Hell hath no fury like a Democrat scorned. Given the pious mendacity of the current administration, anger is currently the US Democrats' regular emotion of choice. Just the mention of US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Attorney General John Ashcroft or Vice President Dick Cheney will set diatribes in motion. But if you really want to see them in a rage, wait until the Bush-whacking stops and someone admits that they voted for Ralph Nader, the anti-corporate crusader, in the 2000 election.
The N-word should not be spoken in polite liberal company. Once his name has been uttered, all camaraderie and bonhomie evaporate as readily as if the miscreant had confessed to relieving himself in the host's sink. There is a ready-made vocabulary Democrats use to describe how they feel about President George W. Bush. When it comes to Nader, and by association those who voted for him, words fail them.
Nader is the man whose third-party candidacy many Democrats blame for handing victory to the Republicans in 2000 -- a contest that at another moment they will remind you, quite rightly, the Democrats actually won.
Backing Nader in 2000 was to them not just a poor electoral choice: it represented a moral flaw. But to bottle up all that bile for four years does not just make for bad karma -- it is bad politics.
To repeat the arguments for and against Nader's candidacy in 2000 is not the point here. Not just because it has been exhaustively examined in this column and elsewhere, but because to do so would simply compound the Democrats' fundamental problem: they have not moved on.
And if they don't find closure soon, they could end up making the same mistakes they made last time.
Because Nader plans to stand again this year as an anti-war candidate. Given his absence from the anti-war campaigns, this is a mistake. But it is also a fact.
And there is every chance that he could, once again, make a crucial difference. The most recent polls in the 17 battleground states that will decide the election show Bush and his Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry, each with a clear lead in three. In the remaining 11 they are in a statistical dead heat -- and in each one Nader could be decisive.
The Democratic Party's strategy to deal with this thus far has been simple. Along with "independent" organizations like StopNader.com, it is doing everything legally possible to keep him off the ballot in different states. "Nader must be nowhere near the ballot," wrote a Texas Democratic official in an e-mail seen by the Guardian.
The trouble with this plan is not just that it employs purely bureaucratic means to prevent a legitimate, if misguided, political expression: It reveals the extent to which Democrats believe they are entitled to Nader's votes even if they make no appeal to the concerns of those who cast them. The source of their anger is that they believe his votes are rightfully theirs.
The logic of their campaign is that if Nader is removed from the equation the votes will automatically return to their rightful owner -- Kerry.
If they want to see where this sense of entitlement could lead they need only look over the Atlantic, where the Labor Party leadership has stretched the loyalty of its core supporters until, last week, it finally snapped. The only thing that was surprising about Labor's drubbing last week was that it was such a long time coming.
Iraq was not the only source of the collapse -- if it had been, the Tories would also have done far worse. But it was the most blatant symbol of the distance British Prime Minister Tony Blair has put between his government and the aspirations of those who put it in office. The war gave this dislocation a moral dimension and a clear focus. But the exclusion of London mayoral aspirant Ken Livingstone, private-public partnerships, tuition fees and meager pension increases all chipped away at the faithful and primed them for their flight.
The problem was not that Blair misjudged his base. It is that he judged it and then ignored it in the belief that it had nowhere else to go. Last week showed us that, if pushed far enough, it could go anywhere -- including the Liberal Democrats, the Greens or Respect -- or nowhere at all and simply sit on its hands.
Indeed, one of the criticisms leveled at the Labor Left during the late 1970s and 1980s is now more accurately addressed to Blair. A prisoner of his own, homespun dogmas, he is acting like the "latter-day public schoolboys" former Labor leader Neil Kinnock once famously condemned the Left for resembling: "It does not matter if the game is won or lost but how you play the game."
Having lectured the party on the need for pragmatism, he now blames the public for not falling in behind his principles.
"These people who think they get a free hit will find themselves with a rude shock and a Tory MP [member of parliament]," said Peter Hain, leader of the House of Commons, following the local election results. "They could deprive us of our majority."
In other words, it's not Labor that has to change, but the electorate.
"This is a protest, a big protest, but it is not a desertion," said Peter Mandelson, the MP for Hartlepool.
Let's hope he is right. Few people on the Left want to see "Con Gain" flashing on their screen into the wee hours, like some awful rerun of the 1980s. But big protests become desertion by a series of increments, courtesy of a mixture of disaffection and arrogance. And, as the Tories are still finding out, 12 years after their last general election victory, once those bonds of trust are broken it is a struggle to re-establish them.
To reverse the trend, Labor and the Democrats will have to revise the orthodoxy that has guided both parties for the past two decades. For just as conventional electoral wisdom now dictates that taxes can only come down, so the tenet of the center-left has become that it must always move to the right if it is to win. But this process has clearly run its course.
Both parties are way out of kilter not just with the base of core support they must motivate in order to be viable, but also with those who could expand that base to ensure victory.
Take London: Five years ago the Labor leadership refused to let Livingstone stand, claiming he was a liability to the party because he was too left-wing. Now that he has been readmitted to the party, Labor is a liability to Livingstone because it is too right-wing. In the US, 84 percent of Kerry supporters believe the war in Iraq was not justified yet only 15 percent of all voters believe he has a plan to handle the situation.
Elections are rarely won by fear and rage alone. Threatening voters with conservative candidates gives people something to vote against. But defeating conservative candidates demands an agenda they can also vote for.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry