But not only does Naderism hurt progressive policy options, it actually moves the Democratic Party to the right.
This, or something like it, is roughly what the ideological make-up of American voters and congresscritters:
This isn't exact, but let's say the median voter is the red line here. That means in a normal election between two candidates, a candidate must get all the voters up to the red line.:
Now, in an election where progressive voters are convinced to take Naderism seriously the median voter shifts, to the blue line here. Every left-leaning voter that is convinced to abandon the Democratic Party is a vote the Democrats have to make up. Nader's response would be that the Democrats should just move left — but it's much easier to make up the lost votes by moving 1% to the right rather than moving the 10% left needed to win back the Naderites.
If I were a Libertarian, whose policy preferences have been abandoned by both parties to a significant degree, I'd engage in tactical voting to encourage gridlock. I can understand the case for principled Libertarian votes. Naderism isn't like that at all. The Naderite or Green or Socialist critique of the Democratic Party is that the party isn't pure enough. They all fit together on a leftist spectrum, the Democrats are just interested in winning elections, so they have to be more conservative than fringe candidates. The harsh consequence of Naderism, however, is that it has the opposite result of its supposed goals.
If you want better liberals, compete in Democratic Primaries. When it comes to the general election, Naderism is generally a futile gesture, except when it succeeds, because then it's actively destructive to its own goals.
3 comments:
An interesting tack from someone who did vote for Nader quite some time ago. I'll admit that at the time, I would have too. The stakes for pushing right didn't seem as high then, though.
I think we observed a Democrat loss in MO because of Nader and we were lucky we didn't need it to win.
this is all well and good but answer this: how can you have reform within a party whether it be campaign finance or electoral debate laws that allow for other parties to have a better edge? You won't. I think everyone who knows something about politics knows why and that's because the democrats and republicans control how these areas operate. I'm sure they're saying, 'to hell with allowing others to participate on an equal level when that might jeporadize our chances at winning.'
as for the more democrats in congress the more progressiveness. don't count on that either since we all know there are democrats known as blue dogs from the south that are a lot more conservative in their voting habits.
You say:
"For example, Nader's "Medicare For All", which I and all other progressives agree would have an actual chance if there were 60 votes in the House."
This is a false representation of Medicare For All, which, as DCBlogger notes, "is not the idea of Nader but the Chair fo the House Judiciary Committee. Let me repeat that for you, The Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. He is joined not by 60, but 92 other members of the House of Representatives, including the Chair of House Finance, and Chair of House Intelligence. "
And, I might add, the Chair of Ways and Means.
This is a strong bill with a lot of powerful people behind it, and not the lost cause you are painting here.
Post a Comment