You know, I still can’t decide if voting for Nader in 2000 was a mistake.
Why I voted for Nader, rather than Gore:
- I couldn’t vote for anyone, democrat or republican, who would continue the U.S.’s horrible sanctions policy, a policy which killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children.
- I thought that if Bush did win the White House, that would be made up for by democratic party victories in Congress in 2002.
- I thought Gore would be more effective than Bush at pushing new “free trade” treaties such as the FTAA and CAFTA (just as Clinton was a more effective advocate of “free trade” than Bush senior had been).
- I thought that Bush – eager to avoid a bruising (to Republicans) fight over basic abortion rights (as opposed to “partial-birth abortions”) – would be unlikely to appoint anyone to the Supreme Court who would change the current balance in favor of Roe.
- I thought that if leftists aren’t willing to abandon democrats under anycircumstances, the democrats would have no reason to pay any attention to the left, or to halt a DLC-led march to the right. True, trying to force the Democrats left this way is a long-shot, long-term plan – but even a little hope seems better to me than what “anti-Nader” liberals offer, which is absolute surrender without resistance to ever-more-rightwing DLC candidates.
So, with hindsight, how are things looking?
- Well, the Iraq sanctions are done for, whereas they would probably still be in place if Gore were president. But on the other hand, it’s still possible that Bush’s incompetence will lead to Iraq being torn apart by civil war, or becoming a Saudi-Arabian style despotic state.
Frankly, the status quo in Iraq was so bad in 2000, I think there’s still a good chance that – despite Bush’s best efforts – the overall result of waiting for Iraq will be an improvement for Iraqi citizens. I’m still in “wait and see” mode on this.
- Boy, was I wrong to expect Democrats to win in 2002. So much for my crystal ball.
- It’s impossible to know how effective Gore would have been at pushing “free trade” agreements. But it’s pretty clear that Bush has been a failure, just as I hoped – from the WTO in Cancún, to the FTAA in Miami, to the recent decision of Costa Rico not to sign on to CAFTA.
- So far, happily, Bush hasn’t gotten the chance to appoint a single Supreme Court justice. When he does… I don’t know what he’ll do. A cautious republican would do as I predict – pick someone who’ll support precedent on Roe – but it’s become clear that Bush is more than willing to take chances and go to extremes. (Whatever I may think of the guy, he doesn’t lack for political daring.)
Meanwhile, Bush has been more monstrous than I ever imagined in his willingness to cut off essential services to women in developing countries. Pro-lifers claim that they’re not motivated by hatred of women, and probably the rank-and-file of the pro-life movement isn’t; but it’s hard to understand why anyone who doesn’t want to pointlessly kill tens of thousands of women and infants would advocate defunding UNFPA.
- I still think I’m right about this.
So where do I stand – am I sorry to have voted for Nader, or not?
Well, bad as what Bush has done to women abroad is, it’s still not as bad as the Iraq sanctions were. The sort of “free trade” agreements Clinton/Gore favored would have also done tremendous harm to women and children in the developing world, as well.
On balance, I’m still not sure if voting for Nader was the right thing to do. Bush has been worse than I expected (largely due to 9/11) – but he hasn’t been the end of the world, despite what you might think listening to some partisan democrats. Nor would a Gore administration have lacked for bad points.
I guess I’m still waiting to see how Iraq turns out.
Meanwhile, though, it’s not at all clear that I was wrong to vote for Nader.
AFTERTHOUGHTS:
A couple of quick afterthoughts:
- If the presidential race looks at all close this year, I’ll be voting for a democrat, not a Green. 2004 is not 2000. The primary reason I couldn’t vote for Gore was the Iraq sanctions, and those are no longer an issue. And chances are VERY high that whoever is president in 2004 will get to appoint at least one, maybe several, Supreme Court justices. Any of the Democrats – even Lieberman – would make better appointments to the high court than Bush would.
As for making a stand for progressivism – I still think this needs doing. But it’s clear that 2004 won’t be the right year for that.
- If you’re an anti-Green who wants to argue about it, please make sure you read this post and especially this post first.
I don’t have anything to say on this that you haven’t heard before. I’m a registered Green whose basically too lazy to change back, but I will never ever vote for a Green again.
Anyway, regarding “The sort of “free trade” agreements Clinton/Gore favored would have also done tremendous harm to women and children in the developing world, as well”: presumably you’ve posted on this before. If so, could you perhaps point me to it? I’ve been pretty convinced by Krugman and Delong on the free trade thing; on the other hand, I’ve never even heard of the particular agreements that you mentioned.
Have a happy Tchanookah.
who’s
The argument could be made that the liberal Democratic reaction to the Bush presidency has been so strong precisely because the Democrats see their demise not in the ascendancy of the Republican party, but rather in that of the Green Party. The Dems’ scare-mongering may be nothing more than a mendacious way of re-solidifying their voting base. Witness the recent mayoral election in San Francisco, a Dem vs. Green showdown. The Democrat (Newsom) won with 53% against the Green (Gonzales) with 47%. Everyone from Feinstein to Bill Clinton came out in support of Newsom. Clinton would not have been there were it not an emergency situation. The Democrats need Republican support in order to elbow out up and coming parties to their left.
Had I known then what I know now about Nader in 2000, he wouldn’t have had my vote. However, I don’t regret it.
Let me add that I am most certainly voting for whoever the Dem candidate is this time (though I dislike the current frontrunner).
To David–
Have you heard of Joseph Stiglitz? He’s the Nobel prize winning economist and Clinton Administration insider who made headlines in 2000 by saying that many of the points made by the globalization protestors were correct. Krugman in the last year or so has said that the old 90’s policies pushed by the IMF were wrong and that Argentina and other countries show this to be the case.
On Barry’s points–
Barry’s reasons for voting Nader in 2000 were basically identical to mine. I even agree with the notion that Iraqis might possibly turn out better off as a result of the invasion than they would have been if they were living under Saddam and sanctions, though up to this point the record is very mixed. Iraqis have much more freedom, of course, but their material situation may be worse and the crime and violence situation is very bad.
I have changed in one respect–I will no longer say that I could never vote for someone who supported sanctions (or some other policy of mass murder that may arise in the future). That’s because, realistically speaking, it’s always going to be a choice between voting for the lesser of two evils, or voting for someone genuinely decent (like Nader) who isn’t going to win. And the lesser of two evils will probably be someone who’d support sanctions or unflinching support for some war criminal, or whatever. But it’s better to vote for the person who will cause less harm and I think that a Gore/Lieberman administration would have caused less harm than Bush.
Though it also would have confirmed the popular news media belief that the Democrats have to move right to win elections and in the long run that would probably have caused a lot of harm. Liberal and left Nader-bashers never seem to think of this. Centrist Nader-bashers probably do think of this, and are fearful that liberals might move the Democrats slightly leftward in 2004.
Anyway, in the end I’m now a “lesser of two evilist” and think that Democrats cause less harm. So I’ll vote Democrat in 2004, while still convinced that most of what Nader said about the Democrats in 2000 was fairly accurate.
Nader ’00 did not win Bush the Presidency.
Purging thousands of black, mostly Democratic voters from the Florida polls won Bush the Presidency.
The Supreme Court’s actual “judicial activism” (as opposed to what the wingers always complain about) won Bush the Presidency.
Oh, and if the ballet recount had continued, Gore would have won.
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1115-02.htm
http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181
http://www.americanpolitics.com/2001gore.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,2763,415400,00.html
There are good reasons to focus on Anyone But Bush in ’04, but let’s be honest about what really lost Gore’s case in ’00.
I voted for Nader in 2000, and I hope to vote for
Dean in 2004, but if the Democratic candidate were
Lieberman I would vote for Nader again.
I would even vote for Bush before I would support
a party led by Lieberman.
Despite the current ascendence of the right in the US, I believe that the voters can be led back
to a more centralist and even progressive position, if only there was some gutsy leadership
in that direction.
Clinton essentially failed to do this.
The Gore/Lieberman ticket failed to offer this – if only the “New Gore” had run, I would have voted for him.
At least with Bush as president, there is SOME
weak kneed opposition to SOMe of his policies –
if Lieberman were president, where would the opposition be when his pal Sharon decides to
gas the Palestinians ?
We are better off having a somewhat leftist
Democratic party, even as a minority party,
that having two right wing parties even if
we call one of them “Democratic” and they
manage to be progressive on a couple of
issues, like abortion.
Nobody outside Florida and New Hampshire has any reason to regret voting for Nader in 2000, because those were the only states close enough that greens could have swung the vote.
Even in those two states, Nader voters’ responsibility is nowhere near as clear as the Pissed-Off Democrat Brigade claims. There’s no way to know how many of the Nader voters would have voted Democrat, or even voted at all, if Nader hadn’t been in the race.
I voted for Nader in 2000 and have no regrets at all, even though I’m a relatively centrist Democrat and considerably closer to Gore than Nader on most issues. I felt that the Clinton/Gore administration had given short shrift to several progressive values I *do* care about, and believed that a stronger third-party voice would be a good thing, so I wanted to help get Nader his 5% of the vote and bring in matching funds for the greens in 2004.
No regrets at all–especially since my vote, in big blue California, had no effect on the electoral outcome. But Bush has been a *much* worse president than I ever believed he might be, and so my priority in 2004 is to get rid of him, and I will not vote green under any circumstances whatsoever. Nor will I even vote in the democratic primary for any candidate that I don’t believe can beat Bush. Howard Dean’s my man.
I voted for Nader in 2000, not for any particular policies of his, but because I felt Al Gore was being too tepid and ineffective in attacking Dubya during the campaign.
A good candidate would have eviscerated Dubya on the campaign trail and the debates. Gore did a Dukakis and thought everyone would vote for him because he’s better-qualified….not true.
And sure enough…..Gore rolled over and played dead during the recount debacle….he should have called for Democrats to take the streets over the election theft in progress, but decided to be a good loser. And a good loser is exactly that, a LOSER.
I want a candidate who makes Dubya’s desertion and Cheney’s ties to Halliburton hallmarks of their campaign. I want someone who will turn the Repugs from the Capturers of Saddam Hussein into the people giving the rich tax cuts and Halliburton no-bid contracts and winking at their fraud.
Not to mention making religious nut John Ashcroft in charge of this nation’s legal resources.
Didn’t Gore win, that is what I say when I get hounded about how I blew the election for the dems.
Didn’t Gore win?
Donald Johnson:
Yes, I’ve heard of Stiglitz. Delong has written quite a bit about him. I think his response can essentially be summed up in the following quote:
“The fact that he’s not able to come up with a consistent critique from a consistent position tells me that his complaints aren’t intellectual–“staff” complaints that the guiding principles are wrong–but are complaints about implementation–“line” complaints that he could have done it better and ought to have had one of the Bigger Jobs.”
My impression of Krugman’s critique of the IMF (and note that I don’t know understand economics to well; I’ve read a few books) is that, while austerity measures can have destructive effects on countries’ economies, they are often justified in order to devastating prevent currency runs; however, in some cases (e.g. Argentina) they’ve been implemented without justification, essentially out of habit. He’s frequently pointed to Mexico as and example of a case where loans were made on condition of austerity measures (by the US – I have a bit of trouble sorting out US poicies from the IMF from the World bank), with (ultimately) life-saving results. His general reaction to the IMF is, I believe, that, though it makes mistakes, it does more good then harm (same with free trade), and that it any case, its importance (as in, how much money it controls), is wildly overstated (Incidentally, Max Sawicky once made a comment about “blowing smoke out of your ass” when I posted a “here’s what Krugman says” type of post, but I really don’t know what else to do. I do find it useful to periodically post a “please explain this to little ol’ me” type of post to the smart people who frequent Delong.
I have a few contrarian thoughts about sanctions as well, but that would seem to be academic at this point.
Again, specific info about those specific agreements would be welcome (although I suppose I could google it).
I just realized tha “essentially be summed up” is redundant (and repetitive).
Mein Gott, am I a sloppy typist; among other things, that should have been “to prevent devastating currency runs.”
I’m convinced, looking at the 2000 campaign and since, that the Greens simply don’t have the skills to pay the bills. If I thought they could become a credible second party–but they can’t.
let’s be honest about what really lost Gore’s case in ’00
This post at keywords pretty much me that Gore should take much of the blame for losing Gore’s case in 2000.
By the way, I love this blog, thanks for it.
“pretty much convinced me”, that is.
To David–
I’ve tried twice to reply to your comments with long posts and both times the connection failed. Maybe I’ll try again later.
I’m still checking, in case you still want to post it.
Evan:
No, we can’t know exactly how (or if) Greens would have voted, with 100% certainty, but we can come up with some pretty good estimates.
Mark, Matt:
If Nader didn’t win, Gore’s victory in Florida would have been sizeable — too big for Bush to contest. Don’t kid yourselves: Nader’s candidacy was the single biggest factor in GWB becoming our 43rd President. If you haven’t learned that lesson, and Nader runs again, you’re only increasing the odds of a second term of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, et al.
“If Nader didn’t run …”
Man, this thread is typo-prone; I guess people still get heated about this. ;)
david . without going into a big debate here . it always amazes me that delongs of this world , sitting on their fat cushoned seats , either in ivory towers or even more lucrative halls of power in washington . they keep on repeating ” free trade ” as answer to all the problems . in practice all they do is ( and if were intellectually honest say so ) make world ” free and unfettered ” for Capital . i never heard his likes ever protest / resign on making status of ” Workers ” comparable in this contest . Clinton / Gore ( and intellectuals / academics like delongs ) drew a line in send about free trade . if they cared about avery one they would have also fought as hard to give workers at least an equal status to contest . about IMF and how it brought about havoc by its policies a simple google search will do it . one of the least recognised case is former yugoslavia . a structured and drawn out transition just might have prevented the social break down and perhaps the horrible civil war that followed.
A few quick comments:
1) No, Nader wasn’t the only reason why Gore “lost.” But without Nader, Gore would have unequivocally won. And, as someone (I forget who) pointed out, the harm Nader did was not limited to the votes he directly siphoned away. He forced Gore to spend time and money campaigning in states that without him would have been safe, drawing resources away from other states. And he gave credibility to the meme that there was no difference between Bush and Gore.
2) On the subject of free trade and whether Gore would have been more effective at pushing it, you don’t mention that the Seattle failure happened under Clinton. And it’s not clear to me to what extent Bush is responsible for the Cancun failure; my impression was that the Europeans were at least as unwilling to make concessions to the “developing countries” coalition, if not more so.
David, I’ve never posted much about free trade on this blog. Maybe I’ll post more about it in the future. I just don’t find “one-size-fits-all” solutions – which is what the WTO, the World Bank and the “free trade” advocates offer – very convincing. Maybe I’ll post in more detail about this (and about the ways free trade is in particular a feminist issue) in the future.
I’m curious – have you actually read Stiglitz’s book, David? It seems to me you have to do that before you can make a judgement about Delong’s critique. To me, Delong’s critique just seems like a mix of ad hominon (“Joe is bitter because he wasn’t in charge”) and the traditional debator’s trick of mocking complex arguments by pretending that complexity cannot be distinguished from contradiction.
Adam, regarding point #1, I certainly agree with you. Had Nader not run, I think Gore would be president right now. Nonetheless, given what I knew in 2000, I still think I was right to vote for Nader.
Regarding point #2, that’s a fair point about Seattle. As my post said, it’s impossible to know if Gore would have been any more effective than Bush. Still, given Bush’s famous unwillingness to give diplomacy a chance and his huge talent for alienating other countries, it seems plausible that Gore would have been more effective.
There are two reasons for Greens to vote Kerry. First, by voting for Kerry this year we become more relevant in presidential politics. We become swing voters. Swing voters matter to politicians seeking elected office. Often called moderate voters, swing voters are actually not middle voters but voters on the margins. Marginal voters who will move will be courted. While I see no panacea for the Left from a Kerry victory, I do see benefits in asserting the relevance of the Left – especially this year.
Dean’s rise was a victory for the Left. Gore’s series of speeches on civil liberties and the brazen lies of the Bush administration were remarkable. Kerry meeting with Nader was better than the Democratic shunning of Greens since 2000. These changes do not count as a transformation of society, but given how little power the Left has we are best realistic about how much of role we have at this time. Let’s be swing voters this year and so that others will know that we can help Democrats lose (as in 2000) and we can help Democrats win (as in this year).
But the swing voter argument is not the best reason for Greens vote Kerry. More important relates to why we usually vote Green or independent, which is to send a message about what really matters to us. I voted third party in all of the past presidential elections to send a message to the Democrats. Now I want to send a message to the Republicans.
The message is simple: Go too far and you will lose.
There are limits to how far either party can go. Bush went way beyond these limits. Defeating Bush matters because all politicians need to know that even the radical Left will back a Democrat if things go too far. Bush’s radical agenda goes beyond anything any recent president has done. Not Nixon, not Ford, not Carter, not Reagan, not Bush’s dad, and not Clinton come close to the hugely radical abuse of power and threat to the Republic of this president. That’s why this president must be defeated and why it makes sense for Greens to help do it.
Bush invaded a sovereign state in a war of aggression without even pretense of following international law. Bush lied to the Congress and the American people to take our nation to war. Bush used the September 11th tragedy to restrict civil liberties and to massively expand police powers. Bush used fear of foreigners to push forward a radical domestic agenda. Bush was caught leading a government that tortures and ignores human rights with impunity. Bush suspended habeas corpus, locked citizens in secret jails and challenged the basic tenets on which civil society is based. Bush engaged in massive propaganda, abused the power of the Executive, challenged our Constitutional system, violated international law and pushed an unprecedented militaristic and corporate radical agenda.
Sure, other presidents have engaged in other acts that approach those of Bush – but none have been so bold and brazen as has been Bush. He is dangerous to our Republic and to the world. And we, the far Left, must join with moderates and liberals to send a message to radicals of the radical-Right. We will not tolerate anything that approaches Bush, not now and not ever – even if this means that we’ll pause from building our own Green Party. Join me in sending this message because the right to vote matters and this year we can employ our right to make a real difference for America and for the world.
“Bush invaded a sovereign state in a war of aggression without even pretense of following international law.”
13 months of UN negotiations doesn’t even provide pretense? A sovereign nation led by a brutal dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children? If you want Saddam back in power raise your hand.
“Bush lied to the Congress and the American people to take our nation to war.”
Relaying info that John Kerry agreed with when politically popular is lying to congress and the American people huh? So Kerry lied? Did Gore lie? Did Clinton lie? Edwards said Saddam was “an immanent threat” during the primary.
“Bush used the September 11th tragedy to restrict civil liberties and to massively expand police powers.”
What civil liberties have been restricted? What does “massively expand police powers” mean?
“Bush used fear of foreigners to push forward a radical domestic agenda.”
Yeah, making sure psychos don’t get into our country, or hide in our country plotting Beslan style massacres is radical man…radical.
“Bush was caught leading a government that tortures and ignores human rights with impunity.”
Yep, our government is evil, and as soon as Bush is gone all of this will stop. All Nam vets are war criminals too, right?
“Bush suspended habeas corpus, locked citizens in secret jails and challenged the basic tenets on which civil society is based.”
When, who, and where?
“Bush engaged in massive propaganda, abused the power of the Executive, challenged our Constitutional system, violated international law and pushed an unprecedented militaristic and corporate radical agenda.”
You forgot “child molester”.
My favorite line, Liberation:
“Dean’s rise was a victory for the Left. Gore’s series of speeches on civil liberties and the brazen lies of the Bush administration were remarkable. ”
Too funny! Until you lefties figure out that this stuff is one of the many reasons Kerry is now defending states he should have locked down. The anger is killing the left. They’ve been screaming “Haliburton/War for Oil/BushHitler” for so long, they’ve become punch lines. When they lose this election they will either reform and repudiate the Michael Moore/Howard Dean wing, or continue to spiral into obscurity.
Oh Yeah, I voted for Nader twice, when elections didn’t mean a damn thing.
We will not tolerate anything that approaches Bush, not now and not ever
As far as I’m concerned, you already are.
– even if this means that we’ll pause from building our own Green Party.
My understanding is that at least some Greens are rethinking their commitment to the party because the leaders have chosen to throw in their lot with Kerry. You may end up “paused” permanently whether that’s what you intended or not.
Join me in sending this message because the right to vote matters and this year we can employ our right to make a real difference for America and for the world.
No, Thanks. :(
Phi, you’re kind of like the punch line of an episode of South Park, only less succinct and not funny. Have you considered a career at FOX ? I hear O’Reilly may need to take a short recess very soon. ;)
screw you guys…I’m goin home.