Nader vs. The Fundamentalist Liberals
February 25, 2008
We live in scary times. And no one scares me more than the faux-liberals of today. They are a most intolerant mob that has become so dislodged from logic that they’d rather gaze reverently at the false packaging of hope than seriously contemplate the issues of the day. They love bandwagons and hate activism. They strive for insular popularity while trampling the populace. And, in the true spirit of fundamentalism, they loathe dissent and flog the dissenter with the kind of glee that is seemingly borrowed from Jimmy Swaggart’s beating of the godless unbelievers.
Oh yeah, hell hath no fury hot enough for the fool who holds a mirror up to the nonsense of modern liberalism. Just ask Ralph Nader.
Nader, as we all know by now, committed the horror of horrors in the eyes of the liberal fundamentalists yesterday by announcing – gasp! – that he’s exercising his Constitutional rights by throwing his hat in the ring of presidential politics. But, given the reaction from the rather slovenly liberal not-so-intelligencia, you’d think that he announced that he wants to suspend the Constitution and, instead, fly planes into tall buildings.
My goodness, imagine if all this liberal bluster was saved for things like taking it to the streets and stopping the war, or demanding universal health care, or cracking down on the subprime criminals on Wall Street, or impeaching the president who has brought us all of these not-so-nice policies. But that would require real action. And the fundamentalist liberals don’t have time for action – just rhetoric, blame and all the Obama Kool-Aid they can fill their confused kidneys with. It’s easier that way.
Remember, it’s these same liberal fundamentalists who have time after time denigrated the anti-war crowd for “going too far,” much as they’ve also wagged their blogging fingers at those who dared to demand real solutions to health care, tax injustice, workers’ rights, the Bush debacle (impeachment) and energy policy.
Sadly, it’s a symptom of the fundamentalist liberals that is becoming all too familiar: They don’t believe their own rhetoric. How else can you explain their rabid condemnation of Bush AND the condemnation of the impeachment movement? Or their understandable yelps against the current health care crisis but their seeming acceptance of the nonsensical “solution” being rhetorically weaved by Obama/Clinton? Or their preaching of tolerance but their vile invectives toward a man’s right to speak and/or seek office? If Nader’s right to seek office can be so easily ridiculed, where will they stop? Sorry, but that’s not the liberalism I studied.
Worse, my perusal of the myopic blogging universe has revealed that most liberal commenters blasting Nader’s announcement have almost completely ignored the issues that Nader has cited in announcing his candidacy. Remember, Nader made it clear that he wasn’t going to run if someone like Edwards was going to be the Democratic nominee because he saw eye-to-eye with Edwards on things like health care, reining in corporate control of our democracy, stopping the war immediately and demanding workers’ rights now – not tomorrow after all the jobs have been effectively shipped to China. But the good liberal fundamentalists didn’t choose the substance of Edwards, instead choosing either the “hope” of Obama or the same old shit of Clinton. And so Nader moved to fill a rather large void in the issue spectrum.
Nader did NOT say on Sunday that there was “no difference” between the Democrats and the Republicans, as many liberals are trying to say he said. Instead, he said there was a difference, just as there is a difference between the Obama/Clinton positions and his positions. And then he went on to articulate those differences, just as he’s done on his website (www.votenader.org).
It’s sadly comical to me to see the fundie liberals bash Nader while he’s calling for universal health care but give Obama a pass for leaving more than 15 million Americans uninsured in his so-called solution. Or bash Nader for his role in “causing” the Iraq war but giving Clinton – and a majority of her Dem colleagues — a pass for actually voting for it. Or blaming Nader for the entirety of the Bush years while refusing to acknowledge the real blame that rests at the feet of the fundamentalist Dems who have done little but play along for eight years – remember, it was only ONE Dem (Feingold) who opposed the Patriot Act.
For the Dems, the solution to the Nader candidacy is not to call for a repugnant and chilling rebuke of his Constitutional rights but to strengthen their own issue resolve so that the Nader option wouldn’t be necessary. But they’re refusing to do so, instead zeroing in on a candidate – Obama – who is mostly hype and hope and very, very little substance or resume. It’s Obama – not Nader – who is in bed with the nuclear industry and its lobbyists. It’s Obama – not Nader – who won’t say a peep about reining in Wall Street. It’s Obama – not Nader – who won’t promote universal health care. It’s Obama – not Nader – who won’t even mention the Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians. And it’s Obama – not Nader – who doesn’t have a track record for standing up and speaking up even when it’s not very popular to do so.
Earth to the liberal fundies: Skip the Kool-Aid, try the reality sandwich.
And thanks for offering a necessary option, Ralph.
Comments
11 Responses to “Nader vs. The Fundamentalist Liberals”
Got something to say?
Posts
[...] Linda [...]
It’s funny…and it’s NOT. Your first paragraph says it all. Read the crap on GMD and Daily Kos. Nader is in this to keep issues he and Kucinich and Edwards agree on in the campaign spotlight. All the little lefties wanted Edwards and Kucinich to stay in the race; but now old Ralph is a ’spoiler’ again.
Got an e-mail from Robert Davis yesterday saying he and Charles Orloski liked the somewhat Obama poem I had on Counterpunch this weekend; how they feel like outsiders as the bandwagon builds. Also, Fidel had a fun piece ths weekend on what he called our Presidential candidates parroting Bush’s reaction to his resignation. Of course, our little Lefties here in Vermont probably don’t read Nader and Castro on Counterpunch what with all that ocean of shit they ’study’ on Daily Kos–the High School political blog.
I’ll put the Obama poem on GMD. Also this week, Hillary gets one.
It’s a club, Michael– and Nader upsets the ‘comfort’ level. If Castro did a dairy on GMD praising Nader for running, I’ll bet the little PC toads would be all over him.
Saw this on Counterpunch this morn. Good work getting it out there. Hope you did Daily Kos–and Oprah.
Looking forward to tonight’s knock down-drag out debate. Is Jerry Springer moderating? Hope (that word again) Big O doesn’t call Blondie a ho.
As a three-time Nader voter, I am more surprised that Nader (and yourself, apparently) fell for the born-again populism of John Edwards. Let’s see if Edwards returns the favor and endorses Nader (or runs as his VP?!).
Although Nader-bashing is a well established diversion for self-righteous Democrats who have no cause other than themselves, Obama-bashing seems to be the correspondingly infantile reply. It’s certainly disappointing to hear otherwise sensible progressives sounding just like Hillary Clinton.
Just as most Democrats have long been blind to the corporatist (and dare I say Zionist) takeover of their party, too many on the left appear to be blind to the fact that Obama is indeed different. Since there’s no question that a Republican or Democrat is going to be President, it’s a welcome change that Obama might change the course of this country a little for the better. There’s plenty of good substance in his book (which was not ghostwritten).
I completely support Nader’s run and hope it injects some broader discussion of the issues. But face it, voting for him is no more effective than vigiling against the war in front of the Post Office.
Wow! a voice of reason….sometimes hard to find these days.
Thanks Michael for a great article!!
Second for Rosa. Edwards talked well at times but seemed fraudulent. Obama is flawed, in some ways deeply. But he’s different in that he energizes people to action and just might win. That’s dangerous for the overlord authority, even the potential Obama government itself. It could all fall flat, but there is some potential isn’t there?
Meanwhile, most of my energy goes into anti-war organizing. I’ll take any opening for that Obamania can offer.
Even though I’m not voting for him, I’m 100% behind Nader running and giving his best shot to score anti-war votes and educate the public on the debased politics of Israel, corporate power, environmental destruction, impeachment and on and on. But don’t tell me my conscience is faulty, that I’m some sort of “fundamentalist” –consumed by liberal orthodoxy that I don’t even believe myself–if I don’t vote Nader this time (like I have twice in the past). If you want to do that, wouldn’t that be application of a fundamentalist Naderite orthodoxy?
Look, I’m just as concerned as any decent peace person would be about empty, audacious rhetoric and the cultish personality worship you do see at places like Daily Kos. But at least those are people who care enough to engage and write something. We NEED THAT, even if the entirety of it looks ignorant and debased. I don’t think it is in the long run.
Cripes, I would LOVE it if some of the very excellent people of conscience who populate a pretty strong anti-war consensus here in Maine could be moved to engage more in some sort of online community. Or even just write more for local papers. Hell, I’ve been posting stuff at my blogs, deepblade.net (inactive) and Maine Owl for five years, and my media site, peacecast.us. There is precious little traffic, and about zero engagement by peace people. I’d give anything for 0.01% of Kos’s or Atrios’s traffic.
Although every now and then there’s something good on Kos in regards to legislation, the candidate diaries over there border on retardation. That said, I see where you’re coming from, Mike, for the goals you’ve set out, it makes sense.
It doesn’t work for me, however, because the single most important issue at hand (in my opinion) is giving the death knell to movement conservatism. There will be no fundamental changes on the left until that happens, and from that angle voting for Nader does nothing to achieve those means.
A vote for Clinton in 1992 was supposed to kill “movement conservatism,” too. How did that work out? The problem with this kind of political/electoral thinking is that it forces the left to shut up and follow the bland leader of the moment — all in the rather naive belief that our silence today will someone magically morph into tomorrow’s triumph. Again, think back to Clinton 1992. The promised triumph never materializes. It never does. Instead, I would argue that it set back movement liberalism much more than it did movement conservatism. And here we go again with the same losing logic with Clinton/Obama: silence ourselves on the issues, remain mired in style over substance, put our dreams on hold and vote for the lesser of the evils — all in the hopes that we can stick it to the “other side.” Sorry, but I prefer to fight for the issues and the dreams that I believe in rather than neuter myself in the pursuit of some ill-defined and ill-conceived electoral gamesmanship.
A vote for Clinton in 1992 was supposed to kill “movement conservatism,” too. How did that work out?
Was it? I musta missed that one. Although, I do agree that Clinton’s presidency did set back movement liberalism. I’d even go further to say that if Gore had won, we probably wouldn’t have this conservative implosion we’re having now for another 5 years,
I just don’t understand how voting for Nader “accomplishes” anything at all. If he was serious about making a difference, he’d have spent all of this time helping to build the Green party from the bottom up. It may indeed accomplish something for you personally, but I don’t see how the guy who won’t even get half of a percent is going to make an impact. I think we’re talking about two different things here.
I guess you’ve forgotten about your declaration not too many months ago that you’d “never vote for either Hillary or Obama.”
Let’s stick to the issues because I think we’re in some mighty murky waters when when we delve into the discussion of “voting and accomplishment.” To me, the Nader campaign is all about raising the issues that the two Dems are steadfastly refusing to address. And they’re getting away with it because of the “get in line/no matter the line” Dems. Where, for example, is the Dem activism toward Clinton/Obama about the issues that they’re going soft on like health care, the war, corporate hegemony, Wall Street criminals and the military industrial complex? To even mention them, like Nader has, usually just leads to an avalanche of invectives that does little but continue to ignore the issues.
As for Clinton ‘92, go back and read, my friend. The ‘92 liberals were calling the Clinton/Gore candidacy the end to the Reagan/Bush era and the “movement conservatism” it spawned. Certainly you recall that people referred to Clinton/Gore ticket as the “first environmental administration.” Well, in their first three months of having power they weakened the nation’s pesticide laws, promoted meat irradiation, gave approval for a hazardous waste incinerator, and totally backtracked on Gore’s global warming rhetoric.
Why? Because they certainly felt they had the political freedom to do it because the liberals weren’t putting any heat on them. Nope, they were all still giddy over the White House invitations and potential appointments.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease — while the pandering one gets the boot. Start squeaking already and stop pandering.
[...] publishing my piece on Nader vs. The Fundamentalist Liberals earlier this week, I received an avalanche of emails – mostly supportive – from folks immune [...]