Hello.
This is a big deal for me. It's up to you whether it matters to anyone else. I hope we can find common ground and teach each other, if only by the example of our behavior here.
I've thought of starting a blog like this for quite a while. There's nothing particularly magical about this moment. It's Sunday. I'm stuck at home waiting for some stuff to be delivered.
I thought of "alowin" during my morning commute last week. I like the way it sounds. I like that it begins with an "a." It conjures "allowing," "a lowing," and various other permutations and sound alikes.
I used to get hung up on names and starting dates. I now think that was rationalizing my procrastination. I never did believe deeply in labels or fate, and still don't.
I read somewhere, probably in a book on creativity, that artists don't have their finished product fully formed in their minds. During the creative process, there's give and take between the artist and the work itself. I find this comforting and hope to find it true here.
So, I begin.
Ralph Nader announced his candidacy this morning. It's hard for me to see why this threatens so many people that it's generating so much press. He probably wouldn't get near the support he got in 2000. He's not even running as the Green Party candidate. If he starts to generate positive buzz, it's as likely to be because of the disenchantment with the major party candidates as because of Nader's own stances.
The focus in the Democratic party is on Kerry and Edwards. Edwards doesn't seem to be so different and so preferable to Kerry that there's reason to believe the primary voters who have yet to vote will act differently from the ones who have voted. Kerry doesn't seem to have developed a serious liability that would cause voters who otherwise would vote for him to turn away.
So, for the sake of argument, let's assume Kerry becomes the nominee. With the example of Gore in 2000, it seems pretty easy for Kerry to cut into Nader's support by merely aping the rhetoric. Arguably, Edwards is still standing because of his "two Americas" theme. While Kerry may never have Edwards' common touch and jury appeal, Nader's never been warm and fuzzy. It also appears that Bush wants to be re-elected as a war President and not as a compassionate conservative. Finally, unlike Gore who became a populist late in the campaign, Kerry has been Shrumming for a while.
Well, I just convinced myself that Nader will not be a factor. He may only be a loose end from 2000 that got tied the minute he announced.
But, should I generate any passionate anti-Nader sentiment from those otherwise sympathetic to the left, I'd like you to consider Nader's positions and reflect on whether we'd be better off with a Democratic President in 2005 who didn't even have to nod in Nader's direction. Moreover, I think it's incumbent on those anti-Bush Democrats who are the most anti-Nader to do what they can to invest in the Democratic nominee.
This year's nominee is much better positioned to avoid the pandering to the right that Clinton did in 1992. 1992 also saw Ross Perot's candidacy. Look at Clinton's vote total in 1992. Is it any wonder that the middle class tax cut he campaigned on died before arrival? Is it any wonder that the fight for a humane crime bill and health care reform was abandoned? Are we really supposed to be proud of welfare reform? Do we really believe that it was Rubinomics and not just a favorable business cycle that resulted in budget surpluses and other positive economic indicators?
One of the things I like most about Nader is his proven commitment to his causes every day, not just election day. Someone is going to be inaugurated on January 20, 2005. The opportunity exists right now to signal the leading contenders that the only way to get there is with your votes.
I think the signal Kerry, for example, is getting is that his mandate is to beat Bush. Of course, without beating Bush he can't govern, but you can be sure that the organized, rich, powerful, and influential players in the Democratic party will expect their agenda to be realized on day one of the Kerry Administration.
It seems virtually impossible that there will be enough Democratic Senators plus any brave Republicans (and Jeffords) to prevent Frist from thwarting a President Kerry at every turn.
Unless.
Unless the anti-Bush sentiment that results in a President Kerry is accompanied by pro-Kerry sentiment that extends beyond the traditional honeymoon. We're talking popularity people. Reagan and Clinton (and maybe Edwards) can generate it with a smile. The advantage of an unslick Kerry is the possibility of goodwill that comes from wise and righteous policies.
Of course, there will be naysayers. There will be Gingrich-like bomb throwers. If we're not going to give undue attention to figures on the left like Nader, we must, and we must signal our President, that he ought to treat those on the right like the fringe characters they are. Triangulation got us where we are.
Kerry, or whoever the Democratic nominee turns out to be, has a chance to be the truly unifying candidate that Democrats haven't had in a long time. It shouldn't take another Depression to give us our next FDR. And, if we get that next FDR, it shouldn't take another World War to keep him in office.
The key is pro-activity. It's what prompted me to begin this effort.
Thanks for bearing with this rambling first post.
