As promised I will present my arguments that Ralph Nader’s Presidential Campaign in 2000 was not a factor in Al Gore losing the election.
I will start by spreading light on the Democratic Leadership Council and their answer to why Al Gore lost in 2000.
The Democratic Leadership Council was created in 1984 by Al From and operates with it’s own think tank The Progressive Policy Institute. The danger lies within it’s mission statement: “the DLC seeks to define and galvanize popular political support for a new public philosophy built on progressive ideals, mainstream values, and innovative, nonbureaucratic solutions.”
Sounds good, right. Putting a pretty progressive label on this organization works to diminish the importance of true social progressives.
Would you consider Hillary Clinton a progressive? She is a leader of the Democratic Leadership Council.
So is Harold Ford Jr., ex-congressman from Tennessee who lost a run for the Senate and who has publicly stated that he hopes we don’t celebrate Black History month in the future. Mr. Ford is an African American who doesn’t want to offend anybody so he stands for no one. I found an interesting commentary on Mr. Ford written by Margaret Kimberley on The Black Commentator, definitely an informative read.
Al From, the father of the DLC and CEO, shared this telling opinion in the Christian Science Monitor: “The DLC leaders noted that since the 1970s , more voters have identified themselves as conservatives than liberals. Thus polarization may work for Republicans but not for Democrats. “Our challenge is not to unify as a minority but to expand to a majority,” From said.”
Let’s dissect this statement the Republicans were quite successful in completely changing the connotation of the word liberal, which is reflected in voters and myself to be honest which results in distancing ourselves from the word and the DLC sees this distance as a sign to mirror the so called conservatives. {I still don’t get what they are trying to conserve.}
The DLC is on a mission to subvert real progress by hijacking words. Words have power, don’t they. The DLC proudly declares they adopt a Third Way: “It favors an enabling rather than a bureaucratic government, expanding choices for citizens, using market means to achieve public ends and encouraging civic and community institutions to play a larger role in public life. The Third Way works to build inclusive, multiethnic societies based on common allegiance to democratic values.”
In this statement we continue to see the same ideological conquests, a total reliance on corporatism, and the continuance of the faulty reasoning that freedom of consumer choice is inherent in the freedom from oppression wrapped up in some feel good rhetoric.
At least they refrained from naming this Third Way, the Middle Way or Path from Buddhist teachings.
The DLC has sold the soul of democratic ideals to corporate interests in an attempt to secure a piece of the conservative American pie.
So the DLC is far from “radical” which is why I choose to use their own argument that Ralph Nader did not cause Al Gore to lose the 2000 Presidential election.
Blueprints is a magazine published quarterly by the Democratic Leadership Council and in January 2001 dedicated an entire issue to Why Gore lost, and How Democrats can Come Back.
Al From asserted that “Our new progressive coalition must expand beyond the Democratic base. It must include men as well as women, whites as well as African-Americans and Hispanics, suburbanites as well as city dwellers, moderates and even some conservatives as well as liberals. Above all, it must unite the interests and the support of voters in the working class with those in what scholars William Galston and Elaine Kamarck have called “the rising learning class” — middle- and upper-middle class suburbanites and New Economy workers. Vice President Gore failed to put together such a new progressive coalition.”
Al From also states in the same article that “The assertion that Nader’s marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race.”
So in other words this centrist-right Democrat states that Al Gore lost the election because he was too liberal and that Ralph Nader being in the race did not hurt Gore.
My next argument will look into the states where Ralph Nader was on the ballot and their voter registration logs to shed light on who voted for Nader and if they would have voted for Gore or would have stayed home.
I, then, will touch upon the vocal supporters of a recount in Florida and their dissatisfaction with Al Gore conceding the election.
***Update***
Here are so more informative Ralph Nader items-
from Joel S. Hirschhorn
from Tedd Rall
I am thoroughly appalled at the progressive communities bloody attacks on Ralph Nader’s character, purpose and reputation.
The loudest roar are from some within the progressive loop that I previously had high respect for.
I can tolerate the casual repetition of the Nader Myth but attacking his character crosses the line.
I don’t tolerate personal attacks on any of the candidates including John McCain.
Policies, records, advisers and the money trail are the only measurement that should decide your presidential candidate.
If after independent research you have chosen a candidate other than Nader or Cynthia McKinney, that is your right and I stand with you for a fair and HONEST election.
Any one who meets the requirements of Presidency can run.
Weren’t Americans bred on choice being our strongest expression of independence?
Rise up and fight fair.
Sphere: Related Content
