whine?

:rofl:

I guess you aren't including your daily anti-Obama, anti-Democratic posts from yourself and a few others.

I find it odd, considering your pattern of posting, that you intentionally ignored the intent of the editorial and somehow managed to change it from being pro-Democratic to anti-Democratic.

And your claim that article section posted is somehow anti-democratic is complete nonsense as anyone who reads the article will understand.

As I wrote, this particular issue, why progressives supported Ralph Nader in 2000, has rarely been dealt with on Democratic Underground and deserves to be aired here. I'm sorry that you also prefer that matter not be discussed.

And your obvious desire to prevent such views from being posted here is truly anti-democratic.

You've been here long enough to know that.
The article may not be anti-Democratic but your subject line and very selective quoting of the article is.

until I read this article. I think it's pretty accurate.

If you can find any similiar analysis, please post their links!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I commented here several times and present my point of view on most articles I post.

Enough insults against progressives from you.

Bye, bye.

and by doing that, the things accomplished, while not spectacular, but good, he did himself in. I mean if he had stayed with the Democratic party with Clinton he would have gotten more votes and it would have been as hard as hell for Bush's people to steal the election. Look at Obama. They tried I know, but he had such an overwhelming lead they couldn't manufacture enough votes to give McCain the election. THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE MADE ABOUT. THEIR CROOKEDNESS DIDN'T WORK. Just think of the lead Obama would have had if all his votes could have been counted.

...8 years of "Centrist" DLC Anti-LABOR, Anti-FDR "New Democrat" policy that created a big vacuum on The Left.
rampant deregulation of Trade, Communications (Fox), Wall Street
Free Trade
Outsourcing
Insourcing
Union Busting
Conglomeration & Consolidation of Wealth & Power
MFN Trade Status for Slave Labor China

Vacuums are filled.
Its Physics.
If not Nader, it would have been someone else.

The current administration has created an even BIGGER vacuum on The Left than the one left behind by Clinton.

http://www.observer.com/node/43315
"But when he picked up his party's standard, the nominee not only reiterated the Democratic commitment to equity and justice. He went further by identifying the abuse of corporate power as the most important obstacle to those ideals. Suddenly, complacent conservatives thought they heard the hoofbeats of the Bolshevik horde. A Democrat proposes a few rather modest reforms that were achieved in European capitalism decades ago, and immediately these people start whining about "class warfare.""

So this argument about Gore's politics makes little sense.

In fact, we need similar populism from Obama right now if we want to reverse any GOP gains in the near future....

A lot more than that was needed.

The "base", by definition, is the most reliable voting segment.

For instance, one candidate didn't really believe in global warming. The other is the most famous global warming activist in the world.

Gore didn't alienate anybody; they alienated themselves with their lack of common sense. And around 90% of them or more did not repeat their mistake.

responsible for the eight years of George W. Bush as every person who forthrightly voted the Bush/Cheney ticket.

An apology from these folks would be nice, but I won't be holding my breath.

Because everyone knows Nader falls on the right side of the political spectrum.

That is like blaming the fans for Pittsburgh's loss to the Saints last night.

The ONLY people responsible for the loss in 2000 IS the Democratic Party Leadership.
The implemented a FAILED election strategy that included a FAILED response to stolen votes in Florida.

I voted Nader in 2000, along with 91,433 other voters in Colorado.

If all of us had voted for Gore, he would still have lost Colorado by 54,084 votes.

I owe no apology to you or anyone else.

Your assertion is wrong. Will you apologize to those you lied about?

nader didn't

Usually, people only repeat profoundly stupid political mistakes once in a generation, but leave it to the American left to buck even that relative historical constant.

Gore did not do anything to alienate the public. The press protrayed him as someone trying to lie to the public. And he still won in Florida anyway.

"War against Gore" prior to the selection of 2000 was because of his strong advocacy of opening up the Internet to the American People.

The corporate media; saw the growing Internet as an increasing threat against their own monopoly on disseminating information in a one way, top down, fashion to the American People, and they knew their power, wealth and influence would wane as a result.

Gore; being the leading political champion behind opening up the Internet and thus magnifying the American People's freedom of speech power like nothing since the First Amendment was adopted over two hundred years ago, became a natural target to the corporate media.

The Purity Police need to grow the fuck up and realize in our current system there are only two candidates in a Presidential race. Vote for one of them.

:evilgrin:

http://cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html

If twice as many Dems in Florida voted for Bush then for Nader, then it seems to me that Gore's main problem was that he was seen as being too liberal. I never saw a Repub ad during the 2000 election that attempted to portray Gore as a centrist, moderate, leaning right or conservative. As best as I can recollect, they attempted to paint him as an outside of the mainstream liberal.