PICTURE: Stealth Nader voter? Anarchist brings out the knives, and forces millions of workers to not vote democrat by typing on internet. Thus causes IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN INVASIONS, and also causes democrat leadership to vote for invasions and deregulation of finance sector. Aligns with many other leftists that caused the patriot act to pass, and torture by rendition by not voting for democrats who did it.
The trope has now become fact. Nader gave Bush the election. It’s an untruth that is vigilantly used by democratic party faithfuls to herd voters right before every election. Besides that it’s easily debunked factual quicksand; I’ve always been amazed that it supports another democratic cheerleader trope. That there has been since Nixon’s first win, a ‘left’ with a leading intelligentsia that somehow keeps millions of people from voting democrat; by a decision of some American left cognoscenti.
They have yet to source this organization, but it has been out there for 40 years. Damn if I can find it.
Funny, if there WAS a left that strong here to influence millions of voters I think we would use our strength for something more important like housing, wages, and workplace democracy. That’s what happens in the rest of the world. But I guess here, us leftists police ballot boxes instead.
When you pull back and read the diatribes using these two tropes, you can see a transparent personality projection. That is, these liberal pundits believe themselves to have such power to sway hundreds of thousands of registered voter turnout, they then have to believe, that other ‘left’ pundits could have the same power. For them to realize they have no power over voting turnout would destroy their whole point of being. For to not be revolutionary, or a progressive involved in large scale organizing for real drastic change, one has to situate into the hierarchy of the two party system and its logic.
“People who told me back in 2000 that there was no difference between Bush and Gore never got back to me afterward.” Rebecca Solnit
(Solnit engages in NO online discussion, under her articles, only on Facebook, where she deletes you if you argue with her........ and we need to get back to her? Why? Who anointed you?)
Eric Alterman of the Nation claims: that Nader is to blame for the election of George W. Bush because of vote splitting. He has called Nader "Bush's Useful Idiot," myopic, and a deluded megalomaniac. In the documentary An Unreasonable Man, he is quoted as saying: "The man needs to go away. I think he needs to live in a different country. He’s done enough damage to this one. Let him damage somebody else's now." (wiki)
When There Is No Other Alternative (TINA), there can be no argument outside the two poles. If large swaths of the middle class and working class vote for the horrible more evil, or just don’t vote, the fact has to be blamed on some outside force. You can’t blame the very pole you sit on. You can’t blame your very bankrupt existence. That your party just fucking sucks. And that the majority of working class eligible to register or are registered just don’t bother.
Of course voter turnout is always predictable on very obvious economic and militaristic disasters. As well as corporate media coverage, wedge issues which both parties manipulate us with, and yes even charisma, poise, looks, and ‘voice’ that a voter may identify with. Never what the Nation’s Alterman or little Larry Livermore, punk millionaire pundit, choose to type. And certainly not on our ‘very secret left cabal’ that sends out orders to not vote democrat. There is no large organized ‘left’ in this country. There has never been a consensus from any ‘left’ organizations to not vote democrat that had any effect.
In fact, what happened in 68, 72, and Reagan’s election in 80, was that millions of registered democrats voted for a republican president. At least five million in 72 for Nixon. Can’t keep your own registered party members in line? Blame it on a ghost. The vote suppressing ‘left’. Laughable. Nader gave Bush the election? Then why did Kerry lose the next one?
What about this Nader count? First you have to look at Gore’s horrible showing while he was up against a man that had really no political achievements, and stumbled over every sentence. The debates were horrible; Gore ended up agreeing with Bush often, and he was, well, a Clinton democrat through and through. And extremely pro-war. He made a speech in the aftermath of the first Gulf War, that Bush sr. was not going far enough, and that Iraq itself should be invaded. There is his WMB speech on Youtube. Though Gore came in second in the electoral vote, he received 543,895 more popular votes than Bush. Gore failed to win the popular vote in his home state, Tennessee, which both he and his father had represented in the Senate, making him the first major-party presidential candidate to have lost his home state since George McGovern lost South Dakota in 1972.
Gore, contrary to the re writing of his persona afterwards, was absolutely horrible on the environment and literally spear headed the corporate public partnership, that democrats attribute to Bush Jr., of allowing corporations in ‘good faith’ to police themselves on testing drugs, on use of pesticides, and for factory farms to test meat.
This is all information easily found on the internet. Gore was wholeheartedly supportive of the weekly bombing of Iraq in the last year of Clinton. He stated there must be regime change. Which either means the people rise up and overthrow Saddamn and install another right wing dictatorship that sells off oil rights, or an invasion. He supported invasion, in evasive politician language of course, all through the 90’s, and he supported continious bombing under Clinton the last year in office. And this needs to be repeated: and the murderious kick in the gut of Iraq: he was completely in support of the draconian sanctions that killed at least 300,000 innocent people. This is a president that would have not invaded Iraq?
When liberals completely ignore the sanctions and their cost, any comment they make about Gore being less war like than Bush is complete fabrication. And a defacto support for mass murder. Two people in charge of the UN sanctions, resigned. One called it ‘genocide’. All these liberals blaming the war on only Bush, when all leading democrats enabled it, and all, including Obama as senator continuted to vote for funding for it, are completely guilty of supporting mass murder and the entire destruction of the health system, the public school system, and the death squads, and the arming of factions of one against another. When a democrat calls it Bush’s war, we must remember the obfuscation and lack of moral centering this lie entails.
Nader got 97,000 votes in Florida. Why this state is the only one centered on by the apparatchiks, is easy to figure. It centers your thinking on ‘what if’ over one state. It makes no requirement to look at the entire nation, the actual record of Gore and his lack of appeal to the working class and lower middle class, and offers a 15 minute pigeon hole to describe or rather unlearn, a twenty year history of the democrats going more right wing and more corporate than before.
Ignoring, that the democratic party machine gave up on the recounts right away, and allowed the republican controlled Florida court to hand it off to the supreme court, we have to wonder what other states did Nader supposedly ‘give to Bush.’ Here is a page with an easy to see graph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000
Only New Hampshire and Ohio are even close to suggesting this; out of fifty states! The largest vote counts Nader got were of course in the states that were going to Gore. The Nader campaign stressed this-that increased votes in ‘safe’ states would increase the Green Party’s access etc. California had 418,000 votes to Florida’s 98,000. Well Gore won Florida anyway. Isn’t that fact? I won’t argue that. Since the other canards are so easily struck down. Ohio? Kerry lost to Bush with no Nader vote whatsoever in 2004. In New Hampshire he won with a 2nd Nader vote of 4.400. Kerry lost Florida by 400,000 votes. Nader got 32,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000
The Kerry vs Bush election has disappeared from the democratic party machine’s narrative. If Nader gave Bush the election, then Bush had invaded two countries (with overwhelming democratic leadership support), instituted massive tax cuts for the rich, and was obviously not really in control of making a complete sentence and being made fun of nightly on late night comedy shows, why didn’t Kerry win after that four years of Bush? Let’s just pass by that election. Throw it down the memory hole. Just repeat after me, Nader caused the wars. And tax cuts.
Instead blame 2 million voters for Nader, most of whom voted in safe ‘blue’ states, for your own party’s corporate whoring for eight years under Clinton. And ignore that Gore was completely controlled by so called global warming corporations, was right wing to Clinton by all insider accounts, and was advocating invading Iraq back in the first gulf war. And that he also helped increase the severity of sanctions on Iraq with Clinton that resulted in hundreds of thousands dead women and children. That’s not even up for debate. Even in the sinkhole of spin in a party machines’ apparatchiks pronouncements from above…. reality still seeps through.
Gore also agreed completely with the deregulation of the finance sector. He was an ardent advocate of trickle down economics. Look at who he took money from his whole career. Then tell me, he would have been different than Bush, or Obama now. Under Clinton/Gore the ‘reinventing government program’ cut the FDIC staff by three quarters and the OTS staff by half. This story of Gore’s baby of partnering with corporations to police themselves has a terrible legacy. One ignored by democrats now. Bush and Cheney did all this by themselves.
By the way, Al Gore was anti choice in Congress, and as a Senator he voted yes for the right wing Scalia. He never made one vote in his life that could be considered ‘anti war’. His record on supporting Big Pharma’s denial of HIV cocktails and generics to Africa, can be documented to have caused an unnecessary million deaths. There is nothing, no notable stance, or any inkling of conscience on his political record that this man would have not invaded Afghanistan (which he supported anyway when out of politics) or the invasion of Iraq . There is nothing in his record that shows he would have stopped the mortgage bubble, and instead there is a history of neo liberal/Chicago school trickle down finance sector beliefs. Economics and Militarism of the right. Nader did not lose the election for him; he and the party lost it; and he would have been the same as Bush. Except maybe for the massive tax cuts and supreme court nominees. Maybe.
In a real world this is true. Repeated lies can become truth too. When citizens take truth away from fact, as dictated by a political party. That is called Leninism, when it is party uber alles.
The next democratic trope that will become fact, will be that Obama wanted to make jobs programs, rather than be a deficit hawk that squeezed the states and instituted austerity, all because the republicans stopped him. That is already becoming truth in the corridors of enablers and party lackeys begging to be in. The people have known for a long time of the betrayal and lies of the democratic party, and the upcoming 2014 mid terms will probably show them losing even more. Though with gerrymandering so prevalent that’s up for the wonky wonks to decide.
The democratic party is so bankrupt that even Harpers Magazine prints an Adolph Reed Jr article on it. Though Lewis Lapham a past editor, and a member of the top 10%, was vicious in his denunciation of both parties, and one editor Macarthur wrote a book in the 90’s detailing Clinton’s sellout, the new editor Thomas Frank still felt the need to detail Republican craziness and oddball actions right up to the 2012 election. He's still begging the scum at the top for some kind of intellectual access he will never get. How strange, coming from Baffler. He's becoming a parody of himself, with recent Salon.com articles of what he described in 90's writings.
It’s a strange safari in this jungle of pundits many of whom you cannot trust to have a centered ethical compass. Some said, Clinton is corporate scum, but look what they wrote before the Obama election. Then after four years, back off a bit…but still bellow about that Nader thing. Any democratic party supporter is really not to be trusted at this point, and should not have been after Bush’s election when they blasted Nader. The whole conversation is a show of how the ‘left’ is completely unorganized and unthreatening to the elite. So you are treated like a door mat to be called and herded for an election, and then shut up in a closet unable to speak.
It’s also a show of how boring politics is in the USA. It’s a circle speak of a thousand or so people with their faithful followers on the internet parroting their lines. While they laugh at the right parroting fox news lines. It is a bore. And the only excitement to look forward to as usual, is what people do outside the elections.
There will be many stormings of Versaille, and met with brute force, but also there will be many radical and bottom up USA foists that create seeds. We can expect all vibrancy, and small time revolutionary activity to cause the liberal pundits to type more cautionary and elitist liberalsplaining diatribes. I think the time has finally come, where I can expect you to no longer listen to them. To break a new militant path, as dangerous as it will be, but not boring.