Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

Why always blame Nader yet never blame those who say they are voting for Nader? Why assume that those who say they would vote for Nader are really Kerry voters instead of non-voters in a two-man race? Why do Democrats hate democracy?

It's too bad some virtuous rich clever Democrat couldn't offset the evil rich stupid Republicans who are secretly backing Nadar, by secretly promoting a presidential bid by Jesse Ventura.

There would be the minor problem that having Ventura on the ticket might split the pro-Navy-Hero vote, thus cutting into Kerry's base...

you can say he's an egocentric twit if you want, but I say he's a narcissistic, sanctimonious asshole.

Since you mention the state I've lived in the past nearly-three-years, I'm reminded to remind you to not forget, crucial as the Presidency is, to also urge people to work to regain a Democratic Senate, and if possible, the House.

We have an *extremely* good shot here in Colorado at electing Ken Salazar to the Senate over Pete Coors (and Salazar, incidentally, would be the only Latino Spanish-as-a-first-language Senator, as well as a solid moderate liberal who has be relected several times to statewide office as the state Attorney General), for instance.

For a great visual of the effect of Nader on the election and why the Republicans are supporting him see- http://www.theunitycampaign.org/battleground/index.html

How about offering some constructive criticism on how we can change our electoral system to allow more and better candidates to run and give voters a reason to turn out for elections? How about some energy directed toward looking for better solutions instead of complaining about the quality of what the system is producing? This isn't directed just at Mr. DeLong, but at the masses of writers who complain bitterly about Nader rather than the root causes of our screwed-up democracy.

I can sympathize with the people who are motivated to send the message, by voting for Nader, that "the biggest issue facing the future of this nation is the lack of choice of leaders." These people may feel so strongly that our electoral system is so screwed up and produces such despicable candidates that, when it comes time to execute their one direct influence over our government, they have no choice but to take the opportunity to voice their extreme disapproval with the system.

If you try to call our voting for two candidates once every four years (and then going home until the next national election) a model for democracy, you probably haven't looked at the much more participatory systems which have formed throughout other countries since the U.S. was founded. India arguably is more democratic than the U.S. Brazil and scores of other countries give their voters numerous choices and then hold a run-off election between the top two winners. Or look at countries which have high turnout and see what they're doing.

Just felt like putting my opinion on this up to public scrutiny.

How about offering some constructive criticism on how we can change our electoral system to allow more and better candidates to run and give voters a reason to turn out for elections? How about some energy directed toward looking for better solutions instead of complaining about the quality of what the system is producing? This isn't directed just at Mr. DeLong, but at the masses of writers who complain bitterly about Nader rather than the root causes of our screwed-up democracy.

I can sympathize with the people who are motivated to send the message, by voting for Nader, that "the biggest issue facing the future of this nation is the lack of choice of leaders." These people may feel so strongly that our electoral system is so screwed up and produces such despicable candidates that, when it comes time to execute their one direct influence over our government, they have no choice but to take the opportunity to voice their extreme disapproval with the system.

If you try to call our voting for two candidates once every four years (and then going home until the next national election) a model for democracy, you probably haven't looked at the much more participatory systems which have formed throughout other countries since the U.S. was founded. India arguably is more democratic than the U.S. Brazil and scores of other countries give their voters numerous choices and then hold a run-off election between the top two winners. Or look at countries which have high turnout and see what they're doing.

Just felt like putting my opinion on this up to public scrutiny.

Scott, Brad's comments are further evidence of how Democrats think they have a God-given right to the votes of everybody to the left of your typical New England Republican. When you suggest that they don't, that they should earn those votes, or that somebody supporting a third-party candidate might actually see the world differently from the way your typical New Democrat does, they go apoplectic.

Can this possibly be how you spell "apoplectic"?

Look, if you were to create a 10-point liberal-conservative scale, it would run about like this:

Nader: 2 (liberal)
Kerry: 8 (conservative)
Bush: 9 (conservative)

What if someone wants an anti-war candidate? Someone different from the status quo? DeLong, you're the twit. Berating voters for choosing someone who represents their interests is step 1 on the road to monarchy.

If only one thing had changed about Kerry, you'd have been fighting tooth and nail against him being elected. That one thing? If he was running on the Republican ticket. Think about it.

Back here in reality...we have a choice between bad and not as bad. You can waste your vote in some infantile display of displeasure. Or you can vote against Bush.

Or, if you're lucky, you're a moderate who isn't bothered too much by Kerry. It's a big country with lots of opinions...there's got to be a compromise.

As someone who agrees with Nader's analysis of corporatocracy and the inherent corruption of the legal bribery called lobbying--am I to assume you are, by association, calling me an "egocentric twit"?

Funny way to build a winning coalition, friend. But then you don't want a coalition--you just want my vote and then my genuflection to your neo-liberal policy.

Perhaps this "twit" sees the constant bloviating by (fully employed with benefits) free-marketeers such as yourself--while the pyramid-scheme median house prices approach a half-million dollars in my zip code. And then I have to ask do you have any idea what life is like for people who make $30K a year without benefits? Doubtful.

This may be a year when it is important to vote against Bush--but it is not because Nader is wrong. Or that the coterie of Democratic policy wonks lined up to feed at the troughs of pork really give a f*ck about much beyond their own careers and essentially free-market ideology. Just keep on eating your $20 bag of tomatoes. They had better be delicious, just like Naderites had better vote for Kerry.

Yay--let's vote for Kerry so he can win...So that we can then be duly marginalized, resented and ignored by the likes of you and other deluded pushers of the global capitalism lawnmower that is remaking the world into the ultimate oyster for the rich. Bush will just do it faster.

It's comments like yours, Mr. DeLong--and the privileged, self-righteous, inflated attitudes they reflect--that make my support of the Dems this year and in other years an unsatisfying affair. Keep on insulting Ralph though--maybe you'll piss off enough of us to remember how much the Dems have sold us out.

There's nothing preventing Ralph Nader from running for president. As far as taking votes away from Kerry, I'm inclined to believe that the voters for Nader probably wouldn't vote for Kerry or even vote for that matter. How anyone can say that Nader took votes away from Gore is just a guess. I'm not worried about Nader at all. To me, he's a whore that the repugnican "johns" clean up and parade around during election time. Those looking for something different gravitate toward him and end up realizing they've been in bed with a loser. They've wasted their vote instead of doing something positive with it. Then it's back to wherever Nader goes until someone wants to parade him around again. Obviously I have no respect for Ralph Nader.

It's really sad how you can still pull Twue Bewilvers For Nader out of the woodwork, even now. Nader's pussyfooting around with the increasingly neo-fascist Reform Party, his indelicate remarks about immigration, and his attempt to destroy the CA Green Party apparently aren't enough to show his true colors to some.

News Flash: You may not like Kerry, that's fine. But Nader is in no way your Great Progressive Hope. You want a real choice? Find a real candidate.

"What if someone wants an anti-war candidate?"

That's not the question. The question is, who do you want to be *President*? There's only two choices. An anti-war President is not one of them.

I don't like Noam Chomsky very much, but even he's figured this out.
http://blog.zmag.org/ttt/archives/000026.html

If you want to "send a message," I'd suggest putting a statement on a website or writing a letter to the editor of your local newspaper.

News Flash: It's not about Nader, genius. It's about the issues. Nader could drop dead and the problems would remain. And you and the Dems would still be ignoring them (like, say, illegal immigration) or giving the Demo-publican solution of free markets for everything.

The Democratic Party has walked away from non-globalist, non-liassez faire, America-first "progressives" like me. And let's not forget the insulting arrogance of "twue bewievers" such as yourself who believe it acceptable to rail and rage that we don't eagerly vote for a candidate who will promote policies we don't support, and ignore the policies we do support. To put it VERY mildly, get real.

But keep on insulting Nader and people who agree with his criticisms--instead of addressing our policy concerns. The thuggish, nauseating ad hominem attacks here and elsewhere must mean you are right and I should vote for your "real" candidate who has yet to say much I agree with other than Bush needs to go.

What's sad is that the neo-liberal Dems don't have enough respect (for anyone but themselves) to just STFU when Nader-supporters say we're going to vote for Kerry against Bush. But that's not good enough is it? Instead you think you have the voter margin to insult us too? Hey, there's still enough time for you and other idiots like you to create a split on the left and make progressives realize that Kerry will stick a knife in our back come Nov 3.

Good work.

News Flash: It's not about Nader, genius. It's about the issues. Nader could drop dead and the problems would remain. And you and the Dems would still be ignoring them (like, say, illegal immigration and outsourcing) or giving the Demo-publican solution of free markets for everything.

The Democratic Party has walked away from non-globalist, non-liassez faire, America-first "progressives" like me. And let's not forget the insulting arrogance of "twue bewievers" such as yourself who believe it acceptable to rail and rage that we don't eagerly vote for a candidate who will promote policies we don't support, and ignore the policies we do support. To put it VERY mildly, get real.

But keep on insulting Nader and people who agree with his criticisms--instead of addressing our policy concerns. The thuggish, nauseating ad hominem attacks here and elsewhere must mean you are right and I should vote for your "real" candidate who has yet to say much I agree with other than Bush needs to go.

What's sad is that the neo-liberal Dems don't have enough respect (for anyone but themselves) to just STFU when Nader-supporters say we're going to vote for Kerry against Bush. But that's not good enough is it? Instead you think you have the voter margin to insult us too? Hey, there's still enough time for you and other idiots like you to create a split on the left and make progressives realize that Kerry will stick a knife in our back come Nov 3.

Good work.

Google:

"knowledgeable" 2.7 million,

"knowledgable" .26 million.

I voted for Nader in 2000 and defended my vote for about a year, but I just can't imagine someone voting for Nader this year (and I am quite aware of Kerry's weaknesses). The Nader voters of 2004 seem like bubble people, who don't really live in the same world as everyone else. Sort of like Armageddonist Republicans. Nader loyalty seems intensely personal, often in a very touchy, defensive way, but politics isn't really personal that way.

It was a big breakthrough for me when I finally conceded that my big problem with American politics is just that not enough people agree with me. It's not the Democrats or the electoral college or the media, but the voters. And I still think that they're wrong, and if the media were better they might be wrong less often, but getting mad at the Democrats and supporting Nader misses the point.

I voted for Nader in 2000, when it was clear Gore was going to win the election and the state I was in (Washington) was deep in the blue. And Gore did win the election. In 2000 voting for Nader was a safe protest for the centerist democratic party who too often seemed to be in the pockets of big corporations.

Like many of my liberal peers, if I had known that the unthinkable actions of 200 would occur, such as election fraud by the Florida republicans or conservative supreme court justices ditching their love of state's rights to intervene and pick a president, I never would have voted for Nader, even in safely blue washington.

Likewise if he was in bed with conservative fringe parties back then, his initial support would have been much lower.

As a former Nader voter who sees lots of room for improvement in the Democratic party, I cannot understand anyone who would vote for Nader today, especially now that he is partnered with non-liberal fringe parties. Four more years of Bush taking away civil rights, alienating the world, and dragging us into unnecessary wars is not going to make the Democratic party more liberal, and is not going to bring about a true multiparty system, no matter what a few die-hard Narder supporters might think.

To Tim B. and all the other Nader followers I feel that I owe you an explanation for my insulting remarks. I'm voting for Kerry because he's the only one who stands a chance of getting Bush out of office, period. I feel that it's disgusting that nearly every time we vote for a candidate, it's to block a worse one rather than bring in someone who represents hope. I think this is a very dangerous time for all Americans. Even if Kerry wins, the division between the citizenry won't change. The Repugnican congress and Supreme court and media will stalk Kerry every step he takes. The Repugnican congress may try to impeach Kerry too. We all need to join forces and stop the Bush regime. If we fail, amungst other things, I predict the borders will be closed within the next four years, for those coming and going.

I don't agree with all the policies put forward by Kerry, and I agree with some of the anti-corporate statements made by Nader. But I am not innumerate. It is mathematically impossible that voting for Nader (in the current context, considering the numbers of those who might be enough to the left of Kerry to agree with Nader) would do anything other than elect Bush. This doesn't even address the issues of Nader's recent track record regarding progressive issues such as union membership and gender, nor the fact that if he were president he wouldn't begin to be able to work with anyone to get anything done legislatively.

I believe it is Nader's supporters (translation: progressives, a little help for the dense centrists) you should consider paying. You can make your payment in respectful dialogue or substantive platform compromises.

Please note that should you choose not to make payment, you have leveraged their position for all future negotiations.

Do you get it yet ?

Zizka, I was reminded of that feeling when writing my entry. If more people were as liberal as I am, there would be more liberal politicians rising up the ranks, through city councils, mayorial races, state legislatures, becoming a voting block in the congress, and having exceptional people for president.

I think a flaw in the Nader campaign of 2000 was the response to Democratic criticsm about local support. I believe the response at the time was bringing out a presidential cantidate would bring more green/liberal issues into the media, and help grassroots liberal parties grow in membership and ride into local office on the coattails of that awareness. That didn't really happen, and now we have an egomanic who has broken with progressives and even declared democrates a greater danger to this country than republicans!

I guess there is some arrogance in that top down approach. That people who have other priorities or other political opinions would see the Truth if only if they weren't so stupid, or weren't so sucked by fox news, or only needed to hear the word of the faithful and they would break out of their false consciousness.

When I watched the democratic convention, I heard lots of progressive speaches, and lots of ideas about helping the middle and lower classes and reigning in corporate welfare and rampant militarism. As a progressive, I won't feel any moral qualms voting for Kerry in 2004.

Scott Teresi - The chances of getting constitutional amendments passed that would change the two party system are only slightly better than the chances of changing the law of gravity. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get ANY constitutional amendment passed, much less one that would harm the people who would have to pass it? So, no thanks to the invitation to mentally masturbate over never-to-be-implemented alternatives to the electoral college.

We were born in a two-party country, and we will die in a two-party country. In this country, people with views too far out of line with the mainstream either have to hold their nose and side with their least unfavorite party, or become irrelevant, powerless cranks casting meaninless votes for people like Nader (or equally irrelevant, powerless, non-voters). That's reality. Deal with it.

rps: Why should I support candidates which actually represent what I believe in? Why should I expect more out of Kerry or Bush? Let's all line up behind a future of monotony (especially now that Nader supporters might actually affect Kerry's message--don't want that to happen). Bow before the two-party dictatorship and enjoy our ceremonial elections every four years! What a great country this is! It runs on autopilot.

I like the well-written comment above by "self". As long as the two-party dictatorship refuses to stand up for important issues, people will be drawn toward candidates who actually do represent something, and discussions like these will be spawned, hopefully with some effect. That said, I may compromise my principles for this election. But I won't fault anyone for standing up for what they believe (go David Cobb of the Green Party).

As for your cynicism over the hopelessness of actually restoring democracy in this country, you may be right that nothing major will be done for a long time. But incremental improvements have brought us solutions for many of our nation's original built-in problems (slavery, women's suffrage, civil rights, worker's rights, etc.). I don't want to put off standing up for what is right until everyone else is ready. Someday a third-party candidate might make enough positive waves to cause some change. Until then, if it means four more years of Bush, then the people who voted him back in will have to suffer four more years along with the rest of us. Maybe things have to get worse to make the problems obvious. Really, that may be the only way to unite the country behind a much better leader in 2008. Funny how that can happen even with our entrenched system...

further points for the clueless:
1) Nader has not broken with the progressives, he and camejo received over 80% of green party votes while Cobb garnered an underwhelming 12%. The delegates rolled over at the convention. Why? Ask Medea Benjamin and company. It's absolutely the least representative convention nomination in the books, don't think that this validates Cobb amongst progressives.
2) When Centrists start incorporating progressive ideals into the Democratic platform, progressives will respond with unwavering support for the candidates responsible for the transformation of the party. As economists know all too well, talk is cheap- votes are not!

Joe says: "Back here in reality...we have a choice between bad and not as bad. You can waste your vote in some infantile display of displeasure. Or you can vote against Bush."

Good point. If one really cares about the people (people live in both the US and abroad), one has to vote to get rid of Bush. Already too many people have died because Bush got to the White House with the help of Nader and Nader-voters.

"It's too bad some virtuous rich clever Democrat couldn't offset the evil rich stupid Republicans who are secretly backing Nadar, by secretly promoting a presidential bid by Jesse Ventura."

No, no. We need to get Judge Roy Moore on the stump. He's a genuine True Believer, and just maybe egotistical enough to do it.

Assuming he's even still alive. :-) Someone managed to shut him up these past few months..