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
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.
on Mar 2nd, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Why does Ralph Nader condtinue to run as a single-candidate indpenedent (or on Green ticket perhaps reluctantly) every election cycle?? No one individual can “compete” against any political party nor can any individual credibly “rescue” the country or fix it’s major problems.
The time is past due for the Ralph Naders, Cindy Sheehans, and perhaps even Dennis Kucinich among other to issue a call to form a new second party, an anti-corporate PEOPLE’S PEACE PARTY. Issue the call now! Have a founding convention ASAP! Plan to grown the party well-beyond November 2008! Here are my thoungts on such a party:
———————————————————————————————————-
Dump the Democrats!
We Need an Anti-Corporate People’s Peace Party
Independent of Corporate Money!
As both Democratic and Republican parties are now corporate funded, they both support corporate agendas. Both Obama and Clinton support a continuation of the war in Iraq, both support corporate “for-profit” health care agendas. On many issues essential to corporate profit there has been, for many years, bi-partisan support. We essentially have a corporate political establishment party with two branches. We need to establish a new party independent of corporate money that is free to represent the interests of the people.
We must go beyond looking for any one “candidate” or individual who can be trusted to become elected and then solve all our problems. Historically, these individuals end up being targets of assassination and corruption. Non-corporate third parties are typically very small, financially impoverished, and often committed to an ideology that is often incomprehensible to most people. The Green Parties are hopelessly split between Greens and Green-Democrats, a division that has kept the Green Parties from growing.
Now is the time to establish a new political party, a People’s Peace Party
The People’s Peace Party (PPP) shall be an “umbrella party” that will unite the millions of people now in opposition to the current corporate regime and it’s various foreign and domestic policies. Millions are opposed to the war in Iraq. Millions are of Americans are concerned about global warming, lack of affordable health care, lack of living wage jobs, the destruction of public education, etc. The massive shift in wealth to the benefit of a few is destroying the living standards of the vast majority of people.
There now exists a “virtual” PPP among the tens of millions of people who are opposed to the on-going destruction of this country and it’s peoples. We are atomized and left powerless by the existing political situation. For many years we have joined single issue campaigns and have marched, protested, written letters, supported Pacifica Radio KPFK, listened to “Democracy Now!”, and tried to be as “activist” as personally possible. Despite all these efforts we remain collectively powerless and the needs of the people for peace go unfulfilled.
“Divide and conquer” has been used throughout history by ruling elites to maintain power and control over exploited populations. The existing corporate regime in the U.S. has constantly tried to destroy any natural alliances between oppressed peoples. Race, language, nationality, and class are constantly used to keep the people atomized and politically powerless. We the people of the United States, forever exploited and increasingly impoverished by these divisive tactics, understand how this has worked in the past. We must now seek a new way to unite our forces and energies to create an ecologically sustainable society that seeks to end the vast social in-equalities that are destroying us all.
Corporate control of government has meant that corporate agendas to maximize corporate profit have become federal policy. Or more simply put - the corporations are looting the federal government. War will continue as long as war is to make profit for oil companies and the military-industrial complex. Bush has stated that he would not endorse any environmental policy that threatens the profit of polluting business. No serious reconstruction aid for Katrina victims because there is essentially no profit to corporate business in helping poor people. Privatization of all social institutions is relentlessly pursued.
The principle of maximizing corporate profit now controls every aspect of social, economic and cultural life. This control and looting by the corporations of the government has led to massive federal debt, decline in the dollar, unending financial corruption, until the U.S. is now on the brink of economic collapse.
The People’s Peace Party (PPP) Founding Principles
* The PPP affirms the principle that the government of the United States is a government “of, by, and for the people”. In order to remain independent of corporate corruption, the PPP does not accept contributions from corporations or their representatives.
* The PPP seeks to prohibit corporate money (and thus agendas) in election campaigns by seeking government funding of elections at all levels of government, not just the federal level. The PPP seeks to end the “person hood” of corporations which grants them rights of citizenship without the responsibilities expected in society.
* The PPP seeks to end war. War will never end as long as war is waged for profit. Thus we will end the privatization of the federal government, especially privatization of the military (mercenaries, CIA outsourcing, etc.).
* The PPP seeks to end the corporate control of mass media. The corporate profit agendas has totally blocked accessible public discussion and dialog on the critical issues we are now facing. Public oversight and democratic local control of the mass media is essential for democracy to function. The vast potential of television to expand the cultural and intellectual life of the people has been subordinated and destroyed by corporate advertising and political agendas. Corporate advertising and control of mass media must be minimized and eliminated where possible.
* The PPP will create mass media programs of various types to educate the people on the PPP agenda, platforms, candidates to be widely distributed through existing non-profit networks. We would urge everyone in agreement to become active at what ever level is personally possible.
* The PPP would implement a program to transition to a peace economy. The proposal by Dennis Kucinich to establish a Department of Peace should be implemented. We would withdraw all U.S. troops for the Middle East. The PPP would reduce the military budget by 50%. Shut down the 700 plus foreign military bases. Shut down costly and failed military systems. (planes that don’t fly, “star wars” programs that don’t work, etc.) We would re-instate all tax cuts implemented by the Bush regime for corporations and wealthy individuals. A vigorous audit of corporations and wealthy indivuals would be undertaken to minimize tax fraud.
* The PPP works towards a humanistic immigration policy that uses the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as it’s guide. Nearly every article of the Declaration is continuously violated by the bi-partisan corporatist regime as it wages a global war of genocide (”colateral damage”) against unprofitable humanity. We would end all immigrant concentration camps, ICE raids that has incarcerated thousands and broken families. We would seek to examine and correct the conditions that have cause this mass migration into the U.S.
The PPP would end all “free-trade” treaties such as NAFTA, CAFTA that are destroying the economic life of millions of farmers and workers in Mexico. We would end subsidies to corporate agriculture that have dumped cheap corn into Mexico, causing subsistence farmers to leave the land.
The majority of people of Mexico are living in poverty. The PPP would insist that the Mexican government begin a vigorous program to upgrade the living standards of it’s citizens. Minimum wages, national health care, massively increase funding for schools and teacher salaries, etc. must be undertaken to stem the flow of immigration. Foreign and domestic corporations operating in Mexico, business and wealth in Mexico must be taxed in addition to massive foreign aid from the United States to remedy the massive inequality between the two countries.
By ending war and militarism, the “peace dividend” that was possible with the collapse of the Soviet Union would finally become a reality. The peace dividend would mean that the vast funds for war and destruction would become available to cope with the many crises humanity now faces.
The November 2008 election should be considered a starting point to establish the PPP, which would run candidates at federal, state, and local elections. Millions of people know WHY we need to end corporate control of government. We must create the MEANS to make this happen.
on Mar 7th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
P.S.- A socialist analysis of Ralph Nader from WSWS
Ralph Nader announces 2008 presidential campaign
By Patrick Martin
25 February 2008
Link to full article:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/feb2008/nade-f25.shtml
“…The outcome of the 2008 presidential election will not, in the final analysis, be decided by the free will of the American people. It will be the outcome of a raging struggle within the ruling elite, driven by the debacle of the Bush administration’s foreign policy and the danger of a financial collapse that would have incalculable consequences for social stability at home.
A McCain victory is certainly a possibility, favored by powerful sections of the ruling elite that feel that a new Democratic administration, with a sizeable Democratic majority in Congress, would arouse popular expectations in contradiction to the policies which both bourgeois parties are committed to pursuing.”