The Martrydom of St. Ralph
One of the more irksome developments of this election cycle is the influence of Ralph Nader, who continues to draw 3-5% support in key states. I have no problem with Ralph himself. If the man wants to run for President, that’s his own business. To the extent that his agenda is to create a platform for himself and his pet issues, he has the same rights as any fringe candidate to present his views to the voters and try to build support. He has some legitimate points about corporate domination of the two-party system, and offers a perspective on the issues that raises interesting questions for both Bush and Kerry.
No, my problem with Nader is less with the man himself than with the idiots who vote for him and think they’re doing some good. Let’s leave aside ideological purity for a moment. To me, the issue is plain simple: here on planet Earth, if you want to get rid of George W. Bush, then you vote for John Kerry. Period, end of story.
Support Nader in all kinds of ways if you wish. Buy his books, attend his speeches, join his organizations. Better yet, if you are really a true believer, consider doing the hard work of organizing support at the grass roots. But when it comes to electoral politics in the here and now, use all that vastly superior intelligence that you must have for, you know, being for Nader in the first place. The reason that Nader doesn’t poll more than 3% is because 97% of your fellow citizens don’t agree with his views. It’s not because they’re too stupid to understand, or have been brainwashed by corporate propaganda, or any other of the distastefully elitist and anti-democratic excuses that Naderites like to offer. It’s because Ralph’s views and most particularly the way he communicates those view are out of step with the outlook and concerns of most ordinary people, and will be for the foreseeable future. Work to change that by all means, but until you do, consider the repercussions of your decision at the ballot box.
Naderites’ biggest gripe is that there’s “no difference between Democrats and Republicans.” The amount of political naiveté, or just plain stupidity, that it takes to utter those words is staggering, and yet it’s just that impulse to intellectual simplicity that Ralph is counting on for his deal-breaking 3-4%. Interestingly, this year, two of the candidates do have basic similarities, but it’s not Kerry and Bush – it’s Bush and Nader.
In a fundamental way, the two are very much alike. Both offer pat explanations for complex problems and hold their supporters in sway with their earnest, forthright and studiously moral personae, the way a snake charmer beguiles a spitting cobra with a stern and unflinching stare. Both appeal to people who are confused and frustrated by complexity and lack the patience, consideration and open-mindedness to reach solutions by consensus. While Bush flatters the religiously-inspired self-righteousness of his base, Nader appeals to the intellectually-inspired self-righteousness of his (no wonder he only gets 3-4%). The substance of their policies may differ, but they are united by a temperament that does not admit self-criticism or the possibility of error. When Nader utters the cryptic and empirically false words that he plans to draw as heavily from Republicans as from Democrats, perhaps this is what he’s getting at.
In theory, the delusions of the Naderites are their own problem, no more a fit subject for political analysis than the in-fighting of the Libertarians or the doctrinal differences between Spartacists and the Socialist Workers. The perpetually frustrating issue about the Naderites, however, is the pose of moral superiority over others on the liberal side of the aisle who may share many of their views but not their impulse to commit electoral hari-kari. Somehow, their personal refusal to compromise even an inch for the common good is posited as a liberal value, the consequences of their actions deemed irrelevant to the grand gesture of supporting the pure over the “tainted.” The self-indulgence – and self-importance – of this stance is appalling and offensive, especially to liberals who actually believe in the need for collective action and the power of small-d democracy.
So Naderites, listen here and listen well: no one compromises because they want to: they compromise to achieve something that, in the long run, is more important, and which they can’t get without giving something up. Kerry was hardly anyone’s first choice, but that doesn’t matter right now. We are not in a situation where we can pick and choose the best way to get rid of Bush. There is one tool available to do the job. Looking around for a more precise instrument at this dire moment is not only futile, it is positively perverse, and acting as if looking for one makes you a better, purer person is the height of folly.
9:10:03 AM 
|
|
