7 ms·

Ralph Nader reason for Iraq invasion? http://www.globalresearch.ca/ralph-nader-letter-to-george-w-bush-iraq-the-country-that-you-destroyed/5363737 http://www.gl

Ralph Nader reason for Iraq invasion? http://www.globalresearch.ca/ralph-nader-letter-to-george-w-bush-iraq-the-country-that-you-destroyed/5363737 http://www.globalresearch.ca/ralph-nader-letter-to-george-w-...

tptacek 11y ago
Of the three major candidates in 2000, there's no question Nader was the least likely to support military intervention anywhere. His policy intentions, many of which I support unreservedly, aren't the issue. The issue is that he had no chance of winning the 2000 election, and by staying in, he probably cost Gore the Presidency. There's a "dispute" over whether Nader was a spoiler, but that dispute relies on the notion that a very significant fraction of Nader's voters would have broken for George W. Bush, and --- remember the margin in Florida was razor thin --- ignores the indirect impact of Nader's campaign on Gore's support and turnout. What gives the Nader spoiler charge so much electricity is the fact that his campaign was obviously and hopelessly doomed far in advance of election day, and yet he stuck with it in order to make a point. Well, he sure made his point alright.
- ChrisAntaki 11y ago
  Nader even concentrated on states where Bush and Gore were neck-and-neck. > A first, eloquent protest came 10 days ago from a group of a dozen former 'Nader's Raiders,' who asserted that their former mentor had broken a promise not to campaign in states where he could hurt Gore and begged him to reconsider doing so. Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-in...
- Pyxl101 11y ago
  It's an interesting point. How does one determine when one is past the point of being a spoiler and into being a serious candidate? It seems that there is a self-fulfilling prophesy here, wherein if one is concerned about being a spoiler, then one will begin drawing votes away from other viable candidates as soon as they enter politics, and thus spoil; but yet, in order to ever become a viable candidate in the first place, one must do that. Perhaps the counter-argument is that you could enter politics away from an election, to "test the waters" without drawing support away from other candidates. But that's not a serious way to enter politics. Or you could enter politics at a different level, a lower level. I don't know if that's a viable way for Lessig to accomplish his aim. The same type of problems he's talking about might exist in other political spheres, but they aren't the ones that seem to concern him primarily. I can buy those arguments, but they leave me uneasy for a reason I can't characterize. It reminds me somewhat of the process of becoming the mayor of the city of London [1], where you're only allowed to run once several groups of people approve of you. It seems like Lessig is being held to a different standard, almost, because he is entering politics with a specific policy objective in mind, rather than because he himself wants to become a leader. Most politicians enter politics simply to win and become leader, and so they can be judged by whether they win. Lessig is entering to accomplish an aim, and so it is possible to criticize his candidacy on the basis of whether he'll accomplish the aim, to a degree greater than other candidates. "By entering politics to accomplish that policy, you are being disruptive rather than helpful" is the charge, and I agree that it is a reasonable charge. A President needs to be an overall effective leader, and not ignore everything but their single pet issue. From that perspective I agree with the criticism. Yet I still feel that the charge of being a spoiler is a circular argument in some way. He's only a spoiler because he's a spoiler, and once you stop defining him as a spoiler, he becomes a serious candidate. Now of course, we have reason to believe that he is not in fact a serious candidate, which is a valid criticism, but it seems like that should be the criticism ("you are going to be a bad leader because you're only focused on one issue"), rather than "you are a spoiler". The underlying problem seems to be with how winner-takes-all voting works. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1ROpIKZe-c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1ROpIKZe-c
  - ChrisAntaki 11y ago
    Lessig and Nader are so different though. Lessig is being perhaps overly cautious, and bailing after the Democratic Party changed the rules and excluded him from the debates (boo). Nader stayed in the 2000 race until the end, even campaigning in states where Gore and Bush were neck-and-neck.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      He's not bailing. He specifically refused to rule out running as an independent and is still taking donations. He also left the primary trashing the Democratic party.
    - ironsides 11y ago
      While Nader realized he would lose the election, he made a big point of trying to capture 5% of the vote and also trying to raise additional awareness of his core agenda. Winning 5% of the vote would have enabled the party to qualify for Federal Election Funds in the following election. http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/fund.shtml http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/fund.shtml Dont forget that these days $$$ = share of voice.
    - jfb 11y ago
      One important way in which they are different is that Lessig (and his zany wacky deeply unserious I-don't-wanna-be-president campaign for president) has no appreciable constituency.
- mindslight 11y ago
  Yes, it was totally Nader and Nader voters that caused the invasion of Iraq, not the 50 million people who voted for Bush, nor the hordes of people who cheered on going to war, nor the butthurt NYPD that suppressed protests (only mentioned due to personal experience), nor the mass media that started fanning the flames and beating the drums before the dust had even settled. Let us remember, Bush II ran on a platform of no nation building. Then an opportune event happened that made it time to perform some already-planned nation building. Why are we so sure Gore would not have approved the same invasion? The protest vote is called so for a reason. This system takes your dissent and converts it to support by frightening you with a scarier bogeyman. I would respect its elegance if we weren't all trapped in it.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    This argument might make you feel better, and it sure sounds sympathetic, but it doesn't change the fact that Nader's hopeless campaign gave the election to Bush. It's not as if the concept of spoiler candidates is new to US politics; it's how we got Clinton, the President in office at when Nader ran!
    - mindslight 11y ago
      I feel fine with my decision and would do the same thing again. In fact, I voted third party in 2k4 as well. The thing is, I don't really care that Bush II won. In fact I miss those days when most of my peers were anti-government since their team hadn't won. I am not particularly interested in what flavor of shit I will be forced to eat, and I won't legitimize the process by asking for the one that seems less foul.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        I don't blame you. There was no reason for you to know any better. I blame Nader.
        mindslight 11y ago
        I could say the exact same thing about my younger self with respect to having voted at all.

tptacek 11y ago

Of the three major candidates in 2000, there's no question Nader was the least likely to support military intervention anywhere. His policy intentions, many of which I support unreservedly, aren't the issue. The issue is that he had no chance of winning the 2000 election, and by staying in, he probably cost Gore the Presidency. There's a "dispute" over whether Nader was a spoiler, but that dispute relies on the notion that a very significant fraction of Nader's voters would have broken for George W. Bush, and --- remember the margin in Florida was razor thin --- ignores the indirect impact of Nader's campaign on Gore's support and turnout. What gives the Nader spoiler charge so much electricity is the fact that his campaign was obviously and hopelessly doomed far in advance of election day, and yet he stuck with it in order to make a point. Well, he sure made his point alright.

ChrisAntaki 11y ago
Nader even concentrated on states where Bush and Gore were neck-and-neck. > A first, eloquent protest came 10 days ago from a group of a dozen former 'Nader's Raiders,' who asserted that their former mentor had broken a promise not to campaign in states where he could hurt Gore and begged him to reconsider doing so. Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-in...
Pyxl101 11y ago
It's an interesting point. How does one determine when one is past the point of being a spoiler and into being a serious candidate? It seems that there is a self-fulfilling prophesy here, wherein if one is concerned about being a spoiler, then one will begin drawing votes away from other viable candidates as soon as they enter politics, and thus spoil; but yet, in order to ever become a viable candidate in the first place, one must do that. Perhaps the counter-argument is that you could enter politics away from an election, to "test the waters" without drawing support away from other candidates. But that's not a serious way to enter politics. Or you could enter politics at a different level, a lower level. I don't know if that's a viable way for Lessig to accomplish his aim. The same type of problems he's talking about might exist in other political spheres, but they aren't the ones that seem to concern him primarily. I can buy those arguments, but they leave me uneasy for a reason I can't characterize. It reminds me somewhat of the process of becoming the mayor of the city of London [1], where you're only allowed to run once several groups of people approve of you. It seems like Lessig is being held to a different standard, almost, because he is entering politics with a specific policy objective in mind, rather than because he himself wants to become a leader. Most politicians enter politics simply to win and become leader, and so they can be judged by whether they win. Lessig is entering to accomplish an aim, and so it is possible to criticize his candidacy on the basis of whether he'll accomplish the aim, to a degree greater than other candidates. "By entering politics to accomplish that policy, you are being disruptive rather than helpful" is the charge, and I agree that it is a reasonable charge. A President needs to be an overall effective leader, and not ignore everything but their single pet issue. From that perspective I agree with the criticism. Yet I still feel that the charge of being a spoiler is a circular argument in some way. He's only a spoiler because he's a spoiler, and once you stop defining him as a spoiler, he becomes a serious candidate. Now of course, we have reason to believe that he is not in fact a serious candidate, which is a valid criticism, but it seems like that should be the criticism ("you are going to be a bad leader because you're only focused on one issue"), rather than "you are a spoiler". The underlying problem seems to be with how winner-takes-all voting works. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1ROpIKZe-c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1ROpIKZe-c
- ChrisAntaki 11y ago
  Lessig and Nader are so different though. Lessig is being perhaps overly cautious, and bailing after the Democratic Party changed the rules and excluded him from the debates (boo). Nader stayed in the 2000 race until the end, even campaigning in states where Gore and Bush were neck-and-neck.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    He's not bailing. He specifically refused to rule out running as an independent and is still taking donations. He also left the primary trashing the Democratic party.
  - ironsides 11y ago
    While Nader realized he would lose the election, he made a big point of trying to capture 5% of the vote and also trying to raise additional awareness of his core agenda. Winning 5% of the vote would have enabled the party to qualify for Federal Election Funds in the following election. http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/fund.shtml http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/fund.shtml Dont forget that these days $$$ = share of voice.
  - jfb 11y ago
    One important way in which they are different is that Lessig (and his zany wacky deeply unserious I-don't-wanna-be-president campaign for president) has no appreciable constituency.
mindslight 11y ago
Yes, it was totally Nader and Nader voters that caused the invasion of Iraq, not the 50 million people who voted for Bush, nor the hordes of people who cheered on going to war, nor the butthurt NYPD that suppressed protests (only mentioned due to personal experience), nor the mass media that started fanning the flames and beating the drums before the dust had even settled. Let us remember, Bush II ran on a platform of no nation building. Then an opportune event happened that made it time to perform some already-planned nation building. Why are we so sure Gore would not have approved the same invasion? The protest vote is called so for a reason. This system takes your dissent and converts it to support by frightening you with a scarier bogeyman. I would respect its elegance if we weren't all trapped in it.
- tptacek 11y ago
  This argument might make you feel better, and it sure sounds sympathetic, but it doesn't change the fact that Nader's hopeless campaign gave the election to Bush. It's not as if the concept of spoiler candidates is new to US politics; it's how we got Clinton, the President in office at when Nader ran!
  - mindslight 11y ago
    I feel fine with my decision and would do the same thing again. In fact, I voted third party in 2k4 as well. The thing is, I don't really care that Bush II won. In fact I miss those days when most of my peers were anti-government since their team hadn't won. I am not particularly interested in what flavor of shit I will be forced to eat, and I won't legitimize the process by asking for the one that seems less foul.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      I don't blame you. There was no reason for you to know any better. I blame Nader.
      - mindslight 11y ago
        I could say the exact same thing about my younger self with respect to having voted at all.