i just listened to the nader-dean debate on n.p.r.
as i think i've written before, i am not anti-nader like a lot of my friends on the left. i am not against him being on the ballot (i have a hard time advocating narrowing people's political choices in an election) and i don't hold any grudges against his supporters, either in 2000 or this year. if the democratic candidate want the votes of the nader supporters, its his job to win them over. to the extent gore failed to get more of the nader vote in 2000, that's gore's fault, not nader's. (and not the nader voter either).
now personally, i would not vote for nader under any circumstances this year. but that's my choice. this year i've decided to vote more strategically than ideologically. i probably agree with nader more than kerry, but kerry has my vote because he has a chance of winning. nader does not. there is a time and a place for voting on pure ideology and this year is not it. at least in my opinion
others may disagree. though i may argue with the practical ramifications of their choice, at some level i realize that they have a point. it's always honorable to vote your conscience, even if practically speaking, it probably won't amount to much.
at least that's what i would have argued this morning, before i heard nader and dean debate. nader's stock has fallen a bit with me today. i'm no longer sure that he would be the ideological choice for me.
the interesting thing is that nader seemed to be arguing that his his campaign was not about ideology either. at least not in the short term. nader all but admitted that he is not planning to win this presidential election. instead, he explained that he was running more to support his long-term goals of fostering a third party movement in this country. in other words, nader's pitch, when you get down to it, was also more strategic than ideological. while ideology is important to nader in the long run, in this particular election nader presented as a mere step in a larger goal. "every oak tree begins with only an acorn" he said at one point.
but if nader's campaign is based on the claim that this election is a step in a larger strategy, then it's only fair to evaluate how his run for the presidency furthers that long-term goal of building a leftist third-party movement. i think by running this year, nader is hindering, not furthering his goal. from where i'm sitting, it seems that by running nader is doing little more than pissing off the very people who would be inclined to support that long term goal. i.e. people like me. nader talks about building a grass-root third party movement, but you can't build a grass roots movement when the grass does not support you anymore. by running nader is eroding his support among liberals and thus it is not building support for a third-party movement. his strategy is simply flawed. i came away from the debate more convinced than ever that nader does not deserve my vote.
it also didn't hurt that dean totally kicked ass. he is a far more articulate advocate for kerry than kerry is.
