Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Ralph Nader wants liberals to back Rand Paul. Don't do it. [View all]pampango
(24,692 posts)5. "... opposing "sovereignty-shredding global trade agreements, Wall Street bailouts, the overweening
expansion of Federal Reserve power, and the serious intrusions of the USA PATRIOT Act against freedom and privacy" may be Paul ideas that would get some support from the left, aligning yourself with him politically cares a lot of baggage as well.
However, coalition building requires compromise and, most critically, prioritizing one set of issues over another. The trade-offs inherent in Nader's path into Rand Paul's arms should make liberals run screaming. ... you can forget about anything that involves new government regulation, higher taxes, and more spending. That would preclude big-ticket liberal priorities like capping carbon emissions, expanding anti-poverty programs, guaranteeing universal pre-school, and investing in infrastructure. Nader effectively deprioritizes those goals, because his primary agenda is to "Dismantle The Corporate State."
Nader wants to scrap this long, if quiet, history of liberal success that has built the pillars of modern activist government in favor of prioritizing a civil libertarian agenda. His strategy makes sense if you think smashing the NSA is more important than saving the climate or feeding the hungry. I suspect most liberals would not make that trade.
There's nothing wrong with forging temporary, limited partnerships with whoever is willing to play ball at that moment. You can work with libertarians against corporations on global trade today, and cooperate with corporations against libertarians on funding infrastructure tomorrow.
But Nader's vision goes beyond ad-hoc coalitions. He wants to permanently side with government-hating libertarians over government-accepting corporations. That may have superficial appeal to liberals currently agitated over income inequality, but it's not the strategy that helped liberals in the past century build the social safety net, reduce poverty, and avoid another a Great Depression.
Nader wants to scrap this long, if quiet, history of liberal success that has built the pillars of modern activist government in favor of prioritizing a civil libertarian agenda. His strategy makes sense if you think smashing the NSA is more important than saving the climate or feeding the hungry. I suspect most liberals would not make that trade.
There's nothing wrong with forging temporary, limited partnerships with whoever is willing to play ball at that moment. You can work with libertarians against corporations on global trade today, and cooperate with corporations against libertarians on funding infrastructure tomorrow.
But Nader's vision goes beyond ad-hoc coalitions. He wants to permanently side with government-hating libertarians over government-accepting corporations. That may have superficial appeal to liberals currently agitated over income inequality, but it's not the strategy that helped liberals in the past century build the social safety net, reduce poverty, and avoid another a Great Depression.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
81 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Bill Sher's alternative (in the rest of the article) is for us to work with Corporations....
KoKo
May 2014
#25
I don't remember republicans and voting against deregulation of banks either
NobodyHere
May 2014
#72
"... opposing "sovereignty-shredding global trade agreements, Wall Street bailouts, the overweening
pampango
May 2014
#5
You always take a vote where you can to meet your goal, but this is a precarious plan
Jefferson23
May 2014
#14
the asshole who put bush in the oval office now wants paul? what a fucking moron
bowens43
May 2014
#18
Nader wouldn't be a "false boogie man" had he not run for president 5 times, nopt taken GOP $$$ to
dionysus
May 2014
#39
Rand Paul has voted FOR every pro-corporate, anti worker, anti-consumer NWO Republican bill.
blm
May 2014
#27
he's very old, and judging from the looks of him, he's had a stroke or two...maybe he's got dementia
dionysus
May 2014
#40
Well, if I had seen a merest thread of "compromise" from anybody on the right...
Wounded Bear
May 2014
#37
"Someday"? Most of his voters from 2000 have already seen through his bullshit.
Jim Lane
May 2014
#44
and then he flushed a lifetime of work and his reputation down the shitter nt
arely staircase
May 2014
#65