Dear Ralph, Go Fuck Yourself. Love, The Nation

Nick Gillespie | February 14, 2004

After showering "Public Citizen Number One" with all sorts of passive-aggressive love ("you've been part of the Nation family for a long time"), The Nation implores Ralph Nader, the candidate who most closely resembles the mag's own politics not to run for president of the United States.

Why? Because when it comes to supporting "inside-the-Beltway Democrats" or living by supposedly core principles, well, you had them at "inside-the-Beltway Democrats."

When devotion to principle collides with electoral politics, hard truths must be faced. Ralph, this is the wrong year for you to run: 2004 is not 2000. George W. Bush has led us into an illegal pre-emptive war, and his defeat is critical. Moreover, the odds of this becoming a race between Bush and Bush Lite are almost nil. For a variety of reasons--opposition to the war, Bush's assault on the Constitution, his crony capitalism, frustration with the overcautious and indentured approach of inside-the-Beltway Democrats--there is a level of passionate volunteerism at the grassroots of the Democratic Party not seen since 1968.

Jeezus, loweezus, if John Kerry, the presumptive Dem candidate, is not Bush Lite (or at most, Bush Long), then denial really is a river in Africa and the Rosenbergs really were just "non-traditional patriots" (to use the term favored by Ellen Schrecker of Yeshiva University). From the outside looking in (i.e., from a political perspective that also purports to find the major party candidates repugnant), I'm left wondering what the point of being a "progressive" is if you're still supposed to dutifully pull the lever for a Democrat come November. The Working Assets long-distance savings? The opportunity to do the chicken dance with Victor Navasky on The Nation cruise (which swings by Cuba without actually making a port of call in everyone's favorite socialized tropical playground)?

The whole "open letter"--a genre that always plays better as parody than truth--is online here.

If The Nation's latest open letter sounds familiar, that's because it is. Despite the gesture to 2004 being a very different, much more important election that 2000, the magazine counseled its readers then to abandon Nader for Gore anywhere it might actually matter. In its November 6, 2000 issue, The Nation implored its readers thus:

When our insurgent values have accumulated more momentum and self-confidence, we might see things differently. This time around, we believe the practical priority of keeping the Bush squad from winning power takes precedence, while we also urge that, if possible, progressives help Nader score a blow to the status quo. For the larger progressive community, the tension can be resolved by following the logic of Texas columnist Molly Ivins. Her rule: Vote with your heart where you can, and vote with your head where you must. In states where either Gore or Bush has a commanding lead, vote Nader. In the states too close to call, vote Gore. In either case, the imperative is to end Republican control in Congress by electing Democrats, also vital to the prospects for progressive change.

Head, heart, whatever. What's lacking on the left most of all seems to be balls.

Comments

|2.14.04 @ 1:03AM|#

I refuse to sanction a system that cannot get past the idea that economic liberty and social liberty are mutually exclusive.

I refuse to grant legitimacy to a system that forces me to choose between handcuffs or the gag ball - ankle shackles or a straight jacket.

Principles are the individual - party politics is collectivism.

|2.14.04 @ 1:25AM|#

There's a name for people who use principle as an excuse to make themselves utterly impotent and their votes meaningless.

Yes--I believe it's "principled".

But don't worry, I'm sure your vote will have meaning . . . in the state where Candidate A is leading Candidate B by one vote.

|2.14.04 @ 1:34AM|#

Shannon,

Very good point. There was a PhD-type guy being interviewed on NPR about a week ago who made a similar statement among other brilliant observations. I tried to find it on the NPR website so I could get a transcript but can't even rememember what show it was on. Day to Day? If someone could help me, I would appreciate it.

|2.14.04 @ 3:00AM|#

I plan to vote for Dean. If he is not the nominee, I may vote for Nader, if he is on the ballot.

I cannot stand JFK - an unaccomplished, opportunitistic, shallow, botox, marrying rich women, throwing other peoples medals, chasing interns, and a special interests senator.

No to JFK. Yes to Dean or Nader.

Ali Karim Bey

|2.14.04 @ 3:26AM|#

As Shannon excellently observed, much of the voter's approach to selecting Presidents is whether he is "one of us." The culture war transported to the political arena.

We can all imagine how the Left and Feminists would have reacted had Clinton been a Republican in the Lewinsky matter. To them, it would have represented all of the "bad" things about the Right: their misogyny, their view of women as second class citizens, the "power" inequality that the Left is so concerned with. But because Clinton was "one of us", it represented a small affair, a little fling with an intern. As we've all heard them say, "How can you impeach the President over a blow job?"

To the Right, Lewinsky represented the sexual licentiousness of the Left, the disregard for norms, the antinomian tendency that views traditional values as remnants of religious obscurantism and pruddishness.

I wonder, as well, that if the Iraq War had been led by a Democrat - by Clinton or Gore - whether the animosity towards the action on the Left would be so intense. I think not. To many on the Left who, as Hitchens have noted, protested the mistreatment of the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs for so long, it would have been viewed as an act of liberation, of human rights.

Instead, they see it as an act on behalf of Halliburton, or the Necons, or American imperialism. And so, they oppose it.

Interesting how people can see the same act but view it through a sort of "cultural lens" that distort events into reinforcing one's worldview. The Right represents big corporations and fundamentalist Nazis who wish to control our bedrooms; the Left represents antinomian hedonists bent on eradicating tradition and norms.

And so when a President or representative of either of those movements does something - anything - it's interpreted through these contradictory worldviews. So, we select Presidents who fit our particular set of cultural norms, our worldview because we view his policies as reinforcing those same set of values. We'll excuse or overlook flaws or place them in the larger context of "us" versus "them."

Shannon said it much better and with much more brevity.

SMG

|2.14.04 @ 3:32AM|#

And if a Libertarian is ever elected President, anything he does will be seen as an act of deviance by blue-skinnned druids who smoke weed ;-)

|2.14.04 @ 3:52AM|#

Winning through incrementalism is a faulty belief.

It completly ignores the reality that the statist infrastructure erected to limit social freedoms under 1 party - can and will be voted into the other parties control and used to demolish those limits while creating new ones on economics.

There is no winning per se- just a constant back and forth tinkering which - over time - leads in the direction of all out statism.

Sanctioning such a system with pragmatic "the person closest to my beliefs" reasoning fails to acknoledge and act on the fact that you are accepting the false alternative between social and economic liberty at every election.

Mark S.|2.14.04 @ 4:00AM|#

Shannon is spot on. However I like to add something if I may. Politics is about getting "your people" into power, but it's about getting them into power so you can screw "those people." Most Democrats will vote for their candidate not just because they agree with their policies, but because those policies will put the screws to those "Rich, white, male, gun-toting, bible-thumpers." Republicans are the same way, only they take their glee in fucking over "terrorist sympathizing, homosexual loving, abortion supporting, moral relativists."

Never underestimate the power of hate in making political decisions.

|2.14.04 @ 4:03AM|#

So what does Nader and his philosophy get out of a run now, that could potentially (remember, we are talking theory here) cost the Democratic nominee the election?

Simple. He gets the Democratic party's attention. Next time, will they do things his way? Or will they give up another 2-3% of the vote when he runs again?

|2.14.04 @ 4:03AM|#

Mark:
You said: "Never underestimate the power of hate in making political decisions."

There's a famous quote by the historian Henry Adams: "Politics is the systematic organization of hatreds."

He beat you to it, darn.

Cheers.

Steve

|2.14.04 @ 4:25AM|#

Shannon, why don't you have a blog? Your comments are consistently more interesting than the posts to which they are attached (no offense to this particular post).

|2.14.04 @ 4:26AM|#

I voted for principles in 2000, for Bush. I thought a Gore presidency would be a disaster for America.

But now, I really don't see that Kerry would be much worse. In my view, a vote for Bush is a wasted vote; there's not enough of a benefit that comes from him winning to overcome my frustration with him and his policies.

So I'll probably vote Lib this year.

Gene Berkman|2.14.04 @ 4:40AM|#

Since Ralph Nader favors more government, and more restrictions on trade than John Kerry, we should be glad when he loses support. Marginalizing the Green Party is an additional benefit of the anti-Bush polarization on the left.

It does not make sense for the Democrats to pander to the 2.7% who voted for Nader in 2000, because they would lose more votes by doing so.

On the other hand, voting for the Libertarian candidate is a good way for fiscal conservatives to show their disgust with the half trillion dollar deficits and big government conservatism of George Bush.

John Kerry may be Bush-lite, but he won't be able to pressure the Congressional majority to pass his big government proposals, as Bush has been so effective in doing.

|2.14.04 @ 5:01AM|#

I understand Howard Dean hasn't thrown the sponge in yet. Isn't he the guy who most represents what The Nation stands for -- vein-popping, fist-doubling, spit-flying rage?

|2.14.04 @ 5:08AM|#

So what does Nader ... get out of a run now...
Simple. He gets the Democratic party's attention.
---Posted by Don Eyres

You'd think he would have it now.
Of course,
how did the dems treat the 92% true black vote...
...or tax breaks for the little guy, but when did it happen?
...or all that Clinton did for the homeless?

Of course, how did Bush treat the ultra-conservative?
but there we do have promises of how the dems would do.

Is Nader the way all politicians should be,
or is it impossible for a politician to be that way?

|2.14.04 @ 5:31AM|#

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=quixotic

|2.14.04 @ 5:46AM|#

I'd agree with you, Nick, except that Jonah Goldberg did the exact same thing in a recent G-file rant on independents. Goldberg's column pissed me off entirely, and the worst part was--I think he was right. As he writes: "By the time a candidate wins the nomination, you're voting for Democrats versus Republicans...." So if you are going to nail The Nation for this, nail Mr Goldberg & NRO for the same thing. It's only fair.

Chris|2.14.04 @ 6:03AM|#

I see a number of people vilifying Democrats for supposedly being motivated more by their hatred for Bush than by their principles on the issues. I will concede that some people in the party are driven by hatred, but it is far from a majority. A large number of Greens seem to be driven by the same kind of hatred toward Dems and the two-party system, though. The impulse is "we gotta get 5% of the vote so they'll pay attention to us!", not any kind of desire to enact legislation that advances society toward the goals of the party.

And Jeff, if you don't believe incrementalism works, ask generations of African Americans and women how they got the vote and civil rights. I'll give you a hint-it wasn't by going for the whole enchilada at once.

|2.14.04 @ 6:25AM|#

"The same effect occurs with Bush and Leftist even though his domestic policies are very moderate."

I rather doubt anyone from the political center and Leftward would describe Bush's tax cuts as "very moderate" or even "somewhat moderate."

|2.14.04 @ 6:32AM|#

Chris-

Good point on incrementalism.

I think some people here confuse incrementalism with "lesser evil" compromise. "Lesser evil" compromise means accepting a small step backward instead of a big step backward. A good compromise is accepting a small step forward instead of a big step forward.

Here's a thought: What if, in 2002, instead of proposing to completely eliminate the state income tax, the Massachussettes libertarians behind that ballot measure had proposed to halve the income tax and bar ANY future increases of the income, sales, property, and other taxes (my understanding is that they proposed an amendment to the state constitution, correct me if I'm wrong). My hunch is that their ballot measure, which lost 55-45 or so, would have won. Taxpayers in MA would have saved a lot of money. Would it be perfect? Of course not. Would some libertarians lose their ideological virginity? Sadly, yes. Would it be a huge improvement? Absolutely.

Mind you, I respect the people who put a lot of work into getting a surprising showing for eliminating the income tax in MA, of all places. My only point is that an impressive defeat is still a defeat, while a half-victory is better than no victory at all.

pennywit|2.14.04 @ 6:39AM|#

Which is more important: Scoring a couple political points or electing a candidate whose agenda most resembles your own? I vote for the latter.

Mark S.|2.14.04 @ 7:12AM|#

SteveMG: Actually, I'm relieved that someone else could see that as well. Whenever I bring the theory up amoung my more politically optimistic friends, they poo-poo the thought that their actions are not based on anything but "good intentions."

|2.14.04 @ 8:29AM|#

Jeff- "Even when a nice juicy tax cut - or repeal of the patriot act is dangled in front of my face. I know it will cost me something else I hold equally dear."

Unfortunately, politics has been for years a game of "lesser evils." To vote for a minor-third-party candidate is to deny this reality. Personally, I find many of W's domestic policies distasteful, but I must also consider how much worse Kerry might be. Knowing that in the current political climate a Nader or a Perot couldn't win, I must choose what I consider the lesser evil. Probably a very cynical view, but as thoreau said above, "an impressive defeat is still a defeat, while a half-victory is better than no victory at all." I would prefer a half-win or a tie rather than a loss.

I'm not saying this is a good thing, though. Quite a hole we the people have dug for ourselves, eh?

Southpaw... "I rather doubt anyone from the political center and Leftward would describe Bush's tax cuts as "very moderate" or even "somewhat moderate.""
I think that was part of the point. People center and leftward wouldn't consider him "moderate", just as people center and rightward didn't consider Clinton "moderate".

|2.14.04 @ 8:55AM|#

I'm voting for the Libertarian Browne. Some Libertarians say he is a crook.

Good.

America needs more crooked politicians.

Which would you rather have - a principled crook or an unprincipled one?

He is not running this year?

Oh, well. Never mind.

Ricky Vandal|2.14.04 @ 9:03AM|#

I hear some Democrats passionately ranting against Nader running for president. I think those remarks are very dumb, not to say fascist. What makes them think that Nader should be kept from running? That's an Orewellian thought. If you remember Ross Perot kept Bush senior from winning the election against Clinton. I don't hear republicans ask other conservatives to be kept from running. Also remember, you had Nader on the left, but you had Buchanan on the right taking away votes from the main candidates. I hope they come back to your senses, cause exclamations like these are very dangerous. In Europe they led to a political murder recently. What if there is a democrat who is so passionate about defeating Bush, he hears these people's rational and decides to kill Nader, to make sure there are no candidates taking away votes from the left?
PLEASE BE CAREFUL WHITH WHAT YOU SAY.

|2.14.04 @ 9:06AM|#

outside of tax cuts - name 1 thing in FAVOR of liberty Bush has done?

Just 1.

|2.14.04 @ 9:57AM|#

Jeff, the first thing that comes to mind is "removing a despot who was keeping 20,000,000+ people under his heel".

Or does that not count? And if not, why?

|2.14.04 @ 10:02AM|#

Jeff:
(1) Removed the Taliban and al-Qaeda from Afghanistan. You know, the base from which the Islamists were launching their attacks against us?

(2) Appointed judges who understand the concept of judicial self-restraint, both procedural and, most important, substantive self-restraint. Judges who understand that they are not Platonic guardians who get to establish their view of "fairness" and "justice" on the nation regardless of whether it is permitted by the Constitution.

(3) Protected the sovereignty of the U.S. from international control by not signing onto the ICC and other treaties that would usurp American laws. Moreover, an usurpation where the American people had no redress since the individuals making these decisions are not accountable to the public. Let us say, "No internationalization without representation."

I'll leave it at three.

Steve

|2.14.04 @ 10:08AM|#

How exactly is Kerry "Bush Lite"?

I suppose it's accurate if you look at how much the government spends (though in that case, Bush is really Kerry Lite). But on pretty much everything else, there are big differences between them.

|2.14.04 @ 10:23AM|#

I think contemporary politics has more to do with social competition than the battle of ideas. Political parties no longer represent social class or region but instead represent subcultures.

People want to see that "people like us" are seen as dominant in society. They ego identify with political parties like people ego identify with sports team. They root for their team to win with the same uncritical fervor as a sports fan.

The Presidency has become a powerfully symbolic proxy for this struggle. Clinton drove social conservatives absolutely around the bend even though most of his policies were quite moderate because he was not perceived as being "one of us". The same effect occurs with Bush and Leftist even though his domestic policies are very moderate.

The Nation et al want to win for the sake of winning. They want to be able to paint their faces and scream "We're number one!" This ego driven pursuit of power causes them to abandon their principles.

Jeff Smith|2.14.04 @ 10:31AM|#

Nice ending to that one ...

Jeff

|2.14.04 @ 11:22AM|#

Shannon's comments are perfect. The left is empty and bankrupt. It's like watching Night of the Living Dead -- oh sorry, that was the Dean campaign.

I didn't vote for anyone in 2000. I'm glad I didn't vote for Bush; he's provincial and petty and spends like a drunken sailor. I'm very glad I didn't vote for Gore -- every statement he makes is more more evidence of that wisdom.

Ideology is dead. It's all about culture war now, not policy or ideas. If Clinton had invaded Iraq, we wouldn't be hearing much from liberals and only a little from the left. The media would be gaga.

The Republicans are becoming more and more partisan as they kill off ideological conservatism. The avatar of post-Newt Republicanism is Nixon, not Reagan. It's: do anything to consolidate themselves as the majority party.

Democrats became the majority party in the 1930s by expanding government and spending. Living in the era of limits to government, they have nowhere to go any more. The best they can get is second-term Clinton. When people object to Kerry as "Bush lite," what they're really objecting to is Clintonism. Will the Democratic Party ever accept Clinton's second term? Do they see what it really meant?

The really interesting things to watch for in this election will be the revolt of the conservatives and the dilemma of the independents.

Dallas

|2.14.04 @ 11:22AM|#

Whatever you humans do, just make sure to vote!

|2.14.04 @ 11:37AM|#

Shannon: That makes a lot of sense; I think you nailed it.

|2.14.04 @ 11:47AM|#

Nader is not running to defeat Republicans or Democrats,
Nader is going to run to change the two parties.
Don't ask why Nader won't get the message,
ask why the Democratic party won't get his!!

The Democratic platform is in a word, Anti-Bush.
They must run FOR office, not against office.
Nader is too "liberal" too single minded, too idealistic.

Can the democrats wage "war" on Bush as a policy issue?
Villify the head of state of the enemy, Bush,
as was done to Hitler, Tojo, Saddam, Kaiser, etc.

"You can't TRUST Bush" is their theme.
Bush is a deserter from the National Guard,
despite serving twice the required time on active duty.

Bush is a strings-pulled Vietnam draft dodger VS
Kerry volunteered for Nam when he thought the war wrong.

Bush didn't want to go to Vietnam to kill or be killed, VS
Kerry volunteered for two terms in Vietnam,
getting medals for getting wounded
while killing Vietnamese in a war he knew was wrong.

That's OK because he threw his medals over the wall,
but no, he didn't, they are on his office wall,
he just made a show of throwing someone else's over.

Bush flew jet planes over Texas, and maybe Alabama, VS
Kerry commanded a gunboat risking his life saving our killers,
the ones Kerry came back as a V-Vet Agin the War
testifying before the Senate of our troops' war crimes.

Bush's war is illegal, was wrong VS
I voted for the war, but not to support the troops there.

The war was bad, but removing Saddam was good.
Is this their foreign policy?

Then there is Bush ties to rich oil interests, etc.
Is CLASS WARFARE going to work with Kerry married
to Heinz heiress millionaire NE socialite?

Talk about Bush's actions 30 years ago VS
Don't talk about Kerry's ties, his votes.
Don't talk about Kerry's 30 years ago politics.
Don't talk about Kerry's 30 years younger interm.

Do talk about right 'dirty tricks' using interns VS
Don't talk about Wes Clark's leak to the press,
but accept his endorsement.

Can they not buy off Nader, accept some of his positions?
Can Nader not be promised Secretary of Commerce,
to head the FDA, head of energy policy?

Nader needs to advocate his own beliefs,
not the false promises of the hypocrits.

|2.14.04 @ 11:57AM|#

Nick -

You're only making the Nation's case for them. You're exhibit #1. This post makes you sound as if you've never heard of the electoral college.

There's a name for people who use principle as an excuse to make themselves utterly impotent and their votes meaningless. It's YOU who needs to grow balls, comrade.

|2.14.04 @ 12:27PM|#

Wow Vic, you stud.

|2.14.04 @ 12:32PM|#

I like the assessment of politics and culture. What I wonder is if this is really new. Sure, we hear about candidates' platforms from the past. We don't hear in history class whether FDR flipped pancakes at an Iowa caucus to prove that he's "just folks." (Um, wait, I just realized that nominees were chosen differently back then, but surely at some point he must have hit the campaign trail and been asked to prove, by one means or another, that he's "one of us.") We don't hear in history class whether Lincoln spoke at the 19th century equivalent of a NASCAR race, or whatever.

Whatever one might think of the electoral college, its implications for third party movements are clear: If you want to get a lot of votes without "spoiling" anything stick to "safe states." If you want to "spoil" the race to "send a message" or "defeat a really bad guy" or whatever your goal, do your campaigning in Florida.

|2.15.04 @ 1:15AM|#

Sydney Carton

Puhhhh-leeaase

"...The firstmost being: preventing anymore September 11ths from happening..."

When will you people get it thru your heads, September 11th was a one-off by some nut-cases financed by a nut-case Saudi millionaire.

Furthermore, the nutcase plot that these nutcases hatched would have been discovered by any reasonably competent intelligence orginization long ago.

Which leads one to ask, why don't you ask your "leaders" (the Arkansas wonder-boy and the shrub, "What the fuck, I mean, What the fucking fuck have you been doing???""

|2.15.04 @ 1:24AM|#

O monarch Lord of all

We are such fools.

Can you ever forgive us.

|2.15.04 @ 1:30AM|#

outside of tax cuts - name 1 thing in FAVOR of liberty Bush has done?

Jeff-

Some here argue that the invasion of Iraq was a good thing. So to avoid that Rohrschach test, let's rephrase the question. Here's how I would pose it:

"Outside of tax cuts, name one thing that Bush has done to reduce the size and scope of the US government?"

The invasion of Iraq, however wonderful or horrible it might be (we'll be squabbling over that forever, and I'll bet that somebody will even try to argue with me over it in response to this post, no matter how many times I indicate that this post is avoiding that subject) falls outside the scope of that question. The invasion of Iraq is an exercise of gov't power. It may be perfectly legitimate and beneficial, but it is not an act of downsizing.

To put it in perspective, FDR participated in the overthrow Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo. (OK, he didn't live to see it all to completion, but he led the US into the war and was at least nominally in charge throught most of the duration of the war, even if in his bad health others had to handle most decisions near the end. Anyway, you get my point.) Most would say that those were wonderful acts from the standpoint of liberty. But there's no denying that while he did those wonderful things he also expanded the size and scope of the US gov't.

(Now that I've said something positive about FDR, I have no doubt that I'll be lambasted here. Never mind that I criticized him for expanding the US gov't. I guess some knees just instinctively jerk...)

fyodor|2.15.04 @ 1:39AM|#

I just read the post and so I'll comment on it directly rather than anything on the thread.

Re: "I'm left wondering what the point of being a "progressive" is if you're still supposed to dutifully pull the lever for a Democrat come November."

Maybe, just maybe, there's other ways to effect social and political change than voting for a party whose wet dream is to get 5% of the vote. Plus, it's disengenous and condescending to describe this advice as imploring a "dutiful" pullng of the lever. If someone thinks voting for Nadar is counterproductive, saying so is not tantamount to advocating mindless allegience.

I think the worst thing about what The Nation says is that they won't admit that if a Ralph candidacy is counterproductive now, it was in 2000, too. I don't know if Kerry is Bush Lite (depends on your perspective), but he's certainly no less so than Gore was. But this is the Left's line right now. They're learning from their mistake but not admitting it was a mistake by claiming things are different now. Nonsense. It's the same basic issue it was in 2000. Only now they have the hindsight to know how dumb it was last time. Make that the vivid hindsight, cause anyone who did any historical research on the matter could have predicted it would play out like this (at least that the Green Party would likely fade from their lofty 2% by the next election rather than building up into a genuine electoral force; that the 2000 election was actually close enough for that 2% to have made a difference in a spoiler role only became evident as the election drew near).

|2.15.04 @ 1:43AM|#

THATS WHY I'VE BEEN SAYING VOTE JOHN EDWARDS!! Hell at least he's not SUPERrich and has a legitamate background and family roots in the real world eh?

|2.15.04 @ 2:01AM|#

The poster is rooting for more extremism on the Left.

As a Republican, I might have rooted for Dean to win the Democratic nominee since he might well be the easiest to defeat. But as an American patriot, I need the Democrats to put forth their best candidate.

America needs the best Democrat out there. America does not need some simplistic ideological purity and fiery anger and uncompromising stance whether it is Dean, or some Libertarian candidate.

America does not need some 2% support base guy like Nader or some Libertarian candidate. You have to be able to appeal to a wide array of people. And this may come as a shock to some people, but many people are genuinely different and see the world in ways that are odd to you.

Whoever is President has to rule over lumberjacks and eco-freaks, and a whole ton of other opposites. Having a 2% support base means that you don't know how to do that.

Those who demand instant change would do well to study the French Revolution and other utopian excesses. Truly massive change, like instituting a Libertarian utopia in two terms of a President would be would probably create a civil war and result in the WMD terror by Americans on American soil. And the weakness of our nation would have us set on by all the other statist predators out there (you do believe that gov'ts are inherently predatory, don't you?)

Fortunately this is almost certainly not going to happen. Its more likely than my winning a massive lottery, but not much more so.

So the course for the Libertarians and Naderites and other fringe forces with persuasive and powerful ideas is 1)Get angry and stomp out in an incestuous little hive with the result that some of your brethren get nutty and the rest have no effect OR 2) Get angry but stay involved. Become a joke, and a permanent fringe. 3)Pull out and form a powerful third party and watch your most popular ideas be co-opted by the major parties and your party destroyed. 4)Make compromises, and understand that maybe perfection is not possible, and a step forward is a step forward. Realize that Dems good on social freedom and Reps good on economic freedom idea is not really that accurate. The Reps tend to support most social freedom as well, just not your few pet hobbyhorses. 5)Wait and develop some better ideas and a broader base of support, and full-heartedly support the Repubs (that too will require compromise), and when the Dems are crushed you can then split off from the Republicans in a reprise of the Era of Good Feelings since the American system pretty much requires two major parties. And if you do that, you may find that there is actually a Libertarian party (it will be the minority party for a while) in 2030 that has replaced the Democrats, and someday in maybe 2035 a Libertarian President will dedicate a statue to 'those brave visionaries who went before us"- that would be you guys. Or you can get angry. We Socons and Neocons and all the other flavors of Reps need your help in defeating the true statists, but if you're too good for us, then you're not good enough to have an effect.

Tadeusz

|2.15.04 @ 2:10AM|#

Sydney--

You seem to think that if Gore had won, we'd all be bowing to Mecca at gunpoint by now. This is unrealistic. I haven't the time to go into a detailed list of all Bush has done to make this country worse than when he inherited it, but I am surprised that nobody seems to have caught the obvious reason The Nation asked Nader not to run: if not for Nader, Gore would have won (hanging chads notwithstanding) and this country would probably be considerably less scary today.

I mean, yes, technically Gore won in the sense that he had more individual votes, but the Nader votes managed to make the electoral count insecure enough to have the Supreme Court decide the matter.

I assume The Nation is putting pragmatism over principle here. The world would run more efficiently if more people did that.

|2.15.04 @ 2:27AM|#

"When will you people get it thru your heads, September 11th was a one-off by some nut-cases financed by a nut-case Saudi millionaire."

A one-off? Was the 1993 WTC bombing, Somalia, the Khobar Towers, the two embassy bombings, and the USS Cole a "one-off"?

Failure to see that we are the targets of radical muslim Islamists is suicide. Thankfully, President Bush does not share your deluded appraisel of the situation.

|2.15.04 @ 3:34AM|#

I imagine it must be nice to actually believe that, were another group of terrorists intent on wreaking major havoc in the US, Bush's actions of the past 2.5 years would stand a good chance of stopping them.

As for liberating Iraq, well, absolutely, that's a point for freedom--as long as you ignore the stolen money used to finance the liberation, and don't too closely at all those corpses of innocent people. When medical science advances to the point that organ transplant rejections become infinitesimally unlikely, I look forward to hearing all of your arguments for saving two people's lives with the heart and liver of a third person.

|2.15.04 @ 4:01AM|#

Gee, I wish my party had the balls to never get out of single digits in a national election.

Real world politics is so icky. It's a lot more fun to sit around with your buds and talk about how noble you are for not selling out. "Sure, Bush would probably start another needless war and put us a couple trillion deeper in the whole, but at least our hands are clean."

What's the military body count, 530? Maybe you should sent a nice card with a Libertarian logo to the widows, explaining your princples.

fyodor|2.15.04 @ 4:37AM|#

Jennifer,

Yes, the Nation is being pragmatic. But, with all due respect, I take issue with your framing the choice as if in choosing pragmatism they are choosing against principle. If some people think it's more "principled" to vote for the candidate who agrees with you the most rather than the candidate who agrees with you second most when that former candidate has no chance to win but the latter does, I say those people simply have screwy principles. Or stated another way, what *is* the principle at play here? As long as you are doing *whatever* you do because you think it will effect good in the world rather than to effect badness (that sounds rather cartoonish, but how else to say it?) or to bring about good for the world in general rather than just for yourself at the expense of everyone else, I don't see how any "principle" is being violated!

And please don't take offense if I seem to take your words too literally. The reason I address this distinction is because it needs to be! It is all too often assumed without challenge that there is something more "principled" about voting for a third party candidate whom you agree with more than it is to vote for the lesser evil of the major party candidates. And I say that, while sure you have the RIGHT to vote for whomever, there is nothing AT ALL more "principled" about a third party vote.

|2.15.04 @ 5:19AM|#

Give me a break--------Draft Ron Paul !!

|2.15.04 @ 6:11AM|#

On principle vs. pragmatism: I'm quite willing to lose my ideological virginity if it will give a result that is better than the status quo. There's a big difference between "better than the status quo" and "not as bad as the other guy."

Now, we can debate which candidates fall into which categories. But I have the "good fortune" of living in a state that leans strongly toward one party, and has districts (US House and state legislative) that are heavily gerrymandered to favor that party. So my vote doesn't count, and I can afford to vote for the LP, secure in the knowledge that voting for a Republocrat wouldn't change the outcome. Two cheers for redistricting! Robert Mugabe himself couldn't have rendered an election less relevant.

I have, in other threads, suggested that the solution is proportional representation, electing legislators from districts of, say, 10 members. If a party gets 10% of the vote, they get 1 seat, 20% gets 2 seats, etc.. Of course, people here always lambast that idea. Apparently they'd prefer to vote in elections where legislators already stacked the deck to favor one side or the other. Who needs competitive elections?

Anyway, if I ever have the good fortune to live in a place where elections matter I will probably vote Republocrat about half the time and LP the other half. Voting LP shows what issues I care about, but sometimes voting Republocrat shows that my vote is out there for them to win if they are willing to make genuine improvements.

|2.15.04 @ 6:32AM|#

Conservatives recognize that in the scheme of things, Bush has done fundamentally WONDERFUL things for liberty. The firstmost being: preventing anymore September 11ths from happening.

Oh yes, I've just feeling SO oppressed by my roughtly-equivalent-to-getting-struck-by-lightning chances of dying in a terrorist attack.

Why, I almost forgot completely about my constantly shrinking economic privacy and my share in paying off your massively borrowed budget expenditures while facing a considerably better-than-struck-by-lightning chance of getting laid off.

Well, at least if that happens I can probably land a defense job thanks to the WONDERFUL liberty-minded folks at Project for a New American Century. Maybe by the time I'm 40, and military spending is 5% of the GNP, I'll finally be able to rest easy knowing my kids have a bright future in some kind of government uniform.

Or maybe I'll just go back to Poland. At least there our leader admits he's a fucking Godless Communist.

|2.15.04 @ 6:42AM|#

Pavel sounds to me like the sort of person who questions his leaders. We don't want that sort of commie scum in this good God-fearing nation where our leaders are given the benefit of the doubt in all things. It says right in the Bible that God raised up leaders above us for a reason, and they should be obeyed no matter what.

Out, ye commie heathen! Get your Arabiac Islamo-fascist ass back where you belong in Eastern Europe.

(Yes, I learned geography in public schools, so I'm a little fuzzy on whether Arabiacs are from Eastern Europe or Vietnam. Or maybe they're from France. I'm not too good on that book learnin.)

|2.15.04 @ 8:31AM|#

Free minds and free markets, huh? You're supporting President "Steel Tarriffs are Good for Me!" Bush, huh?

Small government, huge medicare increases, same dif!

|2.15.04 @ 8:32AM|#

I am in agreement with Sydney Carton's assessment, and would also add the other two decades of 'one-off' terrorism to his list.

I believe America is divided, not by politics but, by those who have continued to ride the LSD driven 'magic bus' our country has been on for the past thirty years or by those who have disembarked that bus.

9/11/01 was a day of rehab. In order to cure our addiction we had to hit bottom.

|2.15.04 @ 8:43AM|#

> technically Gore won in the sense that he had more individual votes

|2.15.04 @ 8:53AM|#

(Calmer, cooler joe here)

When considering public affairs, pragmatism in principle. The actions of an individual acting along can be ethically judges based on their proximity to principle. If you run into a burning building at great personal risk and with little chance of success in hopes of saving another, you are performing a highly moral act. However, the actions of government are about other people, and if you want your choices to be considered ethical, you'd better consider cold hard facts, do a hard cost/benefit analysis, and take into accout your chances of success. Pragmatism is a very principled stance in politics.

|2.15.04 @ 9:10AM|#

dj,

Clinton came in under 50% in 96, too. The last majority president was old Bush in 1988.

The 500-odd lead Bush got under the newspapers' recount was not "the recount Gore wanted." It only looked at ballots counted as undervotes. When all ballots were reexamined, overvotes, Gore won by a few thousand.

|2.15.04 @ 9:31AM|#

> If I vote Kerry I get my social liberties back (relativley speaking)

|2.15.04 @ 9:34AM|#

> outside of tax cuts - name 1 thing in FAVOR of liberty Bush has done? Just 1.

|2.15.04 @ 9:43AM|#

Dammit, if I don't start previewing my typing, people are going to start thinking I'm writing in verse.

"Pragmatism in principle" Sounds like a third party's campaign slogan.

|2.15.04 @ 9:48AM|#

> Small government, huge medicare increases, same dif!

Phil|2.15.04 @ 10:34AM|#

Shorter Joe: "If the government fucks somebody, and you didn't vote for the other party, it's your fault."

son volt|2.15.04 @ 11:21AM|#

It's ridiculous for libertarians to pretend they don't have common interests with the faction that is currently engineering a fiscal train wreck from the White House.

That's why Nick's post is so patently dishonest: he'd much prefer the faction with whom the likes of Grover Norquist are influential, and is saying that, if leftists don't help bring about this outcome, they're unprincipled.

Cute.

|2.15.04 @ 12:02PM|#

"The really interesting things to watch for in this election will be the revolt of the conservatives and the dilemma of the independents."

Conservatives are not like Jeff, asking if you can name 1 thing Bush has done in favor of liberty.

Grayson nails it perfectly (and so does Jonah Goldberg). The Presidency is about Democrat verses Republican, and I'll even be so bold as to state that DIFFERENCES STILL REMAIN ON IDEOLOGY AND THE USE OF FEDERAL POWER. Conservatives recognize that in the scheme of things, Bush has done fundamentally WONDERFUL things for liberty. The firstmost being: preventing anymore September 11ths from happening. Otherwise, it'd be a little difficult to exercise your liberty when you're freaking dead. It's amazing how liberals and libetarians often forget that, but then again, I have no sympathy for single-issue voters or those who as Shannon describes would probably do the same thing if they were in power, if not for their own ego and "the other guy" in place instead.

Conservatives, of which I am, also recognize that the Presidency is not a birthday party and you don't always get what you want. That said, it is clear that Bush is enacting a major conservative agenda: National Secutity and Pro-Military, Federal Judges, Partial-Birth Abortion, Low Taxes, Preventing Needless Internationalism and Stupid Treaties, and eliminating useless Clintonian regulations.

Those who, like Jeff, ask what good Bush has done for them lately are pretty darn short-sighted. But perhaps I'm a little more grateful because I live in New York City and haven't experienced another terrorist attack yet (even though God knows every day I wake up and turn on the news before even brushing my teeth to make sure my office building is still standing). I have no confidence that a Democrat would protect this country in the aggressive way that Bush has, and I shudder to think at what a supposed "libetarian" would do. The Patriot Act is a great tool, since it extends to terrorists the same tools used to bring down the Mafia (another NYC thing I'm pretty familiar with), and to all but the most obtuse people out there, that is a GOOD THING.

So there will be no revolt of the "conservatives," who by and far LOVE GEORGE BUSH. There might be a revolt from libetarians, but that party could never garner more than 1-2% at the polls anyway. And yes, that doesn't mean that conservatives are blind to Bush's faults, like federal spending, stupid legislative proposals, or his lack of a charamatic image. We know. But we're not morons, and are able to prioritize.

Revolt of the conservatives? Please. Glenn Reynolds will vote for Bush in November, bar none. And so will many, many others who right now are pointing out his flaws. Because flaws or no, they're not stupid.

Reginleif the Valkyrie|2.15.04 @ 12:42PM|#

Mind you, I respect the people who put a lot of work into getting a surprising showing for eliminating the income tax in MA, of all places.

Thoreau, I don't know if your handle indicates that you live in the vicinity of Walden Pond :-) , but if you're not from around here, you might be surprised at how many locals are fed up with having to live in the People's Republic of Taxachusetts.

I myself was at a small get-together last night where I heard Jay Severin, the libertarian talk-show host, described as a "Nazi." Another person described the general semi-blue-collar suburban area where I grew up as "a pit" and full of "white trash" (uh, only if you're a spoiled little bitch from Newton, a/k/a "Snooton"). Then these same people profess bewilderment at why ordinary Americans won't vote Democratic. I guess we're just a bunch of dumb rednecks...

Kevin Carson|2.16.04 @ 1:15AM|#

"I'm left wondering what the point of being a "progressive" is if you're still supposed to dutifully pull the lever for a Democrat come November."

I can't help thinking of Sam Smith's (Progressive Review) question: why should progressives/greens support a party that won't give them the same respect it gives to corporation lawyers and investment bankers?

I share the same attitude toward major party arrogance, although in my case it manifested itself in a Harry Browne vote rather than a Nader vote.

But this time around, as much as my sympathies would ordinarily lie with the "pox on both their houses" view, I'm leaning toward "anybody but Bush." Bush and Kerry share a LOT in common on foreign and economic policy. But the deciding difference, for me, is Kerry lacks the really scary people Bush has surrounded himself with. Negroponte, Armitage, Poindexter, and that whole organized crime network of money launderers for death squads (not to mention planners for martial law here at home) need to go, and go NOW--no matter how tightly I have to hold my nose to vote for the challenger.

|2.16.04 @ 1:27AM|#

The F word is is in a title that describes the tack that the Nation is taking. It is not directed at any responce that was posted. As I said, I don't want to Pollyannaish but even your reply is in the vain of conversation, not attack.

I will stick around

John

|2.16.04 @ 1:27AM|#

The F word is is in a title that describes the tack that the Nation is taking. It is not directed at any responce that was posted. As I said, I don't want to Pollyannaish but even your reply is in the vain of conversation, not attack.

I will stick around

John

|2.16.04 @ 1:46AM|#

Kevin-

Do you live in a swing state? If so, then a vote for a "lesser evil" this November might make sense. (Which candidate constitutes a "lesser evil" is the subject of endless and unresolvable debate on this forum, of course.)

I have the "good fortune" of living in a place where my vote doesn't matter, so I get to vote my conscience. They say that conscience is what you do when nobody is paying attention, and since my vote doesn't count I guess I'm the world's most ethical voter...

Or something like that.

|2.16.04 @ 3:18AM|#

"When will you people get it thru your heads, September 11th was a one-off by some nut-cases financed by a nut-case Saudi millionaire."

I get it now. The embassy bombings in Africa, the attack on the Cole, and the first attack on the WTC were just bad dreams.

|2.16.04 @ 3:25AM|#

"if not for Nader, Gore would have won (hanging chads notwithstanding) and this country would probably be considerably less scary today."

The only way it would be less scary is if you assume that, with Repubs controlling Congress, we'd have gridlock. The idea of Gore getting the things he wants is scary indeed.

"I mean, yes, technically Gore won in the sense that he had more individual votes, but the Nader votes managed to make the electoral count insecure enough to have the Supreme Court decide the matter."


Gore didn't technically win anything. He lost the electorial college, which is the only "technical" thing that mattered. The Supremes didn't "decide the matter", they just made the Dems stop recounting using different methods until finding a result to their liking.

|2.16.04 @ 5:13AM|#

John,

Libertarians are the most pragmatic, polite and civil dialecticians on the planet.

Occasionally they will use words like "balls" and "fuck" to make it seem like they aren't just former members of the Young Republicans Club who now smoke pot.

Don't take offense, it says more about them than you.

|2.16.04 @ 6:14AM|#

I agree
No offence taken, no offence given.

Thank you for confirming my first impression of this site.

A class act by all.

John

|2.16.04 @ 8:21AM|#

The 500-odd lead Bush got under the newspapers' recount was not "the recount Gore wanted." It only looked at ballots counted as undervotes. When all ballots were reexamined, overvotes, Gore won by a few thousand.

Of course, that fictitious recount was also not the recount Gore wanted.

Gore did not want a recount of the entire state, he wanted a recount of a few Dem counties. This is known as data mining.

He lost, joe. Get over it.

|2.16.04 @ 9:39AM|#

dj of raleigh: That's utterly poetic, man. Totally crazy, but a boffo read.

|2.16.04 @ 10:00AM|#

Isn't it easiest just to vote (or not) for the best qualified? Then you have plenty of time for shopping and other important stuff.

|2.16.04 @ 10:38AM|#

This is the most civilized exchange I have ever read on the web. It is totally with out the anger and hate speach that is the hallmark of all the others. I will continue reading the many very well thought out and inteligent postings on this site. What a breath of fresh air.

John

|2.16.04 @ 10:44AM|#

John,

That's the driest sarcasm I've ever seen.
Four and a half stars.

|2.16.04 @ 11:42AM|#

I have been reading postings from many sites and found that most of the time, the degenerate into nasty name calling and totally lose site of the thread. At first glance at the postings on this site, I found that even people that totally disagree on "Principle" make thoughtful replys. The word balls sor far is the most serious invective, pretty tamed.

Sorry if this is Pollyannaish but it is nice to hear political speech that sticks to the point with out getting personal.

I stand by my comments.


John

|2.16.04 @ 12:05PM|#

John,

You were not in jest? Stick around for a few days.
But you are mostly right. This place has its share of crackpots, but we are crackpots who take things seriously.
Most of the time.
Well, often.

|2.16.04 @ 12:37PM|#

What if? What if Gore had won?

Nineleven would still have happened.

Saddam would still be in power.
UN inspectors would still be frustrated.
Saddam would still say "America can't take 10K killed."
The USA would NOT have overthrown Iraq.
Over 500 US soldiers would still be alive.
The UN sanctions would have been lifted via French
negotiations, saying Iraq had fulfilled obligations.
Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz would Meet the Press
and President Gore, too, to pose for photos with Liberman
at the signing of agreements ending 12 years of UN embargo.

The USA would not have overthrown Afghanistan.
Over a 100 US soldiers would still be alive.
The Taliban would still be ruling by Islamic law.

Osama would be filming & recruiting for training camps.
The UN would hold a warrant on Osama bin Laden.
Osama would travel between Arab countries on TV.
Saudi Arabia would begin negotiations with Osama.
David Lynn Walker would still be a solder of Islam.
His parents would still think of themselves as good parents.

English opposition groups would be attacking Tony Blair.

France and Germany would have interest and influence
with Saddam, and be in competition within the EU.

Russia would be against most actions taken by anyone,
but they would stop short of taking action.

Liberman would NOT have brokered peace in the middle east.
Jimmy Carter would still want the Nobel Peace prize.

Pakistan and India would still be on the brink of Nuclear war.
Pakistan's Kahn would still be selling nuclear secrets,
but he would not be so well known in the world.

Libya would be working on their secret nuclear program,
but the CIA, MI6, TAFKA-KBG*-now-KBN, Mossad, and MSDECE,
would NOT have a clue as to what was going on,
and if they did, Gore would not know what to do,
but be assured that many meeting would be held
and much talking would be done - Scissors, Rock, Paper!

Kadafi would still be trying to end sanctions,
and in a deal with Gore's female Secretary of State,
would get restitution for Reagan's attack in '86.
She should have worn a veil to hide her poker-less face.

North Korea would deny selling missiles or being oppressive.
Kim Jong II would have met with Gore emissaries
and be receiving food and oil for promises made
to stop making threats of war and nuke use.
The Clinton Korean policy continues.

There would be NO Patriot Act.
There would be a LOT more new Federal employees.
There would not have been a tax cut.
There would have been a tax increase,
"for the children and the planet ecology."
The national debt would be small,
the trade deficit would be higher.

There WOULD have been at least ONE Supreme Court nominee,
a liberal judge from the 9th Court of Appeals,
who would have his nomination held up by Republicans.

Global warming would be under serious study,
and used as reason for increased gas taxes
and extreme measures taken by the EPA.

Control over Gore's internet would be given to the UN,
which would tax the net for use of domain names,
to pay for the international bureaucracy created
necessary to pay for access in poor nations w/o electricity,
which would require solar powered PC technology,
which would require US funding, "for the poor."

Ralph Nader would be appointed Consumer Czar over
Nader's Crusaders against privacy and corporate greed.
The Internet is UNSAFE at any speed, DSL, cable or dial-up.
Libertarians would be up in arms, but they're gone.
Still, drugs would be legalized, so they can get stoned.

Gays were married en-masse on the White House steps.
Gore said that someday a gay would be president.
Someone said that there already had been one.
Gore looked over Clinton & Carter's way. Naw!

The Green Party would remain totally unsatisfied, as always.
Mad Cow is used as an excuse to force all cattle killed.
Vegetarians are happy at the news cows are extinct.
There is a fund drive to ship them all to India.
Gore says this will help the trade deficit this year.

NPR separates from the government corporation
and changes the P from Public to Propoganda.
The word Republican has not been used since on air.

Governor Dean of Vermont is running for the Senate,
but loses the primary after being endorsed by his pal Al.
They blamed it on Clinton, but it didn't stick.

Retired General Wes Clark is reported by tabloids
as having 'just faded away' leading to UFO/alien rumors.
A re-make of the Michael Rennie/Patricia Neal movie,
"The Day The Earth Stood Still" is in the works,
with Wes Clark playing Rennie's rigid faced Klaatu,
and recent Ketchup-divorcee John Kerry will play Gort,
the 9'silver robot.
Kerry's film noir face is perfect for the part,
says director Michael Moore, and will save on make-up costs. Moore has gotten so fat that he explodes.
Seems he wasn't fat at all, just hadn't had a BM in years.
He was full of it, close friend Al Franken said.
He was my best friend, and he didn't even like me.
Since the defeat of Bush, Franken has wrestled in the WWF.

Back to the movie:
Aging Presidential contender, Hillary, forsook her office,
her last name, and is practicing Neal's world saving line,
"Klaatu Borada Nikto" over and over for the movie,
having been personally picked for the role by Clark.

Former husband and President Bill Clinton is also going Hollywood,
rumored to be the male lead for another re-make,
probably the politically sensitive to Republicans remake
of Nixon's fall -- All the President's Men --
re-titled to "Deep Throat" no doubt referring to
the infamous mystery man who leaked facts to the press.
Monica Lewinsky is also seeking an acting career.
Wouldn't it be great if they appeared together!

The Clinton legacy is being cast in bronze at this time,
a statue showing Clinton being spiritually counseled
for martial infidelity by whispers from Rev. Jesse Jackson,
who stands at Clinton�s side while an intern kneels in front,
as if in appreciation of their mutual respect for women.

Fidel Castro is saying he has lived so long to see this day,
when trade with the US is about to begin anew,
Fidel welcomes the loans and investments from the US.
Communist scientists announce sugar is good for you.
Gore will go down in history for opening the door to Cuba.

President Gore is learning to break dance for exercise,
and to better relate to poor black street gang kids.
He is also learning RAP body language, so he will have some.

Gore's wife, Tipper, is running for the new Senate seat
in the new city-state of DeeCee. (get new license plates)
They like to kiss in public, and other stuff too.

Jesse Jackson, who took dating advice from Tipper,
says he will run against her, unless a deal is cut.
Jackson says that if little ol� Dee Cee can be a state,
then surely NYC, Chicago, Houston, LA, Philly, can too.

Jesse, the moral leader of the second biggest minority,
wants to be the Windy City�s first Senator,
setting a better example than Sen. Strom Thurmond
who died without acknowledging his bastard daughter.
At least Jesse said he would pay just before air time.
Why are our black children and pro basketball players
having half their children out of wedlock?
If only there were more Jesse Jackson's out there,
or is there?

While Republicans fumed, and Libertarians argued,
over the impact of all the new seats in congress,
Gore announced that the 100 million Asians arriving
via the Panama Canal on cargo ships, would not be let in
over our tightly controlled borders unless they could show
that they were fleeing oppressive, non-democratic government,
at which time they could remain while immigration investigated.
Growth is good. Consumption is bad. Chinese food is great!

Senator McCain would be winning the Republican primaries
had not he let out a primal scream after losing a minor state.

The Amish feel disenfranchised due to blank screens
which appeared on their voting machines.
Why do we send solar PCs to the 3rd world
and let our farmers do without right here at home?

What if Gore had won? Well, some believe he did,
and if so, look where it got us!

|2.16.04 @ 12:48PM|#

John

Have you overlooked the presence of the F-word in the title?

|2.17.04 @ 6:54AM|#

It looks like Naderites will have a chance to vote their conscience again. It seems he is nun to happy with the greens for asking him to capitulate in order to have everyone vote for the �elect able� candidate. It will be interesting to see who blames who for their loss as a result. Very interesting

|2.17.04 @ 10:21AM|#

John, stick around for an Israel or Iraq thread. Apparently, I approve of suicide bombings.

thoreau, you are correct about swing states. Living in a dark blue state, I was able to vote for the Green Party electors (that's right, the Green Party electors. That's who I voted for. Ready your Constitution) without fearing that I would contribute to a Bush win.

fyodor|2.17.04 @ 11:10AM|#

thoreau, and everyone else,

Lest my comments re pragmatism versus principle as applied to voting for favorite candidate versus lesser of winnable evils be misinterpreted, allow me to make clear that I'm not necessarily saying that voting for the lesser of winnable evils OR that taking the ostensibly pragmatic road is always necessarily any more "principled" than the reverse. In general I tend to avoid such sweeping generalities. :)

My point is only that the so-called "voting your conscience" is not ipso facto the taking of the higer road. Now, maybe in some cases it is. I can sure understand Thoreau's reasons for voting LP. It's nice to show that we're "out there." What the best way to vote is when you detest the only candidates who seem to reasonably stand a chance is just one of those inherently paradoxical issues that have no easy or set answer. And so I'm not saying that one method of solving this paradox is always better than the other. I'm only saying that neither is inherently more "principled," and therefore it's not an issue of principle against pragmatism.

Das all..

|2.17.04 @ 12:23PM|#

Am I the only one posting that actually voted for Harry Browne in 2000?

Does that make me pricipled or pragmatic? or just an idiot?

fyodor|2.17.04 @ 12:56PM|#

native NYer,

It makes you someone who voted for Harry Browne in 2000, that's about it. Any meaning you attach to that will have to be up to you! :)

Kim Stan|9.10.04 @ 3:35AM|#

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 203.162.3.148
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/20/2004 08:59:30
If you would be unloved and forgotten, be reasonable.

|11.3.04 @ 8:30PM|#

A valuable object lesson will be doled out soon, and the American people as a whole will fail to see it yet again. Megalomania is an interesting trait for a movie or TV character, but not for a chief executive. There are other social gains that the republican right has scaled back enormously.

5t453k|11.15.04 @ 10:23AM|#

Very large New-york guide