I had almost let myself get past what he did in 2000, but all of the seething anger came back in full force when I saw the first line of this post: “Consumer advocate and political activist Ralph Nader was Al Gore’s nightmare during the 2000 election, and he could come back to haunt Democrats in 2008.”
As if the premise that Bush and Gore were the same wasn’t insane enough back then, what kind of lunatic would still operate under the premise that siphoning off votes from the Democratic candidate contributes anything positive to the political climate of this country. If we have to sit through 4 more years of the Double Talk Express, the McCain Doctrine of irrational military escalation, conservative court appointments, and everything else that goes along with a Republican presidency, I may very well go off the deep end.
I used to at least respect Nader for everything that he did before his egomania became pathological. And I even sympathized with the complaint that Democrats were too willing to go Right on issues instead of taking a principled stand to defend core values. I thought the strategy of attacking Gore (and Kerry in 2004) and campaigning AGAINST the Democrats in crucial swing states was horrifically misguided, but I could at least accept that there was some genuine element underneath it.
If Nader runs again, it will only be because he is a hateful, vindictive man far more interested in preserving his time in the limelight than in helping actual people who have to live in the world.
Ugh. The only possible good side to this which someone suggested to me today is that if Nader does run, it might be the one thing that would incite Gore to step in, too. How much would you love to see Gore the crusader with all his progressive and transformative ideals in full view throw down the gauntlet to this jackass?
It would be glorious.
And here, from the master of great putdowns, is a great track from Bob Dylan, featuring an appropriate line: “You say you lost your faith, but that’s not where it’s at / You had no faith to lose and you know it.”
* * *
Speaking of Gore, in that same conversation, I was reminded of one of my favorite bits from The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy:
The major problem – one of the major problems, for there are several – one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.
MP3 of this from the BBC Radio Series
I think this describes Gore perfectly. In 2000, he wanted to be President so badly that he betrayed some of his basic impulses, trying to play the part of the perfect candidate. And while I think he would have made a good president, I don’t think he would have undergone nearly the personal transformation and become the major force for significant and progressive change that he is now.
His discovery that he could be something other than President, still contribute to the world, and (most importantly) be happy doing it was enormously significant. It is the horrible paradox that what makes him the candidate I would most love to support is, almost by definition, the thing which makes him least likely to have any interest in running.
Can you even imagine what it would be like to have a president who didn’t really want to be president? Whose primary interest was to actually get things done and make the world a better place, rather than be re-elected?
* * *
Since all that Nader talked has got me riled up, here’s another subject that infuriates me: farm subsidies…
With all the faux-bipartisanship going on these days in Washington, it’s worth calling attention to one issue that truly deserves (and requires) bipartisan support: passing a new Farm Bill which rolls back the insane subsidies of the 2002 bill.
The Bush administration’s proposal for the new bill was released this week, and it includes cuts (albeit relatively weak ones). Fiscal conservatives will support it, pro-trade folks on both sides of the aisle will support it, environmentalists will support it (especially if part of the deal for cutting direct subsidies is boosting things like the Conservation Security Program), and those who purport to care about the plight of billions of people in the global South who are forced to compete with US farm exports dumped onto their markets ought to support it.
This is a time for all the Democratic candidates in the Senate to demonstrate that they know how to separate their populist rhetoric from knee-jerk protectionism and corporate handouts which disguise themselves as assistance to the poor. It’s also time for them to show that their internationalist rhetoric is backed by a willingness to compromise on this issue, which is one of the primary sticking points blocking the Doha trade round.
I am by no means a single-issue voter, but the devastation which has been done by our excessive commodity subsidies is severe, and I would strongly consider making decisions about which candidate I will support based on their stance on this issue. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, none of them seem to be talking about it much, making me wonder if there is any real political will on the Democratic side to get this done. Does the Iowa Caucus make this politically impossible?
If that’s the case, it would be a tremendous tragedy, both for our Party and for the world. As bad for the world as the Iraq war has been, I would guess that farm subsidies and the resulting dumping of underpriced commodities on the global South have done even more damage. And I say that as someone who believes the human cost of the war has been enormous.