Democrats and Liberalism
One of the largest problems with the Democratic party today is that it has trouble defining itself as anything but not Republican. The things the Democrats have stood for in the past have been demonized by the Republicans and the Right. Now, Democrats find themselves in a precarious position where their base tends to be more like the Green party and other more progressive and liberal parties than those at the helm of the Democratic party.
For the Democratic party to support things such as universal healthcare and free education from kindergarten through college, they need to be able to withstand the wrath of Republicans and the accusations of being "communist". They need to be able to effectively communicate that socialism is not the same as communism. They need to take back the word "liberal" and not treat it as something to be avoided like the plague. They need to show that it is possible to be both conservative and support social programs. They need to show that investing in the future is a smarter strategy than blowing the budget with tax-cuts. They need to show that universal healthcare will actually save people money and that the taxes needed for such healthcare will be far less than what people are currently paying for their HMOs or health insurance. They need to have spines.
Take, for instance, John Kerry and John Edwards. The Democratic presidential and vice-presidential candidates both voted to give authorization to go to war in Iraq while most of the Democratic party's base was against it from the start. The candidates are against a single-payer universal healthcare system whereas most of the base is for it. John Kerry supports NAFTA and the WTO where most of the base is against them. John Edwards, during the primaries, professed to being against those organizations. Most of the Democratic party's base wants free education but the candidates are only in support of putting bandaids on a broken system. Such bandaids along with scabs will only later be pulled off by the next Republican to take office. Most of the Democratic party's base supports more personal freedoms and a less invasive government whereas the candidates both voted in support of the Patriot Act.
The Democratic party is alienating their base while trying to appeal to the more moderate crowd that they might be able to take away from the Republicans. They are assuming that their base will be content in voting for not Republican in 2004. Well, as a proud Liberal Democrat, I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. I want a choice that I can vote for and still have a clean conscious.
Now state Democratic parties are sparring off with the Nader/Camejo combination in trying to prevent ballot access. They are denying ballot access under the guise of enforcing laws that seem to have been enacted to prevent any strong challenges to the current Democrat/Republican duopoly. Nader seems to align more with the Democratic party's base than those in charge of the Democratic party. The state Democratic parties seem to be scared that Nader will take enough votes away from the Democrats in the November election to cause another loss to George W. Bush.
What these Democrats are forgetting is that if John Kerry is unable to pick up those votes from Nader it is because of Kerry's own failings as a candidate. Nader, the Green party and the Socialist Workers party support what the Democrats wish they could but are too scared to support. As a Liberal Democrat, I want a choice.
It is very sad when the nation that declares itself as the leader of the free world is one party away from a dictatorship. While the people in the Democratic party are very diverse and much more widely spread out over the political spectrum than the Republicans, there are a lot more people that see the Democratic party being represented by the leaders of that party rather than the voters. It is hard not to when it is only the Democratic party's leaders that are having their voices heard. Instead of clamoring for the fabled swing voter that is in between the Democratic and Republican parties, the Democrats should be working more to secure their own base by actually representing their base.
The lesser of two evils is still evil. "Liberal" is not a dirty word. If Democrats hope to keep their base, they better start representing it.
But, there is a difference
But, there is a difference between the SBVT and the people trying to petition for Nader. It's undeniable that the people petitioning for Nader are part of Nader's campaign, and they were more than likely hired by Nader himself. That makes Nader responsible for them and their actions, since he hired them to represent him. The SBVT, however, are an independent 527 group. I know that can be debated, but until there is proof that the Bush camp is directly involved, that is what we have to assume.
The type of campaign he is running doesn't matter if he is dishonest in the way he runs it. In fact, I would argue that being dishonest makes him very hypocritical in trying to run an issues campaign. Not only does being dishonest make him hypocritical, but taking the money that the Bush camp keeps feeding him makes him hypocritical. He hates big business, and he hates being bought, (at least, I thought he did). If he does, then why take that money? I can almost guarantee you that the money that Bush gives him is from large corporations, seeing as how that's where Bush gets most of his money from. Acting hypocritical is no way to appeal to people seeking change and honesty in government.
As for the circular logic thing, I see where you are coming from now. I meant that to be a somewhat sarcastic remark, not my whole argument, but I can understand how it came across that way. I still think he is taking votes away from the democrats, however. Think how different the last election would have been had Nader not been on the ballot. If I am remembering correctly, he got 2% in florida. That definitely would have been enough to give Gore the undeniable edge he needed over W. Again, I'm not saying it's his fault, but that doesn't make it not true.
Nice writing , I'm not that
Nice writing , I'm not that familiar with U.S politics ..still nice writing though
The problem here is that
The problem here is that Nader is not the one breaking the rules. This might seem akin to the Swiftboat Veterans for "Truth" (SBVT, hereafter) where the ones in the position to benefit are doing so from something that is unethical. In the case of the SBVT, it is the Bush/Cheney campaign that is benefitting from the lies. In the case of the ballot-petition signatures, it is the Nader/Camejo campaign. I'm not excusing the alleged actions of either the SBVT or the Nader volunteers. The point of this comparison is that unless a conclusive link can be proven between the participants and their benefactors, then there is plausible deniability on the part of both the Bush campaign and the Nader campaign. So, it is best to stick to the issues that both campaigns talk about than to debate rumors.
When Nader works on getting on the ballot, he is doing more than just trying to get elected to the presidency. Recall how fervently Dennis Kucinich campaigned during the 2004 Democratic primaries even though the media and his own party pretty much cast him aside. He was doing more than running for the Democratic nomination, he was running an issues campaign. He was doing as much as he could to draw attention to his causes and te causes of the progressive wing of the Democratic party. Even if he didn't get the nomination, in a way, he has still succeeded in that he inspired a lot of Democrats that have felt disenfranchised such as myself. And, if you go to Kucinich's website you'll find a list of progressive candidates and at least one of the candidates listed, Ruben Zamora was directly inspired by the Kucinich campaign and his platform is the Kucinich platform. Nader, by struggling to get on the ballots in so many states, is running an issue campaign. His struggle is exactly why we are discussing the ballot laws.
As for the paragraph in question, I was saying that if you use the Bush camp's funding of the Nader campaign as evidence to support the conclusion that Nader is going to take votes away from the Democrats, then you are using circular logic. It is circular logic since the Bush camp is assuming that same conclusion is true. They are assuming it is true because Democrats are saying it is true. Democrats are saying it is true because the Bush camp seems to think it is true. And then we go in a loop.
I never said Nader should
I never said Nader should not have ballot access. The question for this particular debate is not whether the signatures should be needed. Rather, we are questioning Nader's method of getting said signatures. It doesn't matter whether something is a bad rule or not, Nader still has to follow it if he wants to get on the ballot. Either that, or instead of focusing on getting on the ballot, he should put that time, money, and effort into changing the system so he could have a much better chance in the next election. Just as with any rule for anything, though, if you break the rules, you suffer the consequences. If he would have followed the rules, the democrats would have had nothing to use against him to get him off the ballots.
As for him taking votes away from the democrats, I think he is, but I never said it was his problem. I agree with you that it's the democrats problem for not keeping those voters. But, that doesn't change the fact that if Nader were not in the race, those voters would likely vote for the democratic candidate.
As for the last paragraph, I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say. Could you clarify that a bit?
Unfortunately, it is not
Unfortunately, it is not that simple. Different states have different ballot access laws. Also, with a largely Democratic and Republican controlled media, it is harder for independent candidates and third parties to get their names heard in order to get the support needed for the signatures required. It is true the Republicans are trying to get Nader on ballots, but that doesn't mean that Nader shouldn't have ballot access. I have not heard much about the problems with some Nader signatures, but should the signatures even be needed? Before ballots were printed, the parties would provide already printed ballots. Also, in the case where the party did not provide ballots, ballots were available where everybody was essentially a write-in candidate. We should return to that system instead of the current system which is inherently biased towards the two major parties.
But, you also say that Nader is taking votes away from the Democrats. You should first consider why he is able to do so. Why are those Democrats choosing to vote for Nader instead of their own party? This is the same type of alienation that I was trying to talk about in my article/rant. The Bush camp is helping to fund Nader's campaign simply because they realize that the Democrats aren't standing up for the left and Nader does. But then, is that Nader's problem or is it a problem with the Democrats?
Also, the argument that Nader is taking votes away from Democrats and using the Bush camp funding Nader's campaign as evidence to support that conclusion is not logically sound simply because the Bush camp is also making the same assumption that you are. In essence, both sides are fueling the argument that the other side is positing while using the other side as evidence that their argument is correct.
well, I agree with most of
well, I agree with most of this, (now that you've edited it ;) ) but there is still one thing that I take issue with. I'm surprised you haven't guessed it yet. It's the whole Ralph Nader thing. I understand what you are saying, but it shouldn't be that hard to get the signatures needed to be on the ballot. If I am remembering correctly, it is only 4,000-5,000. That's one fairly small town. The campaign against it is not because they don't want to see him on the ballot. It's because he is being dishonest in the way he gets his signatures. The pertinent (sp?) information is on the front of the petition, and the person signs on the back. The back has no info on it whatsoever. So, they put the petition on clipboards, and lie about what the petition is for. In some cases, the signatures were those of children! When contacted, those who knew the petition was for Nader said so, and their signature was noted. However, in most cases, people didn't know that the petition was for Nader, and some were outraged that that's what they had signed.
Not only that, but Nader is taking votes away from the Dems. If he wasn't, then why would the Bush camp be funding his campaign?
I must say this was some
I must say this was some good reading.
"the leader of the free world is one party away from a dictatorship".
Enough said