BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: RichardP
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 07:57 AM

Oh what a Humpty Dumpty world this thread reveals. It is impossible for someone on the eastern side of the Atlantic Pond that both joins and divides us to give credit to the short-sight and misleading use of language that has kept it going.

To take a recent aspect, Nerd responds to a request for left-wingers in government by listing people who are admitedly in the legislature but are in the opposition to the government.

Secondly, there is an undferlying assupmtion that the USA is a democracy. Yea? Then how is Prsident Gore performing?

It is certainly true that the foundation of the USA in 1976 was much more democratic than the then current British constitution, but the rest of the world has moved on.

Face facts. The answer to the basic question of this thread, and of the actual discussion within it (which is normally Should Dem grassroots support Kerry rather than wiil they), must be different for different states.

Given the American voting system it is absolutely certain that the way an individual votes in 40 of the 50 states will not alter the decision, either because the state is incapable of switching to
its abnormal party support except in a landslide year. In those states it is not self-indulgent to vote purely to further a long-term objective. In the few swing-states voters ought to consider the possible consequences of their actions and should normally avoid quixotic gestures in favour of the common good. On the other hands if the preference for a third-party no-hoper is so strongly felt that you are unconcerned with the common good you have the right to vote for any old fool you like.

Richard

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 08:58 AM

"His (Nader's) daughter became a very successful academic, and this I think is no coincidence."

Ralph Nader has a love child?

Richard pointed out what I would have--there are no leftists in government. There are a handful (and I do mean on two hands, max) of House reps who are left of center, but as Richard points out, they aren't running the government (the executive branch does that, remember?)

"Finally, GUEST, Nader has "accomplished more genuine change for the better than all the politicians presently serving in our nation's capital combined." Come on! Some of these people worked on Civil Rights, on Medicare, on social programs of all kinds, created the endowments for the Arts and Humanities, etc, etc."

You know Nerd, it is becoming increasingly apparent that you don't know much about government, politics, current events, or recent history.

No one on the list of people you mention--not one of those politicians--has been involved in anything that rises to the level of change that has been brought about through the efforts of Ralph Nader. Not one.

It is the Members of Congress duty to work on Medicare, social programs, create endowments, etc. as that is their business.

It is another thing entirely to work outside the system to change the system, which is what Ralph Nader did. And THAT is why Nader rises so much higher than the rest. He brought about authentic, meaningful, important changes and none of the people you mention has been able to do that.

If you want change in Washington, elect someone who knows how to bring it on, not someone who makes you feel better because they redecorate the West Wing in a way that suits you better than the former tenant's taste in decor.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Big Mick
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 06:08 PM

Our GUEST makes some pretty good comments, but ..... and it is a big but .... thinks that the enemy is the Democratic Party. I admit begrudgingly that I admire the progressive stance, but I believe that if one followed her path, we would end up with a more conservative government and further away from the goals she wants to reach. Perfect examples? Nader cut his teeth on consumer protections. Due to a lack of cohesiveness and common ground coalitions, we have actually moved further in the hole than we ever have been. The environment is under worse attack now than ever, even after all these years of activism. Civil liberties are curtailed in ways they never have been before. This is the danger in this philosophy. In order for progressive minded people to form an effective coalition and advance their causes, they must seek to find the issues/allies they can agree enough with to form that coalition. Otherwise they will continue to split us just enough to win.

GUEST, I understand and even admire your position. But I think your inability to understand the nature of coalition building and finding areas to agree on, is dangerous and will doom us to another four years. And unlike you, I think that is very dangerous. We must defeat this man, or at least take away his perceived "mandate" by taking a number of seats in Congress.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: RichardP
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 06:50 PM

Both GUEST and Mick have gone part way to recognising only part of my points.

GUEST is right in recognising the difference between the executive and the legislature. However he should also have recognised that the names he referenced are not only in the legislature, but they are in the legislative minority.

At least as important as who is voted into the White House is who is voted into the majority in each chamber. In those elections you are much closer to true democracy. In house elections you get remarkably close to everyones vote being equal. The senate is peculiarly uneven {How many Californian votes equate to one Alaskan vote?}. But even Senate elections are such that most people's vote makes a real contribution to the general election result.

Will the Dem grassroots elect a Democrat Congress?

Richard

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: artbrooks
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 06:56 PM

As a matter of curosity, what, exactly, has Nader done in 30+ years of activism other than to get the Corvair off of the streets? What legislation has he sponsored, laws gotten passed, wars ended, etc.? Somewhere close to the number of positive accomplishments of Louis Farakan, David Duke or Jane Fonda?

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 07:11 PM

Richard,

I think there is a basic difference between how Americans and British people refer to government. From my perspective, a legislator is in the government, not the opposition to the government. We don't have such a thing. We vote for the individual, not the party, and Chakha Fattah was personally elected to congress, as a member of the government of the United States. He is in the minority party right now, but that doesn't change his status.

GUEST, you're making it pretty apparent that

1) you are a blowhard with a hardon for Nader

and

2) you're kind of a Jerk.

statements like this:

It is the Members of Congress duty to work on Medicare, social programs, create endowments, etc. as that is their business.

show how little YOU know about our government. None of these things would exist if not for legislators who thought of them, crafted the language, argued them, and voted on them. They are the creative work of legislators, not some pre-ordained fate that would have happened anyway. There is no constitutional imperative to provide health insurance, any social programs, or arts funding, or for that matter consumer safety laws. Legislators do it because it is their moral duty, and because we the people want them to, not because "it is their business." Many go into government IN ORDER to do this.

Congress is a team effort. Even though you personally don't know what each legislator has contributed to each law, the fact is that the country has changed FAR MORE based on the actions of our congress than based on the actions of Ralph Nader.

So we should kiss Nader's ass because he went the long way around and did effected change from outside the government? Answer me this: if it's so much better for him to working from outside, then why should I vote for him for President?

Sorry, Laura Nader is Ralph's younger sister, not his daughter. Guess I'm not in the Nader fan club or I would have had all that straight.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 08:13 PM

Just some legislation passed because Nader got it through:

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act

Consumer Product Safety Act

Freedom of Information Act

As the nation's premier consumer advocate, he founded Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), the Center for Auto Safety, Public Citizen, Center for Women's Policy Studies, Connecticut Citizen's Action Group, the Disability Rights Center, the Pension Rights Center and the Multinational Monitor magazine.

It is Nader's doing, more than anyone else's, that the federal bureaucracy includes an Environmental Protection Agency, an Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and a Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Nader is responsible for the existence of automobiles that have seat belts, padded dashboards, air bags, non-impaling steering columns, and gas tanks that don't readily explode when the car gets rear-ended. He is therefore responsible for the existence of some millions of drivers and passengers who would otherwise be dead. Because of Nader, baby foods are no longer spiked with MSG, kids' pajamas no longer catch fire, tap water is safer to drink than it used to be, diseased meat can no longer be sold with impunity, and dental patients getting their teeth x-rayed wear lead aprons to protect their bodies from dangerous zaps.

We've all heard the argument before, in one form or another, that Nader put Bush in the White House, and no one but Nader (not Gore, not the Democrats, not the millions of voters who voted for Bush) is responsible for the Bush presidency.

But for a number of reasons there is no way to calculate the impact of Nader's candidacy then or now. We can say that democracy has never been defined as a two-party system, even in this damaged republic where the Left was destroyed almost a century ago. We can also say that discouraging the number of candidates and parties (if we must have political clubs) is the practice of dictators and not of free peoples.

Ralph Nader's central thesis is that corporate influence on lawmakers is a greater danger to democracy than a second Bush term. There are many people who agree with that assessment.

There is no need for Nader supporters, of which I am one, to avoid the fact that Ralph acted badly in the last several weeks of the 2000 campaign. He shouldn't have campaigned in swing states, especially since he had told so many supporters that he wouldn't. Nader made some serious mistakes, and Gore made far more serious ones, and a rational analysis of the 2000 election requires acknowledgment of the deficiencies of both candidates as well as both of their virtues.

None of those facts, however, contradicts the fact that Nader was articulating the frustration and pain of millions of Democrats who felt abandoned like never before by the presidential nominee of their party, and that Nader was raising vital issues such as poverty, corporate influence on government, and the drug war which were completely absent from the Gore and Bush campaigns. Nader's errors in 2000 may tarnish his credibility, but he is still a towering moral figure in American politics whose actual accomplishments outstrip those of most elected officials.

So I hope that answers your question, artbrooks, since you apparently are having a great deal of difficulty distinguishing between Nader and Louis Farakhan for Nader and David Duke.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: artbrooks
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 08:28 PM

Oh? So Nader was in the US Congress and proposed the laws that created these bodies and regulations. I never realized that.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Nerd
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 01:24 AM

In fairness, GUEST is right that Nader was a significant force in creating those good programs he talked about.

However, none of it would be law without Congress.

To say, "Nader accomplished more than Congress" is absurd. Most of his accomplishments he accomplished only because Congress helped him do so.

Also, to say "Congresspeople's accomplishments count for less because it is their business to accomplish things," which is what GUEST said in his post of 11 Mar 04 - 08:58 AM, is absurd. By these standards, anyone has accomplished more than a Congressperson!

Finally, GUEST likes to redefine the terms of an argument so that he always wins. Two examples:

"There are no leftists in government. There are a handful (and I do mean on two hands, max) of House reps who are left of center, but as Richard points out, they aren't running the government (the executive branch does that, remember?)

So from one sentence to the next, the question has gone from "are there any leftists in government?" to "are there leftists in the executive branch, which runs the government?" Change the question after you ask it and my right answer becomes wrong. Big deal.

And by the way, GUEST, the executive branch does NOT run the government. No one branch "runs" the government. That's the whole point of having branches. Honestly, are you from some other country that has a different system? Why don't you know this sixth grade citizenship lesson?   

Second example:

First you said that:

Nader "accomplished more genuine change for the better than all the politicians presently serving in our nation's capital combined."

Then when in answer to your stupid challenge I mention some leftists who, no matter what your twisted logic can come up with, ARE in the government, you first change the rules as I pointed out above, discounting them because they're in the wrong branch of government, and then say:

"No one on the list of people you mention--not one of those politicians--has been involved in anything that rises to the level of change that has been brought about through the efforts of Ralph Nader. Not one."

Once again, first you claimed that Nader had done more than ALL OF THE CURRENT MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNMENT COMBINED, then claim you are proven right by making a claim that NO SINGLE LEFTIST has done more than he has.

Even if you are right about no single leftist (which I will not concede as yet, though it is possible) you are wrong about Nader having done more than the whole government combined.

Sorry GUEST, your rhetorical mumbo-jumbo won't work on me.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 03:39 AM

I guess if nobody can tell me what Kerry has done to improve the lives of Americans, maybe its because he's done nothing.

This is for the common good?

d

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 06:33 AM

That's an interesting distinction Nerd made about the meaning of the expression "the government" in the USA which is different from how it's used in other places (I think the UK is pretty typical on this). In a way it's an institutional equivalent to the old anarchist slogan "whoever you vote for, the government always gets in".

RichardP's level-headed summary of the situation, pointing out that for most of your country this issue, about how voting for Nader helps Bush, is not in any way relevant. Unless you are voting in a state where the vote is close enough for the result to swing from one party to another, there is no reason why anyone should feel any obligation to vote tactically. It's not exactly difficuly, but so many people seem to miss the point. (They do it here as well when it comes to analogous though different distortions in our electoral system.)

Unless - and here is the point people should surely be focusing their attention on - people cooperate in different part of your country to make the system work more democratically.

The sensible way to respond to this distortion in your electoral system, which makes it virtually pointless for most people to vote at all in the Presidential election, is to start organising more effective ways of pairing your vote with someone in another part of the country.

If all the would-be Nader voters in swing states were to arrange a pairing arrangement with someone in a non-swing state who would otherwise be voting for Kerry, that really could make a significant difference, helping get rid of Bush, and upping the overall vote for Nader across the country as a marker fro the future. If you'd done it last time Bush would be a forgotten footnote in history.

But instead, if this thread is any evidence, you plan to keep on cutting each other's throats. And everyone else's.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 11:20 AM

The main problem, IMO, is the mainstream and "practical" sorts of people, or the "Anybody But Bush" contingent, are limiting their horizons to a new president. Period. They aren't willing to lock under the Kerry rock, to examine how we got Bush in office to begin with--they just want Bush out and a Democrat--any damn Democrat will do--in.

The rest of us, whether we are supporting Nader, or whether we are Dean, Kucininch, Mosley Braun, or Edwards supporters who are still undecided as to the best way to move forward now that Kerry has the nomination sewn up, are being villified by the "Anybody But Dean" camp for not jumping on the Kerry bandwagon RIGHT NOW.

Which will, of course, blow up in the "Anybody But Dean" movement's faces. Guaranteed. Anytime you have one really moralistic group of people trying to dictate to the rest of us what we "should" do, you are steering the ship straight into the reef.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Nerd
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 12:22 PM

McGrath,

the dfference between the British "The Government" and the American "The Government" is not merely rhetorical. It arises because the executive branch and legislative branch of government are far more separate here. Here the party which controls the legislature does not appoint a "Prime Minister" to run the administration, so in most years we could not have for example a "Labour Government."   We are as likely to have a Republican Presidential administration and a Democratic Legislature; indeed it quite usual here for the legislature and the presidency to be in opposition, which cannot by definition happen in many parliamentary systems.

Every two years there are elections in which some congressional seats usually change hands, and the makeup of the legislature therefore changes at the start and in the middle of every presidential term. Therefore, Bush may start out with a Republican legislature, then have to deal with a Democratic legislature, then revert again (if he serves a second term). There are also, as in Britain, two houses of congress, one of which represents people directly (one congressperson for every so many citizens) and one of which represents the States (two Senators for each State). These also may be dominated by different parties. In this system, it would be very clumsy to refer to "the government" as a way to generalize about both the presidency and the congress. Throw the Supreme Court into the mix and things become even more confusing. If the President is a Democrat, the House is Republican, the Senate democratic, and the Supreme Court dominated by Republican appointees, which is "the government" and which "the opposition?"

Because of this, we refer to the presidential administration as "the Administration" and to the two houses of congress as "Congress" or "The Hill," etc. We refer to the House of Representatives as "The House" (or sometimes wrongly as "congress") and the Senate as "The Senate." But we do not talk about "the Government" and "the opposition." If someone is in congress, he is in the government.

Right now, we have a very unusual circumstance, which looks superficially like a parliamentary system: the president and both houses of Congress are dominated by the same party. Thus Richard was left with the impression that we have a "ruling party" and a "loyal opposition." But this is a temporary circumstance and does not reflect the way our government usually works.

GUEST--your post of 12 Mar 04 - 11:20 AM was essentially correct (are you the same GUEST?) I would not be a Kerry supporter except that I feel we are in a national emergency. I am particularly concerned about the environment, which I think may be irreparably destroyed by four more years of Bush. So once he sewed up the nomination, I gave Kerry my support.

I think if a more progressive candidate splits the left-leaning vote and we get four more years of Bush it will be a disaster. Except for this, I'd say, "what the hell, four more years of Bush may energize the progressives," which is logic that usually doesn't work, but what the hell? This time I just think it's too dangerous to do that.

But as I said before, I respect the rights and the reasoning of people who question JK. That is, until they start making ridiculous and grandiose claims, and changing the terms of the debate in mid-discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Frankham
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 02:41 PM

OK Dianavan, here's what Kerry has done. He protested against the Vietnam War when it was found out to be a lost cause. This in the
face of Johnson's stubborness.

He led the effort to stop drilling in
the Alaskan wilderness.

He blew the whistle on the Bank of Credit and
Commerce which financed the drug trafficking Contras during the Reagan years.

In Massachusetts, he voted against the Defense of Marriage Act which would deny Federal benefits to same-sex couples. He said, "I am going to vote against this bill...because I believe that this debate is fundamentally ugly, and it is fundamentally political....This legislation was meant to devide Americans. If it
truly were a Defense of Marriage act it would expand the learning experience for would-be husbands and wives."

In 1997, he was the only one of five original sponsors of the Clean Money, Clean Elections Act to provide for full public financing of Congressional elections. This measure would take out special interest money for House and Senate campaigns.

He was also a backer of McCain/Feingold.

He did all of these things with courage when it was politically disadvantageous for him to do it.

Kerry has guts.

This might not have helped you personally but it did a lot for our country.

In the meantime, everyone is becoming more aware of the Radical Right-wing Revolution that has made itself apparent in the government. The only way to take back America from this pseudo-religious para-military takeover is to stop supporting Nader and kicking the front-runner who is nothing like George W. Bush. To suggest that he is... just plain stupid.

Nader has been a great Public Citizen in his consumer protection but
as a politician he is a failure because he will keep Bush in office
for another four years which will be disastrous for our country.

Alan Greenspan needs to be retired as well.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 02:51 PM

I appreciate that about the US system, Nerd - but the impaqct it has on how people use the term "the government" hadn't really clicked. And I'm sure the reverse applies for the way the term is used in countries where the system is more like in tye UK.

This means the term conveys a different meaning in different political systems. I imagine "Down with the Government" might sound quite extreme to Americans. In the UK at most times being against the Government is a majority position, with nothing extreme about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Nerd
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 03:08 PM

Exactly, McGrath. Here many people would likely say "Down with the Administration," but "down with the government" is much more radical.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 04:52 PM

Yeah, Kerry is all for campaign finance reform until it applies to him. He isn't accepting any federal money, so he doesn't have to live by the McCain Feingold act.

Nothing hypocritical about that. I know, I know. He HAS to do it because Bush is doing it.

Except you know, if that is the true state of affairs, the entire country is being run by crooks, Kerry and the Democrats are just as big crooks and hypocrites as Bush and the Republicans.

And then there is that other Democratic end run around the McCain Feingold act--the 527 organizations, like MoveOn.org, Media Fund, et al.

To think of the millions and millions and millions of dollars these crooked white men are spending, just to get us to pay attention to them.

Imagine what my inner city school district could do with some of that money. Or the wage increases and benefits it could buy for the impoverished health care workers in my mother's nursing home.

Just think.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Frankham
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 12:37 PM

I think that the asssesment that the whole country including Democrats are crooks is so off the mark that it needs to be addressed.

Lobbying is a fact of life. I don't care if it's Ralph Nader or the NRA. It should be curbed but Bush isn't going to do it. Kerry will
try. His record in the Senate shows that. Unfortunately, it's the
only way a president can get elected today. There is no evidence
to the contrary.

It's a case of the disgruntled rads throwing the baby out with the
bath water. They bitch and moan and don't vote and someone like
Bush slides in. Or they support Nader and undermine any chance that
the Democrats have because they equate Dems with the Republicans.
They just haven't done their homework and they are a kind of reactionary. A pro-active view of the election process would be if
they listened and read what the candidates had to say and based
their decisions on that instead of taking their marbles and going home.

If they don't believe any candidate at his/her word then the Bushes will continue to run the country. And they can take the responsibility for that.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 12:52 PM

I disagree. As most political progressives today see things, we are living in an era of unprecedented greed, graft, and corruption. It is all around us, everywhere we look. Our public institutions are being carved up and raffled off to the highest "private sector" bidders.

Our social safety net has been outsourced by both Democrats and Reublicans. Kerry will no more attempt to put an end to the rule of the nation by K Street lobbying than Bush will. Kerry's record in the Senate DOES NOT SHOW a record of ending political graft and corruption, it shows a record of waffling about it, followed by a cave-in to his special interests. His record as a presidential candidate in this regard, is abysmal.

When Dean eschewed federal financing, he at least had the guts to stand up to the Washington lobby, and raised his money the old fashioned way--by earning it honestly from voters, $25, $50, and $100 a pop. Kerry, on the other hand, stole his wife's checkbook and mortgaged the mansion just to stay in the game.

God Frankham, I can't believe how disingenuous you are being in your support of Kerry.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 05:22 PM

Did anyone say that all Americans were crooks, Frankham? I missed that.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 05:45 PM

Atole his wife's checkbbook?

My impression was that she was happy to give it to him.; Are you drawing conclusions from facts, or fantasies here?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 06:00 PM

I used a colorful euphemism for "his wife is helping fund the campaign" and little poetic license, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: Gareth
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 07:09 PM

"But instead, if this thread is any evidence, you plan to keep on cutting each other's throats. And everyone else's."

Now take a deep breath, sober up, get off yer high 'orse, stop trying to proove how radical you are and repeat slowly and clearly :-

The People united, shall never be defeated

Kerry may not be perfect, he may not be ideal, but when you consider the alternative can you sit back in your seats and say that you would not work for a democratic victory ?

Gareth

PS This type of petty secetarian squables gave the UK 19 F******G Years of Thatcher and Major !

Subject: RE: BS: Will Dem grassroots support Kerry?
From: artbrooks
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 08:05 PM

I'm sure that Mr. Kerry would be willing to use his wife's money, with her permission, but he apparently cannot legally do so. More here.