A Zero Option politics for the American left

Chris Hedges recently talked with Ralph Nader. One part of their conversation has Nader pointing to a very odd mechanism found in American politics:

"The more outrageous the Republicans become, the weaker the left becomes," Nader said when I reached him at his home in Connecticut on Sunday. "The more outrageous they become, the more the left has to accept the slightly less outrageous corporate Democrats."

Why would Republican outrageousness work like this? Why does it produce this counterintuitive result? It's not that the left has to commit to supporting the moderately less destructive Democratic Party. In fact, the Obama administration has already demonstrated that the Democratic Party does not find it difficult to move rightward with the Republicans. In this respect Obama has continued the grand push rightward that took hold with the emergence of the Democratic Leadership Council and the political defeat of the Rainbow Coalition. Putting the matter in blunt terms, one can say that the Democratic Party has long been the tail end of the Reagan Revolution.

Hedges continues:

Nader fears a repeat of the left's cowardice [voting for the Democrat] in the next [2012] election, a cowardice that has further empowered the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party, maintained the role of the Democratic Party as a lackey for corporations, and accelerated the reconfiguration of the country into a neo-feudalist state. Either we begin to practice a fierce moral autonomy and rise up in multiple acts of physical defiance that have no discernable short-term benefit, or we accept the inevitability of corporate slavery. The choice is that grim. The age of the practical is over. It is the impractical, those who stand fast around core moral imperatives, figures like Nader or groups such as Veterans for Peace, which organized the recent anti-war rally in Lafayette Park in Washington, which give us hope. [emphasis added]

The left, need it be said, has no place within the Democratic Party save as useful idiots who dutifully vote for a Democrat when given the opportunity. It may appear that the left has nowhere to go, as Nader contends. This is the left's zero option politics. If, on the other hand, the broad left wants to give itself a multidimensional politics, if it wants to have options to play, it will need to refuse to support the Democratic Party.

Is it me or is it ironic that America is counting on the left to make the right decision in this matter?

This essay also appeared on Salon.com and FDL.com

Obama the betrayer?

Chris Hedges, for one, does not believe the president a turncoat. :But always Hedges expected Obama to be what he has shown himself to be:

I am not disappointed in Obama. I don't feel betrayed. I don't wonder when he is going to be Obama. I did not vote for the man. I vote socialist, which in my case meant Ralph Nader, but could have meant Cynthia McKinney. How can an organization with the oxymoronic title Progressives for Obama even exist? Liberal groups like these make political satire obsolete. Obama was and is a brand. He is a product of the Chicago political machine. He has been skillfully packaged as the new face of the corporate state. I don't dislike Obama — I would much rather listen to him than his smug and venal predecessor — though I expected nothing but a continuation of the corporate rape of the country. And that is what he has delivered.

Hedges instead puts his pen to work on worthier targets:

I save my anger for our bankrupt liberal intelligentsia of which, sadly, I guess I am a member. Liberals are the defeated, self-absorbed Mouse Man in Dostoevsky's "Notes From Underground." They embrace cynicism, a cloak for their cowardice and impotence. They, like Dostoevsky's depraved character, have come to believe that the "conscious inertia" of the underground surpasses all other forms of existence. They too use inaction and empty moral posturing, not to affect change but to engage in an orgy of self-adulation and self-pity. They too refuse to act or engage with anyone not cowering in the underground. This choice does not satisfy the Mouse Man, as it does not satisfy our liberal class, but neither has the strength to change. The gravest danger we face as a nation is not from the far right, although it may well inherit power, but from a bankrupt liberal class that has lost the will to fight and the moral courage to stand up for what it espouses.

Anyone who says he or she cares about the working class in this country should have walked out on the Democratic Party in 1994 with the passage of NAFTA. And it has only been downhill since. If welfare reform, the 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act, which gutted the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act — designed to prevent the kind of banking crisis we are now undergoing — and the craven decision by the Democratic Congress to continue to fund and expand our imperial wars were not enough to make you revolt, how about the refusal to restore habeas corpus, end torture in our offshore penal colonies, abolish George W. Bush's secrecy laws or halt the warrantless wiretapping and monitoring of American citizens? The imperial projects and the corporate state have not altered under Obama. The state kills as ruthlessly and indiscriminately in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as it did under Bush. It steals from the U.S. treasury as rapaciously to enrich the corporate elite. It, too, bows before the conservative Israel lobby, refuses to enact serious environmental or health care reform, regulate Wall Street, end our relationship with private mercenary contractors or stop handing obscene sums of money, some $1 trillion a year, to the military and arms industry. At what point do we stop being a doormat? At what point do we fight back? We may lose if we step outside the mainstream, but at least we will salvage our self-esteem and integrity.

"If not now, when," a sage once asked.

Don’t blame me…

I voted for Nader website

The Nader moment revisited

I once defined the Nader Moment as:

….something besides the personal electoral prospects of this particular candidate. The term does not refer to Nader's campaign per se. He may or may not win this fall. In fact, he will likely lose the election. Yet the moment reflects his political style in any case. It reflects the need for a reform program that serves just ends.

As I use it, the term has two features: On the one hand, the Nader Moment refers to a specific point in time, namely, to the situation Americans now confront; on the other, it refers to something which is becoming a chronic problem for the country, a problem which marks our present situation while pointing to a disturbing future. The future looks disturbing because it promises to be a time of global war and dictatorship, economic crisis and environmental catastrophe. This problem in general: The United States is pulling the world into this abyss. The problem stated specifically: The political culture which crystallized around the image of Ronald Reagan and the election of 1980 has been exposed as irrelevant, at best, by the crisis the country now faces. 'Crisis' is the relevant word to use here since America now appears to be confronting a historical turning point. It must choose between recycling old thinking and past practices and refusing the past by inventing a politics adequate to the moment. It must reject Reaganism, for the Reagan Revolution generates instability, tyranny and a lesser quality of life for much of the world. It leads to these things because it reflects the thinking and practices of neoliberalism and neoconservatism or, to put the matter less charitably, of 'market fundamentalism' and 'militarism.' Reagan's oft-stated goals were to get government off 'our' backs and to 'stand tall' within the world and against the Communists. A resurgent America would replace the timid colossus left in the wake of the Vietnam War, Watergate and the Stagflation crisis of the 1970s. But the Reagan administration set in motion processes which strongly implicate it in the crisis Americans now confront. The governments of Reagan's America have proven to be more intrusive, less transparent and more destructive than not. America neither stands tall nor resolutely for any principle but imperial self-aggrandizement. It is for this reason that market fundamentalism and militarism have little which is constructive to say about the current situation. Blind to the complexity of the world, deaf to the suffering of nearly every person on the planet, they provide no insight or practical guidance to those Americans who wish to live as good neighbors with the rest of humanity.

Briefly put, the Nader Moment points to a deeply rooted crisis — a crisis of America's institutions and political culture — and to the need to resolve the crisis in a way which provides just and long-term benefits to most Americans. It refers to a situation that demands an innovative, democratic and populist politics.

The term thus refers to the kind of politics Nader embodied as well as to the dire situation most Americans confront today. Although 2008 may have been Nader's moment, history recorded an Obama victory last November. To be sure, Barack Obama was the clear choice when compared to the McCain-Palin ticket. But comparing Obama to McCain should be unsatisfying to those individuals and groups who recognize the compelling need for a feasible and radical reformist politics in the United States. I feel comfortable making this claim because candidate Obama ran a campaign that promised hope and change to a massive collection of citizens that pined for both. Nevertheless, President Obama has delivered so far just more of the same malarkey. I suppose some may derive comfort from the fact that President Obama has made good on the common belief that he would be the lesser evil of the two major party candidates! Yet, even they must surely suspect that a world-befouling politics remains the order of the day in Obama's Washington. Chris Hedges addresses this very issue in a recent essay. He wrote:

The American empire has not altered under Barack Obama. It kills as brutally and indiscriminately in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as it did under George W. Bush. It steals from the U.S. treasury to enrich the corporate elite as rapaciously. It will not give us universal health care, abolish the Bush secrecy laws, end torture or "extraordinary rendition," restore habeas corpus or halt the warrantless wiretapping and monitoring of citizens. It will not push through significant environmental reform, regulate Wall Street or end our relationship with private contractors that provide mercenary armies to fight our imperial wars and produce useless and costly weapons systems.

The sad reality is that all the well-meaning groups and individuals who challenge our permanent war economy and the doctrine of pre-emptive war, who care about sustainable energy, fight for civil liberties and want corporate malfeasance to end, were once again suckered by the Democratic Party. They were had. It is not a new story. The Democrats have been doing this to us since Bill Clinton. It is the same old merry-go-round, only with Obama branding. And if we have not learned by now that the system is broken, that as citizens we do not matter to our political elite, that we live in a corporate state where our welfare and our interests are irrelevant, we are in serious trouble. Our last hope is to step outside of the two-party system and build movements that defy the Democrats and the Republicans. If we fail to do this we will continue to undergo a corporate coup d'etat in slow motion that will end in feudalism.

I cannot disagree with Hedges' judgment of Obama's performance so far. Obama has been a great disappointment even to someone like me who did not believe he would accomplish much as President. I do, however, differ with Hedges on one point: The Democratic Party has provided a slaughter bench for radical reform in America since the election of 1896! Even though this point may seem to be nitpicking on my part and surely when I make it within the current context, it is always useful to recall that the Democratic Party includes politicians above and beyond Franklin Roosevelt! The Party, along with its leaders and cadre, must also manage the constraints placed upon it by its place in the political system. The United States is an empire, the sole military superpower in the world today and a global economic hegemon. These facts are hardly trivial. Consequently, party-politicians are not free to do as they please when they hold office. Moreover, it can also be said that a Democrat need not be a Bourbon, a Dixiecrat, an urban machine politician or, for that matter, a Blue Dog to kill off a reform movement. He or she needs only to harbor great ambitions for him- or her-self and for the Party as a whole. The ambitious sort must also be inclined to take advantage of the opportunities which appear before them. They must pursue success. Yet, this peculiar end — success — imposes on the ambitious person a willingness to serve the goals of the system as they happen to find it. I believe this because conforming to the system as it exists provides the ambitious person with the only path he or she can take that can end with the prize they desire — personal success. The ambitious politician embodies, I would add, not hope, but more of the same. He or she thus stands before the electorate as a betrayal waiting to happen, no more so than the ambitious politician who promise reforms to any degree.

Behold —Barack Obama, President of the United States.

Which candidate will get my vote?

Ralph Nader, of course (see this and this).

I had briefly considered voting for Obama-Biden in order to affirm the antiracism that will be an intrinsic feature of an Obama victory on the fourth. The McCain campaign's sleazy tactics and the appeal they had for the racist element in the country made this otherwise ordinary Democratic duo acceptable to me. And, to be sure, Barack Obama is the lesser evil of the duopoly candidates. I would say that Americans, after enduring the Bush crime wave, surely could stand to have less evil in their lives. It is thus due to Obama's plain superiority over the Republican that I'll cheer loudly when McCain-Palin concedes. Yet, it is because Barack Obama intends to support America's faltering empire, its Wall Street plutocrats, the insurance industry and much else that is defective and corrupt that I cannot judge him as anything but an avoidable political evil for the country. Hope, the keyword of the Obama campaign, would be better served if the country were to take another path. That path begins with Ralph Nader and his agenda.

Do we have a choice?

Maybe…. Kinda…. Sorta….



A Nader/Gonzalez campaign ad.

Third party candidates join together to support a common agenda

The candidates include: Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader. Ron Paul also supports the program. Their agreement could be considered an anti-empire program. Their statement:

We Agree

Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.

Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.

The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.

The Federal Reserve: We
seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.

We support opening up the debates beyond the two parties and the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), a private corporation co-chaired by former chairmen of the Republican and Democratic Party. It is time for our Presidential Debates to once again be hosted by a truly non-partisan civic-minded association.

The Nader Moment

When electing a Democrat is just not good enough

The Nader Moment… It sounds ominous. What could it mean?

By Nader Moment I wish to denote something besides the personal electoral prospects of this particular candidate. The term does not refer to Nader's campaign per se. He may or may not win this fall. In fact, he will likely lose the election. Yet the moment reflects his political style in any case. It reflects the need for a reform program that serves just ends.

As I use it, the term has two features: On the one hand, it refers to a specific point in time, more specifically, to the situation Americans now confront; on the other, it refers to something which is becoming a chronic problem for the country, a problem which marks our present situation while pointing to a disturbing future. The future looks disturbing because it promises to be a time of global war, economic crisis and dictatorship. This problem: The political culture which crystallized around the image of Ronald Reagan and the election of 1980 has been exposed as inane by the crisis the country now faces. 'Crisis' is the right word to use here since America now appears to be standing before a historical turning point. It must choose between reusing old thinking and past practices and inventing a politics adequate to the moment. It must reject Reaganism, for the Reagan Revolution generates war, instability and dictatorship. It leads to these things because it reflects the thinking and practices of neoliberalism and neoconservatism or, to put the matter less charitably, of 'market fundamentalism' and 'militarism.' Reagan's stated goals were to get government off 'our' backs and to 'stand tall' within the world and against the Communists. But the Reagan administration set in motion processes which strongly implicate it in the crisis Americans now confront. It is for this reason that market fundamentalism and militarism have little which is constructive to say about the current situation. Blind to the complexity of the world, deaf to the suffering of nearly every person on the planet, they provide no insight or practical guidance to those Americans who wish to live as good neighbors with the rest of humanity.

Briefly put, the Nader Moment points to a deeply rooted crisis — a crisis of America's institutions and political culture — and to the need to resolve the crisis in a way which provides long-term benefits to most Americans. It thus refers to a situation that demands an innovative, democratic and populist politics.

More specifically, why should we consider Reaganism inadequate?

First, if it were in fact 'morning in America,' as asserted by a famous 1984 Reagan campaign ad, the newly emerging day had a foundation with two key components: American financial hegemony and great military force. Both embodied what remained of American power in an age of decline. Together they enabled the United States to remain the world leader once the Cold War concluded and after the United States ceased to be the predominant industrial power. For their part, neoliberal and neoconservative ideologues formed a 'counter-establishment' (Blumenthal 1988) that legitimized attacks on the New Deal order and Cold War internationalism. After 1980, they came to dominate political discourse in the country. They became something like commonsense, a naturally occurring reflection of the world. This discourse sounded both familiar and novel to most Americans, so much so that Reagan's presidency could present itself as a return to the past and a new beginning.

Second, today the Republican and most of the Democratic Parties gladly stand within and are dwarfed by Reagan's shadow. They willingly implement policies consistent with the spirit and path that defines Reaganism. Candidates from both, including Barak Obama, draw upon his charisma. No 'electable' candidate for President or any other office campaigns vigorously against the Reagan Revolution. This self-imposed accommodation of the two major parties implies that the United States now lacks an opposition party that commands the resources needed to directly challenge the party duopoly which governs the country. Opposition to the government and the party system which controls it appears quixotic and thus wasteful ('There is no alternative,' according to Margaret Thatcher) if not antidemocratic to many Americans. This convoluted condition imposes on individual voters an unpleasant choice: When in the polling booth, the voter may feel constrained to select only from candidates who embody hard and soft versions of the same Reaganite daydream, that is, to identify and vote for the 'least evil' of the 'electable' candidates. In the best cases the voter may contribute in to the election of a President who will not often or decisively betray her interests. But that only expresses the voter's hope.

Third, it is unfortunate that the Bush administration pursued policies which undermined Reaganism's financial and military components. It is regrettable because Bush's reckless and criminal actions have and will continue to generate considerable and avoidable suffering around the world. What is fortunate in this is the damage the Bush administration has inflicted on the Reagan Revolution. He has damaged Reagan's legacy as a myth and as an institutional reality.

Consider the fact that, for all of its weapons and its will to use them, the Pentagon has failed to master the political and military situation in the Middle East. In fact, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has already destabilized this perpetually volatile region. In addition to this self-incurred instability the occupation has damaged America's armed forces and undermined its position in the Middle East and beyond. Yet the Bush administration now wishes to attack Iran before it leaves office! Bush's grandiose policies have thus made America significantly weaker, less secure at home and hate in the eyes of much of the world. It is now fighting wars it cannot win, creating new enemies it should never fight while wasting resources it cannot replace. If the Bush administration wished to save the situation it created in the Middle East all that remains for it is to implement crude actions like withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, thus suffering certain humiliation, or like the Carthage option (the annihilation of the 'enemy'), thus becoming the object of global and perpetual condemnation. These surely would bring one phase of the disaster to a conclusion. But neither is acceptable to Washington and no sane person could judge the latter as legitimate.

Despite the disaster that has become the Great War on Terror, the economic forecast looks much darker than the current political-military situation in Iraq. Massive and irrational tax cuts, deregulation meant to serve plutocratic ends, costly global and local wars, unrestrained and maniacal money grabbing, speculative investing, rampant fraud, capital flight while the country lives on imported capital — these policies and practices have nearly bankrupted the Federal government, destroyed the dollar as the world's reserve currency, undermined Wall Street and, by extension, the world financial system. The financial crisis is not without irony given the preeminence of finance capital in the neo-liberal scheme. It was to be the architect and primary beneficiary of the new global order. Nonetheless, decades of market fundamentalist policies have worked their black magic on American life. Unemployment and inflation have been and remain low; both, however, mask the decline of the real wage rate and the devastating blow inflicted on the working class by a deindustrializing economy. Currently, the real American economy is shedding jobs while housing and what remains of the manufacturing sector stagnate. The belated Keynesian policies of the Fed and the Bush administration will not quickly reverse the trend which has the financial crisis harming the real economy. The toll, as most Americans will experience it, will be national debt peonage and the pauperization of many members of America's 'consumers' republic.'

The President's game face as seen on Mission Accomplished day conjoined to his ignorance of inflating gas prices, pleas for tax cuts provides the ironic punctuation mark for the crisis. Bush's administration likely has 'discredited conservatism' for awhile, as Scott McConnell suggested he would in 2004. The upshot: The Reagan Revolution is all but dead as an effective force within the United States.

Following the presidential campaigns merely reveals parties and candidates which have nothing constructive to say about any of this. It is business as usual for McCain, Obama and Clinton. And that is the problem. It is the problem because the crisis demands a solution which supplants market fundamentalism and militarism. More money and freedom for Wall Street and the military-security apparatus will not improve either of the two. Rather resolving the crisis requires a solution that consists of and successfully implements a radical reform program. By radical reform I mean institutional changes which alter the social structure, change which must bring finance capital to heel and eliminate the Pentagon altogether, to put the matter bluntly. It also means initiating a program of sustainable reindustrialization.

To attribute the present to Ralph Nader is to assert that America has reached the point where it must break with the past by implementing a program which accomplishes goals necessary for the survival of the country.

The Democratic Party on the road to executive power

The coming triumph of the 'least evil' presidential candidate

Ralph Nader announced his intention to run for president on February 24, 2008 during an interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press. It ought to be clear to anyone who saw this interview that Mr. Nader is running in order to foster politically creative solutions to the country's most difficult problems. His campaign intends to provide a means to realize this greater goal. This would make his program one of radical reform within the right-of-center American polity.

The path his campaign wants to travel is also meant to reflect the radical and reformist character of his project. It will be composed of rational dissent, publicity and self-organization. The presence of these elements imply that Nader's 2008 campaign will depart from the norm in this context, as the low and divisive road traveled by Hillary Clinton's 2007-8 primary campaign illustrates so well.

Another campaign goal implicit within his program: To represent to the country as a whole those needs and interests about which the Democratic and Republican parties could care less. Here it would be a matter of Nader's campaign expressing the interests of some among those Americans who are not represented at all or who are misrepresented by the two major parties. Once again rational dissent, publicity and self-organization will generate the path which effects this representation. And, to be sure, achieving this goal would also mark a radical departure from the norm.

Nader's candidacy looks to be a worthy project even though the effort promises failure at the polls in November. It derives its worth from the fact that American public life surely could stand to have more reasonable debate, choices and popular input than it normally has. Likewise, moving national political talk leftward can only be a real gain when past practice and conventional thinking (Reaganism and Clintonism) seem able only to push the country over the precipice. The campaign might thus have an educational effect on the country.

Yet some on the left were not impressed by or happy with Nader's decision. This group includes liberal intellectuals who consider another Nader run a potential disaster, just as they had in 2004 and 2000. Moreover, their responses to his announcement were rude enough to make them noteworthy per se. A small sample of the abuse:

Harold Meyerson:

What do the recent political announcements of Fidel Castro and Ralph Nader show the two to have in common? A shared allegiance to the cult of the Indispensable Man.

And:

But Nader and Castro do come together on the ground where ego meets history.

DHinMI at DailyKos:

For making America and the world bear the risks and potential costs of his actions, Ralph Nader should be judged one of the most unethical politicians in America.

Katha Pollit:

Here's what I don't like about Ralph running: his run is all about Ralph and his right to run.

And Katrina vanden Heuvel:

We know you've never been one to back down from a fight. But when devotion to principle collides with electoral politics, hard truths must be faced. This run may well jeopardize your legacy. If you get even fewer votes than last time, the media may say it means your issues were not important.

Ego, ego, ego — and thus another 'destructive' and 'irresponsible' Nader campaign, according to his critics. Is Nader as grandiose and deluded as his detractors claim? Better yet, does it matter? I would think not. Why would it matter in Nader's case when a presidential campaign as well as the office itself requires an individual who possesses exceptional self-confidence if not also a rare degree of vanity? Do his critics really believe narcissistic personalities are scarce among the political elite or even among the public at large? I would hope not! Would they want to filter out every candidate to whom one might attribute a personality disorder? Are they proposing a litmus test to achieve this goal? If so, then they should ask for an extra share of luck before looking for a willing and capable candidate for the office. They will need that luck, and more.

Perhaps Nader's critics have prejudged the man. If they have, they may have done so because they are drawing from a liberal-Democratic version of partinost. He could, as his critics point out, run in the Democratic primaries. He could test his program and his popularity among Party activists and voters. This would be the democratic way. After all, Dennis Kucinich and Jesse Jackson were leftist presidential candidates who remained loyal to and members of the Democratic Party after their failed presidential runs. Being a leftist and running for President does not require Party independence. Nor does it require an anti-Party attitude. It only requires partial submission to the Party after the results of the primaries are known. Nader, on the other hand, runs against the two-party system. He wants to remain a critic of that system while using it to promote his program. He could be attacked for this reason alone by left-liberal Democrats, especially by those among them willing to enforce party discipline on someone like Nader. He vexes them because he has opted to be what they would consider an unreliable outsider, a stranger (the 'other' who 'comes today and stays tomorrow,' according to Georg Simmel) and an incorrigible enemy. They merely treat him as such with their attacks.

But it is not only that Nader runs for President as an independent or as a candidate of a third party that irritates his critics so much. Nor, for that matter, is it his political autonomy. If it were only Nader's heresy they had to master…. But it is not. They cannot ignore him…. Nor can they recruit or co-opt him. Worst of all, his campaigns have proven practically inconvenient to the Democratic Party in some of its past quests for control of the empire. How so? First, Nader is famous and justly respected if not admired for his many accomplishments. He is a charismatic figure for many Americans. He has access to media which most left activists lack. His campaigns thus draw attention to the issues he discusses and the program he promotes. They also express cogent policy preferences and represent tangible interests. Consequently, they reflect the experiences of a potential constituency, one that left-liberal Democrats would claim as their own. Although his winning a presidential election might be impossible, given the strong constraints and many obstacles third parties confront, Nader can certainly use the opportunities he generates with his campaigns to make his points in public and to a somewhat attentive and broader audience than he would normally enjoy. This is a key reason to make the effort when winning is seemingly irrelevant, especially when the two major parties reject the policies he proposes. One important point his candidacies make is that the American polity can make little coherent use of someone like him and the politics he promotes. His electoral efforts thus amount to a critique in action of the two-party system. It exposes the shallowness of that system and the limited character of the interests it represents.

Second, as we know, Nader's critics allege that this willful outsider, by competing in the 2000 election, inflicted the Bush regime on the world by reducing (spoiling) Al Gore's chances to win the close 2000 election. Nader supposedly 'split' the left vote, thus depriving Gore and the Democratic Party of their victory. Thus the crude attacks on Nader's character: Given the enormity and permanence of Bush's crimes and the critic's belief that Nader was one of the efficient causes of Bush's first national victory, who but the vainest of men would not be thoroughly shamed into silence by this outcome? Who but a 'deluded megalomaniac' would run again and again? It all appears so clear to Nader's critics: Nader's candidacies provide America with the opportunity to injure itself. And, indeed, Gore was and remains preferable to Bush. He was the lesser evil in 2000 just as Kerry was the lesser evil in 2004 and Clinton or Obama will be this fall. Only Republican dead-enders and crackpots believe otherwise, especially at this late date in the Bush 'crime wave' presidency. But accepting the claim that Gore was preferable to Bush does not mean that he was worthy of support as such. It only means that Gore was preferable when compared to Bush (or any other Republican). Nor, for that matter, does it imply that electing Gore was a riskless choice for the electorate. It suggests instead that the risks probably would have been different.

In the end, leftwing Nader criticism points to one disturbing conclusion: Third parties presidential candidacies are intrinsically counterproductive in the United States when they pursue leftwing reform projects. They are of dubious legitimacy because they are counterproductive if not also because they can contribute in to effecting collective self-injury.

By relying upon this kind of thinking Nader's critics can turn him into a 'beautiful soul' who refuses to see the plain facts of the matter at hand (like the inevitability of the two-party system), a politician without a practice and a real constituency, a 'loser' who causes worthy candidates to lose. Like a bacteria which makes nourishing food inedible, Nader campaigns 'spoil' democratic elections in America. They manage this by creating impediments to electing the Democratic candidate. Since the debacle of 2000, Nader and his supporters ought to know better, his critics contend. They ought to recognize that his Presidential runs are dangerous, and should act accordingly. They should have learned of the need for self-limiting strategies from the past. With the experiences of the last eight years so fresh in everyone's mind, Nader cannot claim to be innocent of the consequences if his campaign draws support from the Democrat running for President this fall and a dangerous man like McCain wins the prize because of the putative 'Nader spoilage' of the election. Assuming Nader's foreknowledge of this possibility or, for that matter, his willful ignorance of it, his 2008 campaign can only have the potential to become both an efficient and final cause of a Democratic defeat this November. According to many of his critics, voting for Nader must be a tacit vote for the greater evil of the lot — John McCain.

Given the character of these criticisms and the overt vehemence of those who make them, some questions come directly to my mind:

Since when did selecting a Democratic presidential candidate imply voting to combat political corruption, insider and money-driven politics, white collar crime, militarism and empire?

When did it mean voting to affirm political accountability and transparency, popular participation and economic justice, full employment (or a guaranteed minimum income) and universal health care, a sustainable developmental regime and environmental stewardship of the highest quality?

How many decades have passed since it also meant affirming the interests of the working class? By the way, which classes and interest groups does the Party now represent?

Have Congressional Democrats adequately defended the Constitution, its Amendments and its vital institutions against the recent Republican onslaught? How did they fare during the Iran-Contra scandal? The War on Drugs? Do they oppose torture? The surveillance-prison state?

Did they resist Bush's reckless war-making as a matter of principle or even as the kind of action sane men and women would take when given the opportunity and need? Do they oppose American support for Israel?

Did they resist the barbaric economic sanctions regime imposed on post-war Iraq? Are they 'humanitarian interventionists,' and thus imperialists?

Did they oppose the kind of 'reforms' which produced the latest financial crisis, that abetted the gutting of the country's industrial economy, that squandered precious resources on war-making, prisons and the police?

The story of the Democratic Party since the 1960s is mostly one of backsliding and capitulation to the right. The best one can say about it is that it has followed the lead of the Republicans and its own rightwing cohort. It has not opposed the Republican Party as a matter of principle; it merely competes with the GOP for political offices, lobbyist money, publicity, etc.

Meaningful and lasting reform, on the other hand, requires and has long required pulling hard on the brake handle, as Walter Benjamin might put it. Reform of this kind necessarily includes dismantling the empire, rejecting war and militarism, abandoning national security as a legitimating idea for the federal government and sinking a party's roots deep into civil society, and thereby drawing inspiration from it. It requires an authentic opposition party. Yet most of Nader's leftwing critics seemingly wish to cloak themselves in the spirit of George McGovern while also railing against those reformers who are McGovern's contemporary analogues when these reform-minded individuals are not Democratic partisans. They are partisans first, reformers second. But it surely is not 1968 or 1972. Nor is it 1964. The Party no longer commands the political resources it had back then. Nader's critics thus beg an important question: Might the party that betrayed McGovern and his supporters — along with Jesse Jackson, Cynthia McKinney and, most recently, Dennis Kucinich — ever support a program of radical reform? This question is an important one to ask because the Party seemingly has rejected this kind of reform. Has it not constructed its post-Reagan identity by moving rightward in response to Republican browbeating? Did not Clinton govern like an 'Eisenhower Republican'? If the Party has moved to the right, and it would be difficult to argue otherwise, can one then defend supporting the Democratic Party by asserting that it will someday become an agent of radical reform? No. One cannot rationally do so because there is not a bit of evidence suggesting that the Democratic Party would make that choice soon or at any time in the future. To convince oneself of this point one need only consider the lesson the Party drew from the McGovern fiasco: Leftist candidates and their reform projects = electoral defeat. The so-called Reagan Revolution, which the Carter administration anticipated in practice but not in rhetoric, only reaffirmed this belief. For their part, left-liberal Democrats have also learned this lesson well, as their criticism of Nader demonstrates. Today, unsurprisingly enough, the Democratic Party treats its leftwing as pariahs while the latter judge as pariahs Nader and his kind!

The United States is long past its best days. The 'Golden Age' economy has come and gone. America's leaders will soon learn that they can no longer throw money at the country's problems. The money will not be there. The American addiction to war and antipolitics, to suburbia and automobiles has done and will continue to do it in. What, within a context marked by systemic decline, elevates the debate about Nader's presidential runs above sectarian squabbling is this: Managing the current situation in order to avoid a greater disaster — a transition to dictatorship made under the auspices of an emergency government — requires an effective and popular 'catch-all party' committed to radical reform and social justice, to democratic legitimacy and the rule of law. The project requires active social movements and an institution which represents these movements. This is just the kind of party Nader's presidential runs anticipate. On the other hand, what place does good old institutional liberalism have in this situation? None? Some? In fact, the Democratic Party appears to be an aspect of the problem, as critics of the two-party system argue and as I suggested above. What other conclusion might one reasonably draw from the fact that Party leaders want to give America a Clinton dynasty or from the fact that its left-liberal wing backs Barak Obama and his pleasing rhetoric and safe policies. We notice the inviting aura of the two Democrats only because John McCain was the best offer the Republican Party could manage in America's hour of need and because most Americans now greatly despise George Bush, the proximate cause of the current crisis. The Democrats shine because they stand before the dark and bloodstained horizon provided by the GOP.

It should be obvious to any sensible person that Obama is the least evil candidate of the three. I can say without illusions that it would be best for the country and the world if Obama became the next President but only if the alternative is a Republican stalwart like McCain.

Yet will a newly elected president Obama prove able to meet the demands of the moment? Will he and his allies generate the political resources required to implement the reforms the country needs? Would he or they want to? Would they even know what they are?

We may hope for the best, for even the Soviet Communist Party, long a school of servility and corruption, produced a Gorbachev in its final hours! On the other hand, who among Nader's critics wishes to put his or her neck on the block by predicting a successful Obama administration? By successful I mean this: Will Obama do the job that needs to be done? I ask because his lack of commitment to radical reform is an important quality of the bundle of qualities which makes him electable. If the least evil candidate fails in any way can Nader's critics admit that voting for Obama (or any other Democrat likely to get the nomination) also poses dangers to the country and the world? Can they admit that there are no risk-free political choices and that the system, such as it is, cannot reform itself? Can they tolerate the thought that the Democratic Party will have only proven to be a dead end once the national story concludes? If they are willing to take the risk by supporting the Democratic Party, can we trust that they are doing so without illusions about their choice?