Refuting the followers of the ABB faith, Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader told Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! in early October 2004:
"It is a total loss of nerve. I mean, first of all, they didn't ask anything of Kerry. They said to the voters in the close states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Oregon ... vote for Kerry, quote, "even though we strongly disagree with Kerry on the war and other issues," end quote. Well, when you don't demand anything of Kerry, he gets worse. If you don't make Kerry better, he gets worse because the corporations are demanding 24 hours a day. They're not squeamish like the left is.
"More important is that if the left believes that their issues are compelling issues to the majority of the American people, they should be proud to pull Kerry toward them so he can get more votes. It's as if they're ashamed of their issues, like, gee, "living wage, that's a very important issue, but it's not a big vote-getter." Like full health insurance for all, that's very important. We want to pull Kerry in that direction. It's not like getting out of Iraq, where now a majority of people are saying it was a mistake to send the troops in, and 42% of the people want the troops back yesterday.
"Oh no, no, no. Don't pull him into this issue; 'it's not a vote-getter.' This is the collapse of the left ... They have in effect put a figurative ring in their nose. They have said to the Democrats, 'Because the Republicans are so bad, we collapse. We're going for the least-worse.'
"When you don't make any demands, when you engage in unconditional surrender, why should Kerry ever look back at you? Why should he give you the time of day?"
John Kerry never ended up looking back at the members of the left, let alone the rest of the liberal establishment that supported him unconditionally. Instead Kerry steamed forward (or, rather backward) and lost a monumental election. He never differentiated himself from Bush on the major issues and consequently the Kerry campaign ended up aiding the Republicans, not the Democrats.
The Democrats couldn't galvanize swing voters, let alone new ones, who could have easily altered the outcome of an election where Bush should have been on the ropes and knocked to the mat in the first round for his handling of the economy and the Iraq War, among other transgressions.
Sadly though, the majority of the left caved and bought into the ABB philosophy. Many, even those that knew what they were voting for, still held their collective nose and voted for John Kerry simply because he was not George W. Bush.
However, adherents to left principles would have been more effective in changing the result of the 2004 election had they pressured Kerry and the Democrats to take on the issues they cared passionately about -- which surely could have brought out the vote to counter the impressive organizing achieved by the Karl Rove and the religious right.
But what were these ABBers supporting anyway? We know what they were voting against, but what were they voting for?
What follows are detailed illustrations of how the Democrats laid the political groundwork for the policies that Bush has advanced, as well as how the Democrats and their liberal patrons failed to distinguish themselves from the Republicans and the conservatives on a host of issues. Wesley Clark and Howard Dean are just two sketches in a much larger portrait of Democratic disappointments.
These overt failures have indeed helped elect many Republicans, including George W. Bush in 2004.
"It is a total loss of nerve. I mean, first of all, they didn't ask anything of Kerry. They said to the voters in the close states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Oregon ... vote for Kerry, quote, "even though we strongly disagree with Kerry on the war and other issues," end quote. Well, when you don't demand anything of Kerry, he gets worse. If you don't make Kerry better, he gets worse because the corporations are demanding 24 hours a day. They're not squeamish like the left is.
"More important is that if the left believes that their issues are compelling issues to the majority of the American people, they should be proud to pull Kerry toward them so he can get more votes. It's as if they're ashamed of their issues, like, gee, "living wage, that's a very important issue, but it's not a big vote-getter." Like full health insurance for all, that's very important. We want to pull Kerry in that direction. It's not like getting out of Iraq, where now a majority of people are saying it was a mistake to send the troops in, and 42% of the people want the troops back yesterday.
"Oh no, no, no. Don't pull him into this issue; 'it's not a vote-getter.' This is the collapse of the left ... They have in effect put a figurative ring in their nose. They have said to the Democrats, 'Because the Republicans are so bad, we collapse. We're going for the least-worse.'
John Kerry never ended up looking back at the members of the left, let alone the rest of the liberal establishment that supported him unconditionally. Instead Kerry steamed forward (or, rather backward) and lost a monumental election. He never differentiated himself from Bush on the major issues and consequently the Kerry campaign ended up aiding the Republicans, not the Democrats.
The Democrats couldn't galvanize swing voters, let alone new ones, who could have easily altered the outcome of an election where Bush should have been on the ropes and knocked to the mat in the first round for his handling of the economy and the Iraq War, among other transgressions.
Sadly though, the majority of the left caved and bought into the ABB philosophy. Many, even those that knew what they were voting for, still held their collective nose and voted for John Kerry simply because he was not George W. Bush.
However, adherents to left principles would have been more effective in changing the result of the 2004 election had they pressured Kerry and the Democrats to take on the issues they cared passionately about -- which surely could have brought out the vote to counter the impressive organizing achieved by the Karl Rove and the religious right.
But what were these ABBers supporting anyway? We know what they were voting against, but what were they voting for?
What follows are detailed illustrations of how the Democrats laid the political groundwork for the policies that Bush has advanced, as well as how the Democrats and their liberal patrons failed to distinguish themselves from the Republicans and the conservatives on a host of issues. Wesley Clark and Howard Dean are just two sketches in a much larger portrait of Democratic disappointments.
These overt failures have indeed helped elect many Republicans, including George W. Bush in 2004.
(Correction: The original posting of this story reported that the columnist Norman Solomon donated $1,500 to the Clark campaign. This is not true. A different Norman Solomon donated money to Clark, not the author mentioned before. Our greatest apologies to Mr. Solomon. Here's a link to his take on Clark. - jf)
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
