Matthew Yglesias travels up the river in an underpowered boat and encounters Colonel Nader and his acolytes, and has the normal reaction: "The horror! The horror!"
matthew: Kerry Offers Nothing: I tried to be fair to Nader voters in this post on Barbara Ehrenreich, treating them as serious, if wrongheaded people rather than high-handedly dismissing them, but after reading through the comments I'm just not sure. One consistent theme running through the Naderite remarks was that John Kerry has "nothing" to offer the Left, and that he won't take the Left's views into consideration. Boo f***ing hoo.
To steal a point from Eric Alterman, the truly astounding thing about the Nader program is that it proposes to build a progressive movement in America by taking steps condemned by every labor union, ever civil rights group, and feminist group, every gay and lesbian group, and every environmental group of any note in America. It would seem that working people, racial minorities, gays and lesbians, and environmentalists all feel that a Democratic administration would offer them a thing or two.... a health care plan here that will give insurance to millions of people. I have health insurance.... Others... but might get it if John Kerry wins. I think he has something to offer them.... I don't make an hourly wage, but many people do... Kerry will raise the minimum wage.... Kerry wants "an aggressive program to meet ozone and air quality standards, stop acid rain, and reduce mercury emissions." Sounds good to me -- I breath. Kerry supports civil unions for gay and lesbian Americans, something that sure would be nice were I in a committed gay relationship....
[U]nless the Left for some reason doesn't care about the interests of poor people and unpopular minority groups, John Kerry is offering them quite a bit more than nothing. Is he offering them everything? No. Is he offering me everything? No.... But I'll take lower premiums, health care for millions of additional citizens, cleaner air, fairer treatment of the sexually unorthodox, and a higher minimum wage. If that stuff is "nothing" to you, then I don't know what your problem is. I also like this idea:
John Kerry has also proposed a "Service for College" plan, which will provide the cost of four years at a public college to young people in exchange for serving their communities and country in national service for two years. His plan says to all students, if you work hard and give to your country, your country will make sure you can afford a college education no matter who you are.
That sounds to me like a plan that will make it easier for people to go to college, while also providing help to various other people. Is that not the sort of thing the Left is interested in? Or must all salvation wait until the hated WTO can be destroyed?
Matt is bewildered, perhaps because he read Max Weber's Politik als Beruf at too early an age, found it convincing, and cannot conceive of people who approach politics not as a way to fight for a better world but as an arena for self-expression. If he could grasp that today's Naderite left is concerned with little other than striking an aesthetically correct oppositional stance, he would be less bewildered (but, I think, more disgusted).
Posted by DeLong at July 13, 2004 07:24 AM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this postBrad quotes: But I'll take lower premiums, health care for millions of additional citizens, cleaner air, fairer treatment of the sexually unorthodox, and a higher minimum wage.
This is a great explanation why Democratic party is so fucked up. With all due respect, sexually unorthodox and people receiving the minimum wage do not make a base for the national party.
Posted by: a on July 13, 2004 09:37 PMBut we MUST heighten the contradictions!
Posted by: Petey on July 13, 2004 10:12 PMBut we MUST heighten the contradictions!
Posted by: Petey on July 13, 2004 10:13 PMaesthetically correct oppositional stance. oh man, that explains so much. I'm going to use that expression all the time now. especially here in seattle.
Posted by: c. on July 13, 2004 10:17 PMaesthetically correct oppositional stance. oh man, that explains so much. I'm going to use that expression all the time now. especially here in seattle.
Posted by: c. on July 13, 2004 10:17 PM"Aesthetically correct oppositional stance."
Must store via Google for future use.
I have a good friend from high school whose younger brother ran for mayor. His platform was based around freeing Mumia, as I recall. He was one of the "protest kids" that Lou Reed talked about, to the point where one time he told his parents he was headed to a rally downtown, but couldn't remember to which thing it was opposed.
Posted by: praktike on July 14, 2004 06:32 AMBut... at least half of Weber's "Politics as a Vocation" is devoted to a discussion of conviction politics.
Posted by: Simstim on July 14, 2004 06:47 AMSpeaking of aesthetically correct oppositional stance, I've always loved this Pierre Bourdieu quote:
"I think that Marx's alterntative between utopianism and sociologism is somewhat misleading: there is room, between sociologistic resignation and utopian volunteerism, for what I would call a reasoned utopianism, that is, a rational and politically conscious use of the limits of freedom afforded by a true knowledge of social laws and especially of their historical conditions of validity. Such a sociological, that is, realistic, utopianism is very unlikely among intellectuals. First because it looks petit bourgeois, it does not look radical enough. Extremes are always more chic, and the aesthetic dimension of political conduct matters a lot to intellectuals."
The political context might need to be changed for the US, but the idea still seems insightful.
Posted by: Chris in Boston on July 14, 2004 06:51 AMOh good God, not this twaddle again. I'm voting Kerry, I voted Nader in 2000 (in Florida, no less), and I make no apologies about it. The DLC had taken over the party, and run it into the frickin' ground, and I refused to enable it again. The DLC has now been defeated thanks in large part to the Dean insurgency which proved that there was real support for angry and proud refutation of the Republican takeover: that is, my party now represents me again. Nader, however, is not convinced that the Dems are serious about their plans: after all, how many times did Clinton pass a minimum wage increase during the first 2 years of his term (when the Dems had both houses)? As for Matt, and his "boo-f**cking-hoo"s, boo hoo himself! This is politics, dammit! Suck it up! If you don't understand a little hard-ball, people withholding their votes unless you show them a little love, then the Democrats really are doomed. In 2002, blacks in large numbers stayed home from the polls precisely as a protest against the Dems taking them for granted. The Dems have (hopefully) learned not to ignore them, and will do much better this time. Same for the Left. Matt should either learn the basics of political alliance-building and horse-trading, or leave commentary for the professionals. And Brad, your snarkiness in his defense is a little condescending. Remember, Daschle faced the same problem from a Native-American candidate named Giago: Daschle apologized, smoothed some ruffled feathers, and promised concrete actions in the Native community's interests, and Giago withdrew. Nader would do the same, and if he didn't, his support would collapse. GOD, think strategically yourselves for once! Not all of your opponents are just idiots, you know.
Other than that, I love your blog: didn't want that to get lost in the berating. :)
Posted by: Padraig on July 14, 2004 11:34 AMTo Padraig,
Isn't the protesting vote one of the contributing factors to the death of 900 US soldiers, 10,000 Iraqis? Too bad the dead won't benefit from a future Democratic Party victory. The fact is that you helped Bush in 2000, as much as any individual voter could.
Posted by: Pat on July 15, 2004 08:48 AMPat, read this:
http://rjwaldmann.blogspot.com/2004/07/best-is-enemy-of-good-this-is-stray.html
It's a false dichotomy. Many progressives were holding out on giving in to the centrists to see if an inclusive platform might be offered. The centrists calculated (wrongly) that they did not need to appease the far left because they had nowhere else to go. This hubris is what placed Bush in the position to do harm to our collective interests (neither progs or centrists wanted this outcome, so don't paint it as such or use more clever reasoning to do so).
Progressives miscalculated that supporting their ideal candidate would open the door for Bush, agreed. But since the Democrats had more to lose and could have atleast made a disingenuous offer that would have secured enough votes to win, aren't the Democrats ultimately responsible for the mess we're facing today.
Given that they could make such a costly mistake in that situation, is it an effective strategy to further alienate what is obviously a significant segment of the Democrat's potential support ?
I guess that goes for you too, Brad.
p.s. Why are you continually bashing Nader and Ehrenreich rather than addressing Waldman's points?
apologies...Waldmann.
Posted by: self on July 15, 2004 09:42 AMNice site Ever wonder how cigarettes are made? These are then cut to proper length for cigarettes. Filter-tipped brands have a double-length filter inserted between every two cigarettes; filters are sealed to the rods and then cut in half to produce two cigarettes, each one having a filter on one end.
Posted by: cigarettes on August 3, 2004 06:11 AMMost of them smoked cigarettes Save money on cheap cigarettes Cigarette smoking has been buy cigarettes. order cigarettes the most popular method of taking offer discount Camel cigarettes nicotine the year a report offer discount marlboro cigarettes that concluded that buy cigarettes. order cigarettes cigarettes and other Save money on cheap cigarettes forms of tobacco smoking cigs for all the Buy cigarettes and pack of smokes for you rolling tobacco would you like cigarettes with Free delivery of cigarettes years of smoking can cause cigarettes Chesterfield cigarettes bar talking with people Lucky Strike cigarettes Marlboro
Posted by: cigarettes on August 4, 2004 07:21 AMnice site i really like it http://www.a1-cheap-cigarettes.com
Posted by: cheap cigarettes on August 5, 2004 08:13 AMnice site i really like it http://www.my-discount-cigarettes.com
Posted by: smoking tobacco on August 6, 2004 06:15 AM7548 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com
Posted by: Viagra on August 8, 2004 04:03 AM6267 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?
http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com
8813 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com
Posted by: online poker on August 10, 2004 12:07 PM2476 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com
Posted by: poker on August 15, 2004 04:40 PM7384 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com
Posted by: blackjack on August 17, 2004 09:47 AM