Would a second Bush term radicalize the survivors?

[troublemaker]

It struck me while reading one of the several daily threads about Ralph Nader and whether progressives can support Kerry that it's like those debates about evolution where people pick tangents to argue about (like the reliability of the carbon-dating of one particular object) because the real disagreements (like whether the Earth is 6000 years old) are so vast they might preclude debate.

Kerry people want Kerry and Nader people want Bush, yet both end up talking about Nader, who ironically has nothing to do with the Nader argument. I suggest that there is no person in the United States who actually believes Ralph Nader will become President in January, 2005, so all discussion of his positive -OR- negative traits is pretty weird.

What the Party Unity people get Wrong:

If someone votes for Nader it's not a vote for Bush; it's a vote for no one. It has no effect whatsoever on the outcome of the election and is thus precisely the same as not voting. Once a person has decided he doesn't care to have any effect on the outcome of an election he can still go through the motions of voting. For example, a person might view a Nader vote as an expression of Kant's categorical imperative that we should act in the way that would be best if everyone acted that way. (Of course that person would not make it to the polling place alive because it is impossible to safely drive or even walk while relying on the categorical imperative.)

I don't like the Nader voter approach, but it's equivalent to not voting and half the country doesn't vote. And it's far better than voting for Bush, and at least 20% of the country will vote for Bush. So it makes no sense for us to go overboard disparaging Nader voters who are no worse than the great majority of Americans.

Why the Nader people are Wrong:

Simply put, because they want George W. Bush to be President for the next four years. The average Nader supporter is a lot brighter than the average major party supporter, so I'm willing to assume they're not, en masse, simply too dumb to get the Kerry side's arguments. The Naderite dream is the destruction of the Democratic party in hopes that a more progressive party will arise to take its place. (I am being charitable in assuming that people desire the predictable outcomes of their actions. Maybe there are potential Nader voters motivated by consciously non-rational personal or quasi-religious motives.)

As long as it's understood that Nader supporters prefer that Bush remain in office we can sensibly discuss why that is... whether Bush should, in fact, remain President for the greater good of future progressivism.

As noted previously, Nader supporters are smart; certainly smart enough to realize that the Ralph Nader agenda is better served by voting for Bush than by actually voting for Nader. Arguing in a Democratic forum that *others* should vote for Nader does make sense, since there are presumptive Kerry voters to be neutralized, but in the privacy of the voting booth I expect most Nader voters to vote for Bush, rather than "throwing away" their vote.

Personally, I'm confident that a Bush win in 2004 would move the Democratic party to the left or destroy it altogether.

But even assuming one finds either of those options attractive, arguing for Bush requires a sociopathic indifference to contemporary human suffering and a profound naivete about what could occur in the second Bush term. So I desperately want Bush to lose. And the only voting action sensibly associated with Bush losing is a Kerry vote.

_________________________

MODS: In the comments above I'm discussing the predictable effects of Nader advocacy in a Democratic forum. I'm not accusing anyone of anything; merely noting something that nobody familiar with the mechanics of politics is likely to disagree with. It sounds flame-inducing to say anyone here plans to vote for Bush, but please consider that:

1) It's widely accepted here that voting for Nader = voting for Bush
2) It's widely accepted that some progressives plan to vote for Nader
3) Thus it should be uncontroversial to suggest that some progressives desire a Bush win. Working for seemingly bad outcomes in order to radicalize the people or to clear political space for new parties is a normal practice throughout the history of electoral politics, and it would be bizarre to pretend otherwise.

[Hoping4Change]

1. I think people would be turned off Progressives bigtrime.

Progressives would be blamed for the defeat and loathed. Any hope of effecting change would be derailed for lack of broadbased support.

[Th1onein]

2. "Survivors" is the operative word here.

If Bush is elected this time, you and I and many others might have lost the right to vote by 2008.