« Asylum for Domestic Violence | Main | Lessons from a Mock Trial »
Nader's In
So he's doing it. Nader has officially begun his campaign for the White House as an independent candidate. Okey-dokey.
Here's a thought on that. And here's another.
I agree with Nader on many things, including the fact that the two-party system is broken and undemocratic. However, isn't a run as an independent this year only going to hurt the long-term chances that a third party will ever be taken seriously? I mean, just about any other year, I might support something like this, but this year!? Right. There's always the nagging voice of the revolutionary whispering in my ear: "If not now, when? If not us, who?" But when it comes to whether a third-party lefty should run for President of the U.S. the answers to those questions are clearly: "Any other year" and "Maybe us, but any other year!"
But maybe this will turn out to be a good thing:
Asked if he would withdraw if he concluded his candidacy would merely ensure President Bush's re-election, Nader told interviewer Tim Russert, "When and if that eventuality occurs, you can invite me back on the program and I'll give you the answer."
So do you think Ralph's so sure the Democratic nominee is going to kick W's ass so hard that a lefty independent candidacy won't give the election to the W? Or here's another scenario:
Ralph can just stir the pot, continually reminding everyone how corrupt Washington is and how the two-party system does not work, etc. That's all great, so long as he withdraws and emphatically supports the Democratic nominee by, oh, let's say Oct. 15th. That could be a win win for everyone. Please Ralph, only run 'till October!
Posted February 22, 2004 09:24 AM | election 2004
Yet another point of view for you to mull on: like you, I used to think the two party system was completely broken and undemocratic. Then I spent years in Europe, most in Italy.
I'm not so sure it's so broken now. Or rather, I'm not sure it's more broken than multi-party systems. At this point, I would disagree strongly with the assertion that a multi-party system leads to less corruption and less democracy.
I also think that the size of the democracy in question has a far greater influence on how it ends up developing. Political structures which work well for countries with the population of, say, Los Angeles, don't necessarily scale up well, and vice versa.
Posted by: transmogriflaw at February 22, 2004 07:15 PM
Yeah, I doubt there's anything about a multi-party system that makes it inherently less prone to corruption, but I'm ready to accept whatever risks might come from having more parties in U.S. politics because it would at least mean breaking the stranglehold the two parties have on the terms and topics of debate in this country. I mean, Kucinich (and to some extent Dean and Sharpton and Mosely-Braun) has pushed the discussion within the Democratic party somewhat left, but I'd say Kucinich is only a Dem because he knows he wouldn't even be allowed into the debate if he ran as a Green or Independent. That's just wrong. So I hope if Nader's able to do anything with his run, it will be to force open at least the major televised debates so that he can bring his agenda into the conversation in a "mainstream" forum. That would be taking a huge, positive step without necessarily giving the election to Bush. Don't you think?
Posted by: ambimb at February 23, 2004 10:09 AM
