Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 58 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H2'ed 12/14/19

Blaming Nader in 2000 Paved the Way for Neo-Fascism

By       (Page 1 of 2 pages)   2 comments
Message Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Become a Fan
  (1 fan)
Republished from Macska Moksha

Collage by author. Background image sampled from Bin Im Garten
Collage by author. Background image sampled from Bin Im Garten
(Image by Kollibri terre Sonnenblume)
  Details   DMCA

How Blaming Nader in 2000 Paved the Way for Today's Neo-Fascism

The lurch to the right by the entire US political establishment over the last twenty years has been both significant and alarming.

I was recently reminded of how bad things have gotten by the 20th anniversary of the Battle of Seattle, an event that sparked a brief period of radical resistance in the US, and which jump-started my own activism. As I sifted through my memories from that time, I realized that a lot has changed.

Back in the spring of 2000, I started volunteering for the Ralph Nader/Green Party presidential campaign. I ended up working for it until the election, very intensely during the last two months. I enthusiastically supported the Nader/Green platform because it was both pro-environment and anti-war, as well as being strong on social justice issues. Some of the details:

  • Legal abortion paid for by universal health care
  • Gay rights, including marriage
  • Affirmative action
  • Opposition to the death penalty
  • Replacing drug war incarceration with treatment
  • Reducing greenhouse gases
  • Rejection of NAFTA, GATT & WTO
  • Universal healthcare
  • Living wage
  • Redistribution of wealth through taxes
  • Negative income tax to lift people above poverty line
  • Restore entitlement programs eviscerated by Clinton
  • Abolition of nuclear weapons
  • Cutting defense budget by 50%

Many of these items are on the current wish lists of voters who consider themselves progressive, but not all of them, and usually not the most important ones. The last two-nuclear disarmament and slashing the military budget-are pretty much off the table these days. Nobody really talks about defense cuts anymore, except a few peacenik freaks on the leftiest left or an even smaller number on the libertarian right. Back in the 80s, candidates for the Democratic Party nomination still raised these subjects, but Clintonism suppressed that wing and now it's extinct. There is no longer any rationale for considering the Democrats to be a peace or antiwar party in any meaningful sense, even relative to the Republicans.

The lack of opposition to militarism is a really big deal. No serious progress can be made on addressing environmental degradation and climate change without a) bringing the world's largest institutional polluter to heel and b) ending US bullying so the world can focus on cooperating. These points can't be stressed enough considering how insistently they are being ignored, especially by the big green non-profits.

To say nothing of the fact that you can't pay for social programs and war. It's one or the other, not both. This has been known since the '60s when LBJ sacrificed full implementation of the Great Society programs to pursue brutal imperialism in southeast Asia instead.

The current state of the environment is much worse than it was two decades ago, which means that opposition to militarism should be proportionally higher, but it's not. It's far weaker and this is a manifestation of the rightward lurch we've suffered. It's not just that Republicans have gotten more conservative and Democrats less liberal; it's that many progressives have also tacked starboard.

Back in 2000, the Nader campaign attracted a lot of the same kinds of people who are Sanders supporters now. That's where the enthusiastic energy was, not behind Gore. Nader was holding rallies around the country that were attracting unprecedented crowds, his support was almost exclusively from individual donors, and he was either ignored or maligned by the corporate media. Sound familiar?

Nader ended up getting nearly 3,000,000 votes, which was a little over 2 1/2% of the total. Those of us working on his campaign were disappointed that he didn't cross the 5% threshold, which would have scored federal funds for the Greens. But I think a lot of us figured that this was only a stepping stone, and that in 2004, the numbers could be higher. Little did we know that this would end up being the high water mark for Green presidential candidates, and indeed for progressive politics in general for the next twenty years (and counting).

The Democrats' propaganda that blames Nader for Gore's defeat is one of the great lies of recent history. There was never a legitimate case for it and it's been thoroughly debunked. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.) They just wanted a scapegoat.

But even though it was a myth, the "spoiler" story was severely damaging to our society: it brushed aside the fact that a national election had just been stolen in broad daylight by a right-wing cabal, which paved the way for more of the same. At the time, I remember feeling deep dread. "If they get away with this," I wondered to myself, "what will they get away with next?"

That turned out to be a new global war, frightful attacks on civil liberties, further dismantling of the social safety net, worsening income inequality, and the stripping of even more environmental protections, among other crimes against people and planet.

Virtually all of this was pushed through with bipartisan consensus.

The Democrats of today are where the Republicans were in the '90s except on a handful of social issues, and the Republicans have staked out new territory even further to the right. We're at the threshold of fascism, and the current occupant of the White House is merely the next logical step in this perverse process, not the aberration he is made out to be.

Next Page  1  |  2

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

Rate It | View Ratings

Kollibri Terre Sonnenblume Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Kollibri terre Sonnenblume's articles are republished from his website Macska Moksha.  He is a writer, photographer, tree hugger, animal lover, and dissident.

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The Chilling Arrest of Max Blumenthal

Democrats: To Beat Trump, You Need to Buck Your Leadership

Climate Change: Why is it so often "sooner than predicted"?

The Seattle WTO Uprising & the Indymedia Movement, Twenty Years Later

The Teachable Moment of the Greta Thunberg Phenomena

Unplowed Tallgrass Prairie: Rarer Than Old-Growth Forest

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend