Ralph Nader's plans to run for president again are harmful for the Left and for the chance to achieve true change in America, despite the way Nader argues in favor of this change. As with his previous campaigns, Nader's plans to run do not involve, at this late stage in the game, the construction of a large movement or organization to support his platform. He is running as a showpiece candidate, to draw attention to his ideas, but not to achieve victory at the polls. As a third party candidate, Nader's hopes for victory would be limited anyway, but Nader himself is never going to absorb more than a small proportion of the American Left or liberally-oriented independents.
While it is true that third party candidates in America have a sullied history, it is also true that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have been around throughout all of American history. American politics has virtually always been keyed to a two-party system, but the parties themselves have changed on several occasions. It is therefore naive to believe that the current two parties will forever remain in power; sooner or later, one or the other, perhaps even both within a short period of time, will be replaced by other parties or coalitions. However, for a third party or organization to break into American politics to such a degree as to lead to real political power, it must build up its forces to the point where it can elect not merely a solitary president, but an associated corps of congressmen, party activists, judges, and local politicians. To be historically significant and effective, a third party must not merely threaten to take power, but must actually do so. A president cannot perform without a great deal of support from congress, from the judiciary, from an influential media, and from local political forces enacting the president's directives. Even were Nader by some unforeseeable set of circumstances to actually win the presidency, his administration would quickly be driven to irrelevancy by the complete lack of organizational support behind him. He would have a congress of hostile Republicans and Democrats killing his every attempt at legislation, and overriding his vetoes of their own legislation. He would face a hostile judiciary and a hostile media, and would be even more than before the anti-corporate Don Quixote battling the corporate windmills all by himself. His intended corporate victims would have the entire remainder of the American political machine in their pocket, enacting and enforcing laws to their will, just as they do now. He would have four years to watch his "movement" die at the hands of the forces that he is campaigning against, and having had no notable political success, he would face a hostile electorate if he chose to try for another term.
In the meantime, rather than hypothesize about Nader winning an election that he can't win, it is important to note that by running, he is taking vital votes away from the Democrats at just the time that they are fighting to keep America out of the hands of the conservatives that are destroying this country. While the percentage of votes that he captured wouldn't be nearly enough to threaten the other parties with his own victory, his campaign is going to take away from the Democrats the votes of those that are sincerely interested in seeing positive change in this country, in two key ways.
First of all, as with the 2000 election, his campaign is going to take votes away from the Democrats at a time when they are still fighting for their political survival, in a race where both parties are running virtually neck and neck. A small portion of the vote, a couple of percentage points, can make all the difference the way the two main parties' forces are lined up, and if Nader runs, all of his votes are going to come from potential supporters of the Democrats; virtually no one who would vote for Nader would consider voting for a Republican as an alternative. Nader's campaign would make it easier for the Republicans to capture the next election even without the organized fraud of the last two.
Secondly, those voting for Nader would be the few leftists really committed to seeing substantial change, unlike many of the "fair-weather" liberals that make up most of the Democratic Party, who are for all intents and purposes simply Republicans with a guilt complex. Democrats are often just as supportive of corporate America, and of privately-controlled and limited access to health care, education, transportation, and social support as are the Republicans. Democrats can be just as anti-leftist as the Republicans, and just as opposed to real change and real progress. The only difference between the two major parties often seems to be that the Democrats see the need for an occasional limit on the powers of the corporate interests, to prevent a more disgruntled lower class from rising up to take the corporate powers away by force, by giving the lower classes an occasional concession; whereas the Republicans are more in line with the idea of a vague, corporate Big Brother keeping the lower classes in their place through greater police enforcement and prison expenditures; or increased usage of medications for hypothetical, new, psychotic "illnesses"; or increased theocracy, depending on the style of Republican. Nader is trying to fight against the two-headed monster of American right-centrist politics in his own way, but he is going about it entirely the wrong way. By putting himself out as a candidate, he is going to take away from the Democrats those interested in actually fighting the various forces of corporate America, and will push the Democratic platform ever closer to the center, or even to the right.
What America needs is a strong Left, dedicated to real change, and committed to building its forces both locally and nationally, to the point where it could potentially elect not merely a single, solitary, showpiece president, but congressmen, mayors, governors, sheriffs, and judges as well. The Left also needs to build up its social and cultural forces to the point where it can sell its ideas to the public on TV, on film, in music, and in art; the corporate-owned "liberal" media will have to be defeated by a truly Leftist media through the acquisition of large-scale, popular legitimacy. If we on the Left cannot win elections and enact real change at the local level, and if we cannot sell our ideas to the public in general, we are never going to be able to make it work on a national level. Winning a presidency is nothing; it is one person in one office. What the Left needs to do is to build a movement that can win a people.
No comments:
Post a Comment