« Hosni Mubarak, the Shah of Egypt, cracks down on the Muslim Brotherhood | Main | Can UC change? Supporting the tree-sit at UC Berkeley »
Letting the Obama dream go and taking what Ralph Nader says seriously
By yaman | February 26, 2008
Way back in high school, I read The Good Fight by Ralph Nader. That was probably the first time I remember feeling a direct connection between the vaguely rebellious political spirit I had developed earlier, and the actual realities of the American political system. It was probably the first time I internalized the term “grassroots activism” slash democracy slash participation–whatever: the point was, it’s up to you as an ordinary person to make it happen, not elected “leaders.”
Nowadays, people blame Ralph Nader for “giving” the election to George Bush in 2000. I see in this claim a very misguided scorn: rather than attack the man who, according to every constitutional, legal, ethical, and moral standard was perfectly fine in running, perhaps some attention should be paid to the broken electoral system that allows an individual who failed to be chosen by a majority of Americans to take power. Rather than allow that frustration of Bush’s first election to dissipate throughout the years, perhaps we should have gathered our anger and made a strong push for solid electoral reform to democratize future American elections. Then again, much of this scorn was produced by the Democratic Party machine in the first place: so it’s not surprising that electoral reform (a threat to both institutionalized parties) would not have made the agenda.
In any case, Nader declared his candidacy on television earlier this week. I doubt he will come anywhere as close to the 2.7% he gathered in 2000 because of the overwhelming amount of anti-Nader (and anti-democratic) propaganda coming out of the Democratic party, but also because of the way most liberal-minded people I know have been enamored by Barack Obama, whose message echoes that grassroots idea of self-empowerment, “yes we can.”
I wish I could believe in Barack Obama. It certainly makes it easier to sleep at night thinking that this one man will save us all, and that we won’t even have to do anything but show up to vote in November. But as the election progresses, I see more and more signs that he is turning out to be just another ossified politician, shaped not by his convictions, but by the electoral machine. I become more suspicious that those who are buying into the “yes we can” mantra don’t actually believe it, that actually they have convinced themselves instead: yes he can.
But he can’t. True, his charisma can go a long way–look at what Reagan did and undid during his 8 years (hell, look at what Bush, who has the charisma of a pretzel, has done). But it won’t go the right way, and it won’t go far enough, especially unchecked. I won’t side with those who deliver doomsday scenarios when they discuss the absolute need for reform in the political system because I don’t believe it. The majority of people in this country will likely continue to get by just fine regardless of who is president. Given also the last eight years of Bush, I’m not surprised by the immense amount of support for Barack Obama; even I gave a small sigh of relief when he came on stage. That’s how bad Bush was.
Despite this, I am under no illusions regarding the degree to which our electoral system is dysfunctional and undemocratic, for both structural reasons as well as the paralyzing effect of corporate money and special interests. I am under no illusions either regarding the nature of what is wrong with American foreign policy–not simply the current variation of war, but the system altogether. I don’t think it’s a small point that Barack Obama simply opposed this invasion and occupation of Iraq (although he wasn’t even in the US Senate at the time), while Nader’s platform promises to “Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East,” implying a much more comprehensive program of disengagement of US power and money from the Middle East. It’s not only the war that’s the problem, it’s our foreign policy in its totality.
I’m not going to endorse Nader just yet–I think I’m too cynical for endorsements nowadays, and I don’t even know if I’ll vote for a president. But I do think some attention should be paid to the subtle differences between his platform and those of the other candidates. To be sure, there are a number of things I don’t like about Nader. For example, his constant references back to the Declaration of Independence, and his portrayal of America’s founders as upright people. He’s also fundamentally out of touch with the times as far as political communication and messaging are concerned (what is up with the ominous lightning and thundercloud on the front page of his website?), which might explain the stale obsession with “civic” revivalism.
Overall, however, I support Ralph Nader’s decision to run because I support his efforts to bring neglected issues, which no candidates discuss and no journalist presses the candidates on, to the front pages. I support plurality in the electoral system, and Nader’s candidacy will bring the electoral system’s more dysfunctional features to the spotlight. To the Democrats and campaigns who are afraid of Ralph Nader “stealing” votes: use this as an opportunity to get moving on changing election law in your state. Nader’s candidacy (not even his win) provides a number of opportunities for important reforms. We need only to recognize them to know that we can make them happen.
Topics: Journal |
February 26th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
People forget that Nader was making seat belts mandatory and helping make real worker’s rights while Obama was a drug addict in college.
Plus, Al Gore lost his home state and the home state of the man he worked under for 8 years. Had he won either of those, he would have won the election.
Obama has changed his mind on the occupation of Palestine and said he would invade Pakistan if need be without consent of the global community. Sounds like the same crap we hated George Bush for.
February 26th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
I don’t know that Obama was a drug addict, and even if he was, I don’t think that should disqualify him from being taken seriously as a presidential candidate–especially since he is not a drug addict at the moment. Unless hope is a drug.
February 26th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
To be sure, there are a number of things I don’t like about Nader. For example, his constant references back to the Declaration of Independence, and his portrayal of America’s founders as upright people.
Yeah, how horrible. Who does he think he is, defending nonsense like “all men are created equal”?
February 26th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
It’s a stylistic preference, not a substantive one (mostly).
February 27th, 2008 at 1:46 am
As far as substance goes, as far as logos goes, as far as policy goes, I’m w/ you- Nader’s the guy. But I’ll be brutally honest: the main reason I voted in the primary for Obama, and the reason I decorate my facebook page with “I support Obama” is, well, to put it simply, because he’s black.
And frankly (warning: conjecture alert) I think it’s not too far-fetched to suggest that the reason why so many other Americans (albeit- this is more the case with the affluent crowd) have done so is for this same reason.
Furthermore, I personally feel like all the fuss about the lack of “substance” (or reason/policy/logos) behind his “rhetoric” misses the point:
the reason why Obama doesn’t need to talk substance in this primary is because he is substantively almost identitcal to Clinton. Thus, I do not think that his “change”-mantra is an empty signifier, but rather, he, himself is (literally) the embodiment of change (in his blackness). I’ll concede that he does borrow the same memes and slogans of the civil rights movement, but I don’t see him as betraying its essence. The civil rights movment aimed at integration, and what better exemplar of integration than having a black president? And to those who want to say that he is borrowing from 60s era radicalism and betraying its essence (as if it was one monolithic block of anti-war/anti-nuclear/socialist/civil-rights), I’d ask them to consider the context in which they are referencing as I think a “60s” umbrella is misleading and a proper contextualization would, as I just said, place it in the civil rights movement.
similar to this point- I agree with you in that voters really think “he can”, rather than they can (malicious metonymy I tell you!). Then again, this is the essence of representation; a representative mode of governance will naturally create hostility towards bona fide democratic energies that emerge out of civil society (or “culture”). Indeed, while still in a representative context, I find it fascinating that in a democratic polity we have a specific word for when democracy is actually done right and comes from below: populism.
substantively, the reason that I, along with many others, got behind him over hillary is because he was against Iraq. However, I also agree that it’s important to note that he wasn’t in the Senate at that time.
And finally, although you don’t align yourself with those who “deliver doomsday scenarios when they discuss the absolute need for reform in the political system”, don’t you agree with their sense of urgency?
I think a good pragmatist understanding of their rhetoric will look at its aimed effects rather than its particular mode of reasoning. Not everyone has a college a degree, and not everyone has that level of literacy to phrase their arguments. Remember, we need to be suspicious of any reference to a universal audience. They speak to their own community who voice their concerns through these words and metaphors. What’s important, is that they feel betrayed. And I don’t think it’s exploitative to consider our similar ends as similar politics.
And my final point of contention is that I think you are extremely qualified to talk about these things and my hat goes off to you Yaman!
Cheers!
February 27th, 2008 at 5:33 am
“I talk about hope a lot because I have to, the chances of me being here aren’t very high” - it was just one sentence in one of Obama’s speeches that made me realise just how big of a deal it was that he was there, as a black man, and could very potentially become the President.
I tend to base my views of candidates more on their attitudes towards the Middle East and Africa more than their ‘personality’ but even if Barak himself possibly has noble (if that word can even be used in the context of politics) views on how to use the power that comes with the job, we have to remember that there will be at least half a dozen of unknown faces lurking in the background who will pressure him, amongst many other things, to make decisions on invasion etc that perhaps he may not agree with - but ubdoubtably will do.
February 27th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Ralph Nader is all about himself. If he (and his supporters) are so tired of people blaming him for the skewed election results of 2000, he really should address some things.
True – the main culprits in that fiasco were Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush and the Supreme Court were undoubtedly the MAIN culprits, but Nader said NOTHING when thousands of African-Americans had their voting rights trampled on in the highly disputed state of Florida; this from a man who bills himself on “social justice”!
February 27th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
I agree, Nader’s presence is the only way the real issues can be discussed openly. He’s an electoral martyr for the truth.
Navid, Just wanted to remind you that Condoleezza is black, too. I do get what youre saying, though.
February 27th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
I’m writing in Arnold.
February 27th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
what’s wrong with the declaration of independence and the founders? Sure, many of them weren’t the most pious of men…but you can’t look me in the eye and say they weren’t absolutely brilliant.
February 27th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
All I’m saying is I don’t find it particularly inspiring. It doesn’t really inspire a thirst for justice in me. Maybe it does for other people, but you don’t find any of the major candidates justifying everything they ever suggest by pointing to the Declaration of Independence. I guess the idea behind citing the DoI is to say that your ideas are not that distant from American political tradition… but really, they are.
February 28th, 2008 at 2:11 am
word up- on the “ideas are not that distant from the American political tradition…but really, the are”
Or instead of constesting it on empirical grounds and pointing out the gap between ideals of human rights/natural rights and their reality (think of Frederick Douglass’ later phase where he becomes non-Garisonian), I also think we can look at it theoretically through what the document itself represents and our inability to contemporize it.
I like how Derrida discussed how there is a pragmatic gap between the words of a Declaration and its actual performance (whether or not people are able to be persuaded by it). Nonetheless, the early colonists were moved by it. I am not.
Furthermore, the Declaration is a foundation document upon which a lot of our understandings of rights and liberties are built upon- and yet, tragically still operate. We’re basically still thinking according to the logic of 17th- 18th century understanding of those rights and liberties.
Frankly, I don’t think monarchy is really the problem in our (American) historical moment of advanced modernity. Let’s admit that much and face the cold truth that our real problem boils down into asking ourselves about the merits and possibilities of a more participatory democracy that lends itself towards social justice and economic rights.
just a thought
and to Nev- I should have made it clear: being someone who still identifies themselves more as a leftist than as a liberal, I am willing to accept my fractured political identity and still get stoked on Obama whilst still thinking he’s a part of a bankrupt political culture. His blackness isn’t taken in a vacuum, but rather still coming from a leftist persuasion
February 28th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Well, the Declaration of Independence may not “inspire a thirst for justice” in you, but it certainly did in other reformers - Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Frederick Douglass, Robert La Follette, and yes, Ralph Nader - who fought to make “all men are created equal” more than a dream. The fact that the “American political tradition” (i.e., the rule of the two-party oligarchy) didn’t uphold that dream doesn’t make it irrelevant. I get the impression you’re too cynical to buy that argument, but if that’s the case I can’t imagine what appeals to you about Nader’s candidacy in the first place.
The reason you don’t find the other candidates citing the DoI is that, with the partial exception of Nader, they don’t believe in it or care about (small-r) republican principles in general.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:41 am
All men are created equal is different from all men should be equal, or, we have a responsibility to look out for the well-being of everyone in our society, or, corporations are not human-beings, or, we should not destroy our environment, or, indigenous people have rights and are not “uncivilized,” or, everybody should have health insurance guaranteed by the government, or countless number of other things which are not necessarily implied or even supported by founding documents like the DoI or the Constitution, and certainly not by the people who wrote it or signed it.
The values in the DoI are good for justifying revolt against royal tyranny, as mentioned above; they are good for justifying action against government. They are not so good for justifying government action with regards to citizens’ supposedly “private property” (like incomes, properties, etc).
All this (which is important) along with this (also important): I tend to think it’s kind of problematic that “all men are created equal” co-existed with “black people are slaves” and “slaves are 3/5ths of a man.”
February 29th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
You’re right, the Founders were not in fact 21st century college-aged leftists, and did not share many of their righteously progressive concerns. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans don’t care about those things either, so a progressive movement that dismisses the notion that “all men are created equal” as “uninspiring” is not likely to get anyone to give a shit.
March 1st, 2008 at 12:06 am
Yeah, because obviously nobody cares about the other candidates who you said “don’t give a shit about the DoI,” like McCain, Clinton, and Obama.
But yes (and with the obvious disclaimer that I am not a progressive movement and that other people with these views might indeed draw inspiration from the DoI [like Ralph Nader, apparently]), you have re-stated the point of my own claim. I said that Nader’s appeal to the DoI annoyed me because I don’t actually believe that these ideas can stem from it. That doesn’t make them wrong or unjustifiable. It just means that the DoI is not the right place to be looking. It hasn’t been 1776 for a long time. Tyranny is not the one and only concern of our times.
March 2nd, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Tyranny is not the one and only concern of our times.
After seven years of George W. Bush, I’d say it’s at the very least something to be concerned about.