Mercury Rising 鳯女

Politics, life, and other things that matter

Yes, Folks, Nader Really Did Want Bush To Win — And Said So

Posted by Phoenix Woman on February 20, 2012

It never fails.

Mention the documented fact that Nader wanted Bush to win in 2000 for the same reason that the German Communists wanted Hitler to win in 1933-34 — because they both thought that getting an unapologetic Fascist in control would soon cause such untold suffering that the masses would run into the arms of the far left and then set about building the workers’ paradise — and people start accusing you of “slander” and such against Saint Ralph.

For the record:

— On the German Communists’ backing of Hitler, here’s this

1929 – Ruth Fisher Loses Leadership Position in German Communist Party

Ruth Fischer lost her struggle to keep the German Communist Party from becoming totally subservient to Joseph Stalin. The Communists went on to aid Hitler and the Nazis in their efforts to destroy the Weimar Republic. The Communist Party leadership believed that Hitler could not possibly be successful in ruling Germany and that they would be the beneficiaries of his failure. Their slogan became “Nach Hitler Uns” (After Hitler Us).

It didn’t work in Germany in 1933-34, didn’t work in America in 2000, won’t work in America in 2012. As I have said before, we were very, very lucky in 1932 — for one thing, the GOP hadn’t yet figured out the Southern Strategy, or met Eddie Bernays (much less used him to his full potential), or met Rupert Murdoch, so they didn’t control the terms of debate the way they increasingly have since 1980. (Look up William Simon and the Olin Foundation to see how that was accomplished.)

— On Nader’s wanting Bush to win:

From “Ralph the Leninist”, Slate, October 31, 2000:

This depraved indifference to Republican rule has made Nader’s old liberal friends even more furious. A bunch of intellectuals organized by Sean Wilentz and Todd Gitlin are circulating a much nastier open letter, denouncing Nader’s “wrecking-ball campaign–one that betrays the very liberal and progressive values it claims to uphold.” But really, the question shouldn’t be the one liberals seem to be asking about why Nader is doing what he’s doing. The question should be why anyone is surprised. For some time now, Nader has made it perfectly clear that his campaign isn’t about trying to pull the Democrats back to the left. Rather, his strategy is the Leninist one of “heightening the contradictions.” It’s not just that Nader is willing to take a chance of being personally responsible for electing Bush. It’s that he’s actively trying to elect Bush because he thinks that social conditions in American need to get worse before they can better.

Nader often makes this “the worse, the better” point on the stump in relation to Republicans and the environment. He says that Reagan-era Interior Secretary James Watt was useful because he was a “provocateur” for change, noting that Watt spurred a massive boost in the Sierra Club’s membership. More recently, Nader applied the same logic to Bush himself. Here’s the Los Angeles Times‘ account of a speech Nader gave at Chapman University in Orange, Calif., last week: “After lambasting Gore as part of a do-nothing Clinton administration, Nader said, ‘If it were a choice between a provocateur and an anesthetizer, I’d rather have a provocateur. It would mobilize us.’ “

Lest this remark be considered an aberration, Nader has said similar things before. “When [the Democrats] lose, they say it’s because they are not appealing to the Republican voters,” Nader told an audience in Madison, Wis., a few months ago, according to a story in The Nation. “We want them to say they lost because a progressive movement took away votes.” That might make it sound like Nader’s goal is to defeat Gore in order to shift the Democratic Party to the left. But in a more recent interview with David Moberg in the socialist paper In These Times, Nader made it clear that his real mission is to destroy and then replace the Democratic Party altogether. According to Moberg, Nader talked “about leading the Greens into a ‘death struggle’ with the Democratic Party to determine which will be the majority party.” Nader further and shockingly explained that he hopes in the future to run Green Party candidates around the country, including against such progressive Democrats as Sen. Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, Sen. Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, and Rep. Henry Waxman of California. “I hate to use military analogies,” Nader said, “but this is war on the two parties.”

From Outside magazine, August 2000:

If California tips Green enough, Bush could win the state and the whole damn election. Which, Nader confided to Outside in June, wouldn’t be so bad. When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: “Bush.” Not that he actually thinks the man he calls “Bush Inc.” deserves to be elected: “He’ll do whatever industry wants done.” [But] The rumpled crusader clearly prefers to sink his righteous teeth into Al Gore, … [and] concludes with the sotto voce realpolitik of a ward heeler: “If you want the parties to diverge from one another, have Bush win.”

Res ipsa loquitor.

9 Responses to “Yes, Folks, Nader Really Did Want Bush To Win — And Said So”

  1. Charles II said

    Nader said, “If you want the parties to diverge from one another, have Bush win.”

    Well, that worked well.

    Instead, they both diverged from reality.

    • jo6pac said

      Agree but I alway felt that if the demodog would have forced a recount then things might have been different. Then again we’ll never know but both parties are slaves to the master of the so called elite cycle-o-paths. Instead we got what best for Ameika speech and Main Street went bye-bye.

      • Charles II said

        True, Jo. Although we tend to align reality to our partisan perspectives, Al Gore failed us in not very forcefully demanding a recount. I have never seen an acceptable explanation from him as to his actions. I suspect that he was afraid that it would have led to serious national instability, which may have been right.

        However, Nader’s destructiveness did not end with Florida. He also did what he could to defeat John Kerry. And that destructiveness continues today.

        I know only too well how worthless the Democrats are. They always have been! Even in the Great Depression, it was the radical left that dragged the Democrats, kicking and screaming, into doing some good things. But it’s a symbiosis that has produced all the productive change this country has ever experienced. The average voter, faced with the choice of turning the reins over to Henry Wallace, Norman Thomas, or Harry Truman will inevitably choose Truman… or worse.

  2. David W. said

    As I distinctly recall, Al Gore took his case all the way to the Supreme Court and lost 5-4, in one of the most shameful decisions ever rendered. (Chief Justice Taney need not worry though that Dred Scott has yet been surpassed for shame, however.) It’s mostly why I don’t trust Anthony Kennedy when the chips are down to do the right thing.

    That the average voter isn’t likely to support candidates like Henry Wallace is duly noted, which should make progressives more modest (or at least realistic) when it comes to pursuing their goals.

  3. Mark Gisleson said

    Very late to this but I voted for Nader and agreed with that philosophy. I thought a Gore presidency would be a disaster with Gore offering the same centrist-right crap we’re getting from Obama and I feared the Republicans would shut down our government, just as they have done to Obama.

    But I also assumed, WRONGLY, that the Democrats in Congress would go to the barricades to stop Bush’s worse predations, leading to Democractic wins in 2002 and 2004. In that regard I was wrong as I underestimated how spineless and craven the Democratic party has become.

    I spent my entire adult life working within the framework of the Democratic party and in 1999 I had had enough but after the debacle that was the Democratic response to Bush’s 9/11 treason, I again worked within the framework of the party to defeat the Republicans.

    Frankly, I’m ready for another Nader. I understand that Obama is 1000% better than any of the Republicans running, but he’s still a negative cypher when it comes to doing what needs to be done and in my perfect world Obama would win the election this fall by his fingernails with a progressive third party candidate stripping away his claim to the landslide he will undoubtedly get when running against either a libtard, Mormon or Opus Deist.

    The Nader strategy would be a good one this year because it truly does seem that we need to destroy the Democratic party if we are to save liberalism/progressivism from predatory Wall Street-owned Fauxcrats.

    • Charles II said

      People would have said that in 1930, too, Mark. Remember that even on the eve of the Depression, Al Smith–who was one of the most important figures in the Democratic Party–turned against FDR. There were plenty of corporate Democrats in those days, too.

      Third parties have not existed at the national level since the Whigs for a reason. If that is going to change, it will have to occur through the DFL route: establish an alternative at the level of towns, districts, and states. Elect some representatives, maybe a Senator. Get some visibility and especially credibility.

      Beating the Democrats is like beating a mule. It might make you feel better, but it’s not going to change the mule.

      • Mark Gisleson said

        Maybe it’s time to stop going with the mule. Beating it certainly hasn’t improved its disposition, but maybe that’s because it’s only a rented mule, and was never ours to start with.

      • Charles II said

        Yeah, same thing with the Whigs, Mark.

        Nothing forbids you from running at the state/local level as an independent. If that’s what you believe should be done, either run or support an independent candidate. If the public likes what they’re doing, they will promote him/her.

        Get enough promotions and you have the presidency.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: