Response to Addicted

This started originally as a comment, but I started bloviating, so I simply decided to post it. Enjoy my ramblings.

First, let me say, welcome to the Proving Ground. Second, I would lie to retract some of my statements regarding nadir that I made when you and I talked on the phone the other night. He certainly did not cause the downfall (too strong?) of this country. For want of a nail the kingdom was lost. Either way, I entirely blame Bru and his flip flopping ways – remember when you and Jonathan Green ganged up on me?

Anyways, I certainly agree with you that a third party system would be nice, but I never see that happening in this country. People have been trying since its inception, and have been failing since then. Not even Teddy Roosevelt could pull out the third party victory. The simple fact of the matter is, in order to bring about any sort of change, you have to operate within the established power structure. The established political parties, while certainly not permanent (Whigs, etc), are the avenues through which change is wrought. The entire political structure of this country (the senate committees based on seniority in the majority and minority party) perpetuates the two party system. When you are looking to get money for your community, who are you going to call – you local socialists or green party? No, they are not able to effectuate any change. Rather, you’re going to call your local Democrat or republican and likely vote for one of them. And, if you are really passionate about that issue, will likely vote for the political party that is in the majority to increase the odds of the individual piece of legislation’s passage.

Traditionally, as a third party rises in popularity, it merely replaces the outgoing party and the two party balance is restored – see the emergence of the republican party and the demise of the Whigs. But, as a practical matter, Americans will support the party that can actually bring about change. Ask some of the Nader supporters whether they would be willing to concede some corporate issues and support Gore, I have a feeling they would change their vote. It’s a simply matter of utility – the two major parties, can overall, accomplish the most things the individual will agree with, while limiting disagreeable issues. It’s simply a matter of how much people are willing to compromise. The Catholic brass, despite agreeing socially with Democrats/liberals, generally will not vote that way because of the abortion/stem cell/pre-birthing issues. And that is why the third party won’t work – you simply get nothing in return, and have to hope that the majority party is somewhat aligned with your beliefs. Unfortunately for Nader supporters, Bush has been the antithesis – big government, big business, conservative socially, and running on fear. I commend him for running, but I don’t think he should expect support simply because he is a third party candidate. I want action, not rhetoric, and that is all Nader has to offer.

Can Clinton Pull It Off?

San Antonio, Texas--Vermont has gone to Sen. Barack Obama. 3 delegates is a good start, but can he continue the streak?

Unlikely. Well, at least not completely.

Mrs. Clinton is ahead in Ohio and CNN is reporting that she holds a lead over several percentage points among Union households. Yes you read that correctly.

Apparently no lesson was learned from Nevada after the "coveted" culinary worker leadership supported Mr. Obama, but failed to deliver him a victory.

The accusations of his double-talk on NAFTA dissolved rather quickly in the national press, but if you caught the "60 Minutes" round table Sunday night you'll know that voters in Ohio are already apt to believe that Mr. Obama does not know the national anthem and that he asked to be sworn into office on a Koran.

As for Texas, Mrs. Clinton is leading among Latino voters, women and last minute decision makers. Of course the African-American vote is being cleanly deliver to Mr. Obama on a silver platter, but the Latino population in the Lone Star State is far greater.

Mr. Obama can certainly pack in the crowds wherever he goes, but does that deliver the votes?

We'll see.

The Call: Clinton wins Ohio and Texas.

Addicted

It occurred to me this morning.

I was woken up by the maid knocking at my door in a cheap hotel in Dallas--a hotel where everything is a front, it's all looks nice but nothing works--and I poured myself a belt of rum so I could sit back and enjoy an episode of The Wire.

For those of you that have not been privy to one of the few accomplishments of television, I suggest you take it for a test drive.

The show basically involves cops chasing heroin dealers in the Baltimore projects. The dealers dole out heroin to all the project junkies and sit back with their cigars and cognac, all the way laughing themselves to the bank.

You might say the same thing for the Republicans and Democrats, or as I like to say, the Republicrats.

I had been trying to think of a way to discuss the Nader candidacy in a manner that really got to the heart of the matter, and in drinking rum at 10 a.m. in a Dallas hotel and looking up the schedules on which candidate presentations I would have to suffer through on my Saturday and watching The Wire, it all suddenly made sense: we are addicted.

Just like the junkies and the misers, we are addicted. Addicted to the two party system. We are addicted to seeing any other party as a farce and an insult to our ideals. We are addicted to feeling the surge of pride when we talk about our favorite Democrat and how they are the one that will really change this country. We are addicted to the absence of the notion that we can think for ourselves and that we have a real choice. True Democratic ideals have become repugnant to us. The idea that nothing is inevitable and anything is possible has become a joke. A joke, that in the end, is only played on us.

The Democrats are as guilty as the Republicans for letting our country be swallowed by the interests of corporate boards, by the interests of those who make millions of dollars in a single day and by those who seek to keep it that way. Any example of Republican greed, misconduct or malfeasance can be countered by any number of examples of Democrats engaged in the same unscrupulousness. In reality, they are all conservatives, and if Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama, or even Dennis Kucinich for that matter, really cared about the ideals they claim to represent, they would have never become Democrats in the first place. They simply lack the spine to stand out as an Independent.

Everyone I have spoken with since Ralph Nader, the 50 year consumer advocate and promoter of civil oversight of government, has adamantly expressed their hatred of Nader and his ridiculous attempts to run for president. They laugh at the prospect of Nader running and continue into the inevitable assertion that Nader "lost it for Gore."

For all you empiricists out there, Ralph Nader was not the sole cause of the Bush victory. Numerous studies have shown that to be the case (I apologize for not citing them as I do not have access to my office computer, I will post as soon as I return) and I suggest you stop making such an embarrassingly false argument.

But what Ralph Nader represents is a pincer movement of belief in popular democracy, a paradigm shift in mans belief about himself. He represents the dissent that bore this country; the dissent that had rotten vegetables thrown at it when it declares itself to be a new birth in the fight against man's burden upon himself; the dissent that was, in many ways, the birth of liberalism itself. But more importantly, he represents the notion that there lies something beyond himself.

He recognizes what he stands for and that what he stands for is currently unpopular. He knows that he will be made fun of, cursed at, called a lunatic and monster should the Republicans win in 2008. He will once again brave the gauntlet of the popular media; the media that will come down on him like a hammer does on a nail. And yet he goes on because his one belief is something that is so superior to our own wretched ignorance that, I can only image deep down, he is as disgusted with us as we are of him.

But he knows that we are easily fooled and that it isn't our fault for being so naive. Something we should probably be thanking him for.

Ralph Nader represents a man who has done nothing but selfless work his entire life. The man owns now home; he owns no property; he doesn't even own a car. He has done nothing for the majority of his life on earth but work to strengthen the capabilities of civil society to keep watch over its government. He is the Cato of American history.

He will not win in 2008 and he already knows it. Then why does he run? For the exact reason that he recognizes he will not live to see his dream. He will not live to see more than two parties dominating the American democratic system. But he also recognizes that what he aspired to do, to change, may embolden others to follow his path.

So you want to try and break the addiction? You want to talk about real hope? Then start talking Ralph Nader. Start talking the legacy of Ralph Nader. Anyone that has truly changed the world has never lived to see it and Ralph Nader will be no exception. So for all the junkies out there, high on the two-party system and looking for another fix, try entertaining the idea that your vote will not be wasted on Mr. Nader because there is something beyond yourself that, while you may not live to see it, will take your efforts to see it realized.

Because one hundred years from now when elections are based on preference, when multiple parties represent a multiple of interests in Congress and when people power comes to govern itself, there will be one man who people remember and his name will be Ralph Nader.




Comments? andrew.geisthardt@gmail.com