You know what's hilarious, like, Russia-hilarious, about the United States? Even the Lebanese laugh at it and, you know, their country's been blown up. It's the absolutely unrepresentative nature of the national executive structure. And until this structure is changed, third parties in the presidentials are tools the two main parties welcome with open arms, and Ralph Nader is a fucking dick.
The reason third, fourth, fifth, sixth, et cetera parties count in normal, functioning democracies isn't simply because they exist; it's because of their ability to form coalition governments with larger parties and shape policy through these coalitions. This way they demonstrate their effectiveness, and then win or fail to win the trust of the electorate. But in the U.S. presidentials, you're voting for a president and a vice president - one winner. Votes that go to candidates from a third party are gone forever. Sometimes that works out for the Democrats (like when Ross Perot split the dingbat vote), and sometimes for the Republicans (when Ralph Nader being a fucking dick in 2000 helped them mask that the recounts weren't making sense).
Either way these marginal third parties are something that the two main ones welcome and incorporate into their electoral strategies, in terms of dealing with each other - not in terms of how it works in France, for example. France features multi-party presidential elections followed by a two-party run-off election, in which the smaller parties that don't make it into the run-off still manage to frame the debate there by endorsing the best of the front-runners, for example, or by forcing the front-runners to adopt part of their platform to capture new run-off voters. Ralph Nader does not frame the debate. Ross Perot did not frame the debate. When there is only one winner in an ideologically blah, one-run system, all a third party does is make the party least like it more likely to win. There is no scope for debate-framing for smaller parties in a one-off presidential run - the scope is limited to vote-splitting.
That's hilarious. It means that not only is voting for a third party a way of participating in the strategy of the two main parties, but also that voting for a third party is an utterly ineffective way of seeking electoral reform, which the United States is in such crazy need of, because it's participating so effectively in the strategy of the two main parties. And thus the absolutely unrepresentative nature of the national executive structure suffers zero challenge.
So far, so already covered by dozens of 'center-left' broadsheets. But surely calling Ralph Nader a fucking dick is slightly harsh? No. He's a fucking dick and I don't trust him as far as I can throw him.
The thing is, though the United States is one of the more fucked up of the major democratic systems, they do have some of the 'checks and balances' that they claim to have, or at least they have Congress. Theoretically, at least, voting blocks can be formed in those houses, and, say, the Green Party could have a major voice in terms of passing and funding legislation, or a large-ish independent party with even a few congressmen could make major electoral reform part of its platform and bargain aggressively for it through their coalition or voting agreements. That's how non-direct democracy works, when it works. Messy and sometimes effective.
So why does Nader silently hold his hose during the congressionals? Why not found or find a party he can run with or endorse, why not make some goddamn speeches or something during the congressionals, if not run? Why not give up trying to raise the cash to run for the president and devote that cash to running a viable party in the congressionals? Why not pursue a long-term plan to form a national party that the electorate will find credible instead of throwing in his own little hat every time the presidentials roll around? In short, why not make one of his vaunted bids for democratic reform when reform is actually possible, instead of during the presidentials, when it isn't?
I haven't met the man so I can only guess. None of the guesses do him credit. And all of them, at their fundament, boil down to him being a fucking dick.
17 commenti:
Whoever the Democrats or Republicans stroll out in front of us are Not winners - they are losers.
I am not a rich man. Those who that crowd stroll out in front of us do not represent me - in fact, they only represent a tiny minority - a VERY TINY minority of Americans.
And, that sort of American the Strollers represent are the most vulger and debased sort of 'citizen'.
We need change we can believe in. You'll see. Stay tuned, and try to tell us in 2-3 years about all the change. They will tell you about 'why it couldn't be done'
I've said it before - I like barrack and Hillary, and even mac and huck can make me smile.
But these rich people do not represent me, or 99% of all Americans - whatever the media tells us.
In a complete turnover of methphors, I wash of them.
Please - wash. But for God's sake wash proactively. The rich may not represent you, but as you might be able to tell, I really don't think Ralph Nader does either.
And it's also obvious that I think working towards 'change you can believe in' will take a lot more than voting for a third party candidate every four years in a presidential process that even FRANCE does better.
All that's going to do is make you personally feel more 'represented' and maybe net the world another warmonger who wants to build a wall with Mexico and ban da gays.
Great.
Sure, the Republicans and the Democrats are the same -- they're all beholden to Big Bidness... Still, if it wasn't for Nader's run in 2000, we wouldn't be in Iraq right now.
Rite - We'd be bombing baby milk factories in Somalia.
And that was meant to read 'wash my hands of them' -w/ the turnover of metaphor.
Jesus, this is what drives me crazy about Americans when they come across something they disagree with politically.
Yes, the Democrats and Republicans have way too much in common for your democracy to function. (Though anybody who thinks a Gore presidency would have been quantitatively similar to the one you're having now is absolutely fucking insane.) And yes, your democracy is deeply flawed and needs reform. I wrote all that.
I also wrote Nader running in the presidentials is no way to change that situation. That's because that's not the way your presidentials work. Nader is a participant in a corrupt situation.
If his real agenda was political reform, he'd be doing something with Congress besides standing outside it talking about how corrupt the congressmen inside are. He'd be participating in a viable national party that would work towards a presence in your Congress, and he would have power for change you can fuckin' believe in.
But he doesn't. He runs in the presidentials every four years, even though you have a winner-take-all presidential run. That means the only way he can have ANY IMPACT on the process is either by winning or by splitting the centre-to-left vote.
I don't think he expects to win, considering the number of people who are ideologically opposed to him and considering the number of people who see him as one of the factors that led to the death of thousands of Americans in Iraq, among other things.
So tell me, what the fuck does he expect to do?
And how the fuck do you think a vote for him in the presidentials is a vote for change?
Do Not surrender yrself to the man. Two parties? Why not be proactive and build more parties? Although I am a registered member of the Party of Vietnam, doesn't mean I have to step to that danse. I i.d. more with the hippies, the civil rites fighters, the feminists, the unions, etc ... all those that find only lip service in thse money changers. They talk a big deal, but again- lets see President Obama's excuses when he couln't deliver any change, then his promises again in 2012 campaign.
I've been following this stuff since 1976. Obama sounds a lot like carter. And Clinton. and them all.
SO dissapointing.
I refuse. And I will build.
Hilts, holy fuck.
You need third, fourth, etc, parties, like a normal country, but you need to build them at the congressional level.
That's because your system for choosing the president doesn’t allow for multiple parties to have anything but negative influence. That system needs to be changed before it can be effective. That system is one of the reasons countries like Lebanon laugh at you and Russians think you’re spouting propaganda when you tsk-tsk Putin for not being enough of a democrat.
And that's why voting for Nader in the presidentials IS surrendering to the man. Not because the Republicans might win again. But because voting for Nader won't change that system, but it will make people like you feel like they’re ‘building’.
Well, bad fucking news: voting for Nader isn't 'building'. 'Building' means promoting and voting for a third party at the congressional level. It means organizing and showing up for social and labour demonstrations. It means voting for Democrat or Republican primary candidates who make electoral change part of their platform. It means work.
Voting for Nader is about as proactive and counter-'man' as sitting on your couch, smoking weed, drinking beer, and whining. That is, exactly what 'the man' wants you to do if you don't like him.
You want to build? Great. It'll take more than Jesus talk and voting for a fucking dick every four years.
relax Spliffy, I have straitjacketed Hilts and am presently shoving pages of Manufacturing Consent down his Black Irish throat.
I think we were making the same point - yes the Reps and Dems are largely identical, but no, a Gore presidency would not have been a Bush presidency. Which is why I say that a 2000 or a 2008 vote for Nader is a vote for Iraq. B/c, like you say, since there is currently no multiparty structure in the U.S. that allows for the expression of representative democratic pluralism (e.g., in the form of coalition governments), 3rd party votes only reinforce the 2-party status quo, usually to the advantage of the least desirable party.
cmon Hilts, Carter = Clinton? Clinton was despicable to begin with. (As a matter of fact, that was the last time I voted for a 3rd party candidate).
Currently doesn't mean always.
And yr rite = Clint didn't fund Osama Bin Laden or give help in a million ways to Saddem Hussein. Like the Democratic president did when I was growing up and didn't know any better.
You state that because you have "never met him" you can only guess that Ralph Nader is a "fucking dick." Assuming that your internet connection is not "blog only" you could use it to learn a lot about Nader's career. When Obama was told of Nader's intention to run, even he had to concede that Nader is an "heroic" figure. I will leave it to you (if you are so inclined) to do the research and learn why Nader is a hero to many.
I'm guessing it's your ignorance of Nader's life and pre-candidate career that leads you to assert that the vast majority "are ideologically opposed to him." There are websites devoted to mock elections where people can vote for a candidate based soley on the candidate's positions on issues -- not names, faces, or political party affiliation. I bet Nader would do great in such an election (ironically, especially among the outraged liberals who are so mad at his running). The point being is that the outrage at Nader is not because he is a "fucking dick" or wrong on the issues it is because of his audacity of hope at running as a candidate outside of the dem/rep monopoly.
This outrage at Nader is justified of course, because as you & Baywatch so convincingly argue, the U.S. is in Iraq because of him. Right, the U.S. is in Iraq not because of the criminal neo-conservatives, the lying corporate media, or even the congressional votes of Clinton and McCain for the war -- no it's because of the "fucking dick" Nader.
One can only wonder how the U.S. managed to conduct their 100 or so criminal military interventions before Nader ever ran for the presidency. On that point, Hilts -- I assume you are refering to Clinton's bombing of the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. When talking about war crimes, you owe it to the victims to get the facts right.
You also state that any one who thinks that a Gore presidency would not have been vastly different (and better I'm guessing?) than Bush/Cheney must be "absolutely fucking insane." Well, we really don't have to guess or fantasize as to how different a Gore presidency would be. One rational approach would be to look at the congressional voting record of Gore's running mate Joe Lieberman. On all of the major issues (the wars, Patriot act . . .) Joe voted in lock-step with the Bush agenda. Despite the disaster in Iraq and the revelation of pre-war lies, Joe still is. But the Iraq war and "thousands of U.S. deaths" is Nader's fault because Gore lost.
Nader had said that he would not run if John Edwards won the democratic nomination. He stated that Edwards was right on the imporatant issues of checking corporate power, giving some strength to post-union labor, health care, immidiate exit from Iraq, Palestinian statehood (or really any other issue that dares to question Isreali hegemony on U.S. foreign policy issues). Consequently, it is clear that Nader is not running because of some irrational vindictiveness but because of the rational fear that these and other progressive issues will be otherwise completely ignored during the general presidential election.
Your repeated talk of "framing the debate" reveals a distrust of democracy. The only thing that should frame a debate is reason. You should know that it is the corporate media that is constantly framing the debate and deciding what are appropriate issues. Nader's presence can force discussion on issues (if only for the media to mock his positions) and keep the Dem candidate honest on progressive issue. Perhaps the fear of Nader "stealing their votes" would make the Democrats pick a progressive running mate.
I know it was an attempt at humor but Baywatch's assertion that he was force feeding Hilts Chomsky is very strange. Chomsky declared that he was going to vote for Nader in 2004. He qualified this by stating he was because he would be voting in Mass. a "safe" state (safe meaning a clear anticipated Dem victory). But Chomsky was also clear that ideologically Nader was the best candidate.
Finally, if liberals hate Nader so much make him irrelevant. Do something other than spending 5 minutes every four years casting a vote and make the Democrats a true progressive party. Nah, I guess it's much easier to just demonize Nader.
Gallo, I can't answer you without repeating myself. But it looks as though I'm a bit of a glutton for that. Also you've touched the same nerve that set me off on Nader being a fucking dick initially, which was that my boyf looked up from the paper and told me he was running again, to which I said 'aw fuck', to which he accused me of not believing in democracy.
So let me make one thing perfectly clear: I believe in democracy, and I trust democracy. What I don't trust or believe in is American democracy. Where do you think you live? Switzerland? Your system doesn't work. Your parties are corrupt and populist. Your politicians have no ideology. Your congressional houses are rotten with bad money. And once again, your system doesn't work.
You think talk about 'framing a debate' reveals a distrust of democracy? Let me go further: your democracy is so shitty, third parties can't even frame the debate. It's great to want to bring issues to the table, but the structure of your presidential elections is so shitty that it's impossible to do that as a third party candidate without your only direct effect being negatively strengthening the base of the party which is most unlike you. Don't just blame the media for that. It's a systemic problem.
And the reason Ralph Nader is a fucking dick, whatever his history, is that instead of politically devoting himself to a practical way of changing that system by increasing his influence through a Congressional party, he runs in the presidentials every four years - he participates in a process that needs reform, a process he can only change by winning outright - which he knows he won't.
In your country, lots of people have decided, after decades of governmental incompetence and corruption, that the best party to vote for will be the party that promises to tax them least. That's why millions of perfectly nice people voted the Bush/Cheney ticket - not because they were bloodthirsty yahoos who thought killing Iraqi babies was neat-o. And that's why millions of perfectly nice people would be ideologically horrified by the idea of voting for Nader. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it not-true.
So Nader knows he won't win. Then what is he doing participating in a one-run presidential race? There's a range of possibilities. Would you prefer I called him a hypocrite? An egomaniac? A drain-shitter? A Republican shill? All of them are possible, but I figure I'll cover my bases by keeping it general and calling him a fucking dick.
Also, this post isn't an endorsement of the Democrats or Republicans. I won a genetic lottery by being born in a first world democracy with a parliament, so I don't need to choose between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. But what that post was saying is that if the Democrats are giant douches and the Republicans are turd sandwiches, Nader's a fucking dick.
A fundamental flaw with your argument is your apparent ignorance of who Ralph Nader actually is. You even seem to be unaware of his association with the american Green Party despite mentioning them. It is Nader's example that has inspired many people to run as greens on the congressional level and his presidential runs bring much needed media attention and donations to the party.
You talk as if Nader is some crank who only comes out of seclusion every four years to run for president. He gives plenty of speeches (for what that's worth) and regularly contributes essays online and fights for the issues he has always fought for. I guess your misapprehension can be forgiven since the only time the mainstream media recogizes Nader's existence (or the green party) is when he announces a presidential run. Again, that is why I suggested using your internet to learn something about the man and what he has devoted his entire adult life to. You would learn that he is not corrupt and ideologically bankrupt -- but that might dampen your gleeful derision.
Frankly, you exploit liberal outrage at Nader to make your primary point which is the banal condescension of the European at what you call the american "sytem." However you are confusing a situation with a system. The american system does not mandate two parties but the current (I know it's been a long time)situation is one that is dominated by only two parties. However, even without a Nader run there are always multiple parties on ballots. The only way to chip away at the Dem/Republican majority is for smaller parties to put forth candidates until they challenge the monopoly or at least force the major parties to make them irrelevant by embracing their most popular issues.
Yes, America has a winner-take-all executive branch. But how different is that from your beloved europe? How many presidents, prime ministers, popes, kings or emperors does your typical european nation have? Your condensecion I guess can be explained by the brilliant French system with brought forth Sarkozy -- lucky they had Le Pen to frame the debate. Perhaps I will stare at my cuckoo clock and supplement my daydreams of suicide with thoughts of my glorious monochromatic democracy -- but wait, I don't have to do that -- I'm not Swiss!
Your best and most elegant point was that "all a third party does is make the party least like it more likely to win." yes, that is ironic or tragic even. But I suppose an even deeper irony is that the only thing that can change this bad situation is even more candidates, the crankier the better. Your last comment and it's accuity on the issue of taxes (but please do not underestimate the blood-lust of your fellow man) explains the success of a libertarian like Paul. As long as america devotes the lion share of its resources to global murder (or manned missions to mars -- sorry Baywatch)the high-tax liberals have no ethical superiority.
While you emphasize the congress or the legislature as a check on executive power I look more to the judical branch. Perhaps that's because my only american hero who has held any kind of political "office" was Justice Thurgood Marshall. And it's the president's ability to select supreme court justices (and even more importantly, numerous lower federal judges and prosecutors) that does make a Democratic victory essential in 2008. But despite that realization I do not fear Nader or any other outsider candidate because i trust people to make that simple chomskian calculation about whether their vote will swing the balance in their state.
Gallo, I know who Nader is. I know he ran for President that one time with the Greens, I know what he's done as a consumer advocate, I know he was a stunning example to the youth of et cetera.
And his presidential run is still the action of a fucking dick. He's lobbied Congress over its special interests; why not be more proactive and run for congress, if he's interested in electoral office and influence?
I see why you hesitate to see Congress as a check, by looking at its history, but it is - a very effective one, if it would be. And considering how tiny the majorities often are in those houses considering the success independents have already had running there - it's the prime location for a man of influence and history like Nader to make a fucking difference by running w with a small party like the Greens.
But he hasn't; he hasn't had a relationship with Congress, outside of criticizing it from the outside. He has chosen to devote his energies and the money he's accessed to presidential runs instead. I have the opposite of respect for that choice. I can't think of a single good adjective for that choice.
Oh, and I'm not European. But I still know what you need for a representative democracy isn't simply a kabillion parties or 'even more candidates'. What you need is an electoral system in which multiple parties have effective roads to power either through run-off elections or through a preferential ballot. Or else you DO just need a kabillion parties, but with a remit to form coalitions. Things you lack. Does pointing that out look like condescension? Well, shit. That's your problem.
Finally, I don't like Sarkozy, except maybe it a sexual way. But democracy isn't about who YOU like winning. It's about who MOST people like winning. If you don't approve . . . well, you're in the right country, considering how unrepresentative the American system is.
If your last comment had been your original post I would have found little or nothing to criticize -- but what fun would that have been?
This commenting is addictive but I'm afraid I'm in total agreement with your Cronenberg post.
Really? Because I criticize myself daily over the Sarkozy thing.
The hardest part about 'Eastern Promises' is feeling pressure not to spoil a twist that shitty.
Yes, I mean you could say that there were like three "twists" right? All of them pretty lame. The movie seemed very old-fashioned in a strange way -- like a 30s gangster picture but the italians were replaced by the even more "exotic" russians.
Vigo is the best thing going for him right know. He single-handedly (with his suits) saved Promises from being a pure B-picture.
Cronenberg seems like a brilliant guy who has suffered some catastrophic head injury. I loved Naked Lunch and most of Crash but there are so many false notes in his pictures. That first shot of Watts on her motorbike for example. Or when Hunter bares her breast in Crash. On that point, for someone who values sex or eroticism so much, Cronenberg gets the erotic so wrong. Even the cheerleader scene in History didn't work for me.
That's funny, because while I was watching 'Eastern Promises' I spent minutes together thinking it was to Russian gangsters what 'Moonstruck' was to second generation Italians. Without Viggo it could have gone straight to video without wronging the cinema-going public.
I liked the cheerleader scene in 'History' but generally, I don't think David Cronenberg is sexy when he's erotic. He strikes me as a man who fucked up a storm until he got freaked out by AIDS. And now (barring 'History', but then they were married and he seems, as you write, a little old-fashioned) sex is a way in for corruption or infection, and it will all end in tears and explosions of human goo.
Posta un commento