Why do those who bash former Nader Democrats NEVER bash Nixon/Reagan Democrats?

[Ken Burch]

The double standard on that is really sickening, and it has to stop.

Those Dems that voted for Nixon in '72(even though McGovern did nothing to deserve their disloyalty)have the blood of thousands of Chileans, hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, and millions of Cambodians(since it was Nixon's fault that the Khmer Rouge ended up taking over) on their hands, as well as the blood of half a million East Timorese who were murdered when Kissinger helped Suharto take over that country.

Those Dems that voted for Reagan(even though neither Carter nor Mondale deserved their disloyalty)have the blood of hundreds of thousands of Central Americans and the loss of the national independence of Nicaragua(which was forced to vote to put the rich back in power in 1990 and thus stop being an independent country)on their hands and would have had the blood of the entire freaking planet(including their own blood) on their no longer existing hands if Reagan had had the nuclear war he wanted(which almost happened by accident several times during his presidency anyway). Same for those who were Dems for Bush the First(when Dukakis had done nothing to deserve THEIR disloyalty).

Yet THOSE Dems, when they founded the DLC, were not only NOT bashed, they were given CONTROL OF THE PARTY in 1992 and allowed to turn our next Democratic administration into a Republican one, with NAFTA, more executions, and the racist welfare bill(in which the "Democratic" president allowed every Republican/Rush Limbaugh slur on the morality and work ethic of poor women, especially poor women of color, to go unchallenged).

So it's time for some perspective. If you're gonna bash some people for their defections in '96 and '00, you are EQUALLY obligated to bash those who defected in '68, '72, '80, '84, and '88. What they did was worse than any Nader voter did. And you never said anything about that. In fact, you kissed their asses.

Get real already.

[inthebrain]

1. Because most of them can not effectively attack ideas

That mostly what I see in it. Instead of attacking what Nader actually stands for in terms of issues they all attack the man. It's the lazy mans way out.

The ideas that Nader put forth in 2000 are seeping their way into the Democratic party. Hence we have the battle between the establishment Dems and the boots on the ground dems. One party absolutely refuses to let go of their strangle hold on this party to let the other guy have a piece.

They just got a swift kick in the nuts by kucinich and judge. Key the Rockey music.

[Selatius]

2. Nixon/Reagan Democrats don't get labeled as "fringe." That's why.

People who are middle-of-the-road types who may bend or change positions on economic issues constantly present less of a target to slam simply because they are hard to define. This is why they're called moderates instead of idealists. They are infirm compared to people who are staunch reformers and advocates of more social investment.

Also, they tend to incur less wrath from monied interests than left wingers who espouse ideas that challenge their authority and their profits. Given that wealthy interests also dominate corporate news outlets, it may make sense that the narrative seems to favor Joe Lieberman types. Now there was a man who was the centrist equivalent of Ralph Nader.

[The Magistrate]

3. Speaking Purely From A Strategist's Point Of View, Sir

The largest reason is the disparity in numbers between the two groups. The 'Reagan Democrat' defection was a major slice of the Party's vote, and had effects all down the ticket, not just at the Presidential level. It is akin to the bitter jest that if you owe the bank ten thousand dollars, you have a problem, but if you owe the bank ten million dollars, the bank has a problem. The leading line of Democratic Party strategizing from the 1980 election on was how to get this large bloc of voters back into the fold. One readily discernable reason for their departure was a distaste for what these working class people called 'far left' types, specifically their attachment to pacifism and 'life-style issues'. Great progress was made during the ninties in reclaiming portions of this bloc, and the Nader run demonstrated how small a slice of the electorate the most committed leftists comprised. Courting the Nader voters would cost more votes in the center than the Nader vote could provide, even if it could be successfully wooed and then relied on. The calculation is a cold one, but anyone charged with actually acquiring a majority of votes for a candidate in a general election will make it in a heartbeat, and never look back.

[TahitiNut]

4. "The beatings will continue until morale improves."

Indeed, it WAS (and IS) a political calculation. Choosing to abandon voters with no acceptable (and viable) alternative in favor of those who'd vote GOP in the blink of an eye (and HAD) is the calculation. After all, it only makes a 1 vote difference when a 'leftist' votes Green, but a 2-vote difference when a Blue Dog votes GOP. The absence of a viable alternative will only hold onto them for so long, though. All it'll take is someone yelling "Fire!" and the leftists will be heading for the exits in droves. People only tolerate abuse for so long.

This is why the bashing of the "Nader Dems" is morally bankrupt.
(1) It was deliberate ... to abandon them.
(2) The BLACKMAILERS didn't surrender the hostage even though they got paid.

For the 'moderates' to both get their way and THEN blame the ones abandoned is putrid.

IMHO, of course. :shrug: (As an independent, NOBODY owns my vote.)

[The Magistrate]

5. But That Is How The Thing Works, My Friend, As We Both Know Well

One does not have to like a thing to understand its underpinnings,

You point out, in fact, one of the weaknesses of the conventional calculation, which is that the centerists are no more reliable than the leftists, and cannot be regarded as firmly in the fold at any time. This applies not only to individual voters but also to office-holders: Blue Dog types cannot be relied on in many major votes in Congress, and on occassion reduce the fact of a Democratic majority to nominal stature. But it remains the unblinkable fact that there are great many more centerist voters than leftist ones.

Speaking personally, my problem with the faction that broke to Nader is that by and large they under-rate the importance of small differences, when these are taking effect over a very large population and economy, and even over the globe itself. Events have demonstrated that the differences between Democrats and Republicans, represented in 2000 by Vice-President Gore and Gov. Bush, were of great signifigance, even though they may not have been of very great scale viewed in the abstract. Tens and hundreds of thousands of people would be alive today, the health of the nation's economy and governmental finances would be greatly superior, had more attention been paid in certain quarters to the real differences between those two, and the 'not a dime's worth of difference' siren song been rejected on the left.

[EFerrari]

7. The Left is the Left. The Gore campaign bears equal responsibility

for not meeting it half way. It's not the Left's job to appeal to itself, it's the candidate's job.

Small gestures might have gone a long way. I didn't vote for Mr. Nader but I didn't know why I didn't except that I do not prefer to write checks my remote can't cash.

[The Magistrate]

8. Actually, Ma'am, It is The Left's Job

At least in my day, to proclaim yourself a leftist was to state that you had a deeper and more thorough understanding of political life than most people; that you were better informed, better able to weigh out the consequences of political actions, and undertook to apply yourself to political decisions to make them in a way would do the most harm to reactionary power and bring the best benefit achievable to the people as a whole. A leftist does not need to be wooed; a leftist decides what the best course is on the above terms, according to his or her own lights, and does that.

[RuleOfNah]

10. This leftist decided to be wooed.

If only because it is educational (for me too) and needed practice for the mainstream supporters. If any read this, I hope they don't take it the wrong way, I'm busy wooing leftists too. ;)

[EFerrari]

14. Then I must be a very bad leftist.

:)

[pnwmom]

6. Simple. Because Nader/Democrats claim to be

progressives, even though they know that by voting for Nader, they're likely to help a conservative Republican to win.

Reagan/Democrats are leaning conservative in the first place and aren't pretending otherwise.

[Ken Burch]

9. Than you would logically have to agree that, rather than waste our time

masochistically abandoning our party's principles to appease those who never really agreed with them, we should instead have followed Jesse Jackson's arguement for a strategy of massive voter registration among the poor, the powerless and working people.

We COULD have won in '92 by bringing millions of NEW voters to the polls on a galvanizing program of grassroots progressive populist change, rather than by surrendering to the forces of ugliness, bigotry, complacency and militarism. We can still WIN today by self-respecting politics, instead of self-loathing politics.

[book_worm]

11. probably because most of them are dead now?

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. McGovern lost me when he kicked Eagleton off his ticket

No I didn't vote for Nixon. But it is dishonest to claim he did nothing to deserve Dems' disloyalty.

[Ken Burch]

13. McGovern shouldn't have kicked Eagleton off

But, in fairness, all the "regular" Dems were demanding he do so after the slurs on Eagleton's mental health were published(Jack Anderson later said that running the Eagleton mental health story was the worst mistake he ever made).

And Eagleton wouldn't even have been on the ticket if the rest of the regular Dems hadn't already humiliated McGovern by publicly announcing they wouldn't be his running mate. If they didn't want to be on the ticket, they could at least have had the decency to keep that private.

[book_worm]

15. it's what led to starting in '76 presidential candidates really digging into the

lives of potential running mates because they didn't want "another Eagleton" affair. It hurt McGovern of course because then his judgement was in question. But even with Eagleton doubt McGovern would have done much better in '72.

[WinkyDink]

16. Because it's not as immediately relevant?

[NNadir]

17. Well, we're not living under the worst President ever because of 1972's election.

On the other hand, the shit for brains Naderites - who used to run around saying that Bush is the same as Gore - managed to engineer a President who is actually worse than Nixon.

The Naderites should stop whining about their innocence. They endorsed the most stupid statement in politics in a generation.

In fact, the Nader shit-for-brains group managed to completely miss a President who makes even Nixon - he of Cambodia, Vietnam and Chile fame - look relatively benign.

Heckuva job Naderites. Heckuva job.

I will say that I do admire the wonderful job Ralph Nader did on protesting NBA officiating while the fucking war in Iraq was breaking out.

[mzmolly]

19. Bravo!

:hi: Well said!

[bbgrunt]

18. damn good question.