Get the man an editorial column, congressional seat, something...

I've voted for Ralph Nader several times,

if only because it was safe to do so (that is, as this commenter at Norm's puts it rather clearly, without making any pretensions as to the actual impact):

Nader's a great candidate, but I'm not going to pretend for a second that voting for him maximizes the expected utility of my ballot. I live in this two-party winner-take-all country[...] If you plan to vote for Nader, strongly prefer Obama to McCain, believe the election will be close, and live in Maine, Nebraska, or a swing state, then either you're voting irrationally or I've missed something here.

 

Indeed.  And of course what passes for debate and political discourse could use a little, well, infusion of actual issues, and exigency.  That aside I have to say that as he's interviewed here (in case you missed it) by some brainlessly persistent douchefuck, 'ol Ralph is sounding very, very good. 

Comments

[Alain]

Thank you for posting this Matt. I am perhaps in the minority on this, but I think Nader should run for President as often as he likes: I think he is an articulate spokesman for what I would consider a humaine politics. And the democrats should get over themselvse - stop blaming him for what happened in 2000. My aunt and uncle were among the elderly Jews who were confused by the butterfly ballots in Florida - and may have in fact voted for Pat Buchanan (gasp!).

[matt]

Thanks Alain. Although on the contrary, I do doubt you're in the minority here, among the 500-1,000 or so people who read this page every day (whether commenting or not), and apart from strategies of voting perhaps, I agree with you, and Nader, entirely.

[patrick j. mullins]

And the democrats should get over themselvse - stop blaming him for what happened in 2000.

Alain, you should know better. It's just that the Democrats did suffer in 2000 from Nader's run, but everybody knows about these facts. Hanging on to Nader is just for hanging on to Nader. If you don't want to make up your mind that you really want a Democrat to win after all, then you have partially done so by saying 'Nader should run whenever he wants.' You told us your story at icite, and this was moving. But it makes little sense if you don't figure Nader into being the one that has pissed off the Democrats and delighted the Republicans. Of course the Democrats blame Nader for what happened in 2000, because a lot of it IS his fault.

When you write it like this, it's like you want to have it both ways: You are saying Nader 'is an articulate spokesman for a humane politics' and yet if you really want a Democrat, you are secretly hoping that he will articulate humanely, as if some 'exotic ingredient', but also lose, because you have personal family needs that you described to us in your post at icite-and which was a lot more convincing till I read this. It's as if you're saying 'I'm pretty sure the Dems have this one tied up' (and don't be so sure they have either),'so I can enjoy the beauty of Ralph Nader...yes, Ralph Nader of consumer improvment...that MAVERICK...standing ALONE...and yet again fucking up the election.' Absolutely no point talking about 'butterfly ballot' facts if you want to ignore 'Nader swing vote facts'.

You're just one person, but you ought to be able to realize that what seemed like such good sense in your two posts at Jodi's blog no longer resonate nearly as strongly--especially since for personal reasons you now 'are a Democrat' who tells the Democrats that they should 'get over themselves.' And it hasn't occurred to you that Nader is the one who can't get over himself?