This post comes to us via the Canadian Tory, Generation-X-Wing. At the New Republicans, we welcome guest editorials on the state of the world, America or even your own country, should you be from other lands not flying the stars and stripes.
Feel free to comment at will. I think he's on to something here.
Here's the post:
I love how the Democratic Party of the United States is mad
that Ralph Nader is getting on the ballot in lots of states. According
to a BBC online article, "In an angry reaction to Friday's ruling,
Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe said: "In state after state, Nader has become an extension of the Republican Party and their corporate backers."
Don't you love the irony in this situation? The "Democratic" party is
trying to stifle democracy in the United States. Talk about vote-splitting all you want (and as a conservative in Canada, I’ve been dealing with it for years), Ralph Nader has every right to be on the ballot. If he attracts supporters on the left who might otherwise vote for the Democrats, doesn't that tell them something? Maybe they should have chosen a candidate who appeals to that left wing?
Of course, that's the perpetual dilemma that centrist parties face:
they try to straddle the left and right and attract support from most people. Fair enough, it is a reasonable tactic. But what happens when more than one party, or credible candidate, enters the process on the opposite side of their traditional opponent? They run the risk of losing a core base of their support.
Whose problem is that? The Democratic Party’s. So rather than trying to adapt, they bitch about how unfair it is that someone else is exercising their democratic rights. This is what the Democrats have become: a disgrace with no respect for democracy. The Democrats say they risk losing to Bush with Nader on the ballot. Maybe they do. The Democrats want Nader off the ballot because defeating Bush is the most important thing for American right now. Well, how does this sound: the Democrats voluntarily remove themselves from the ballot so Nader can
run unopposed against Bush? Of course he stands no chance of beating the President. And without a doubt Democrats would laugh at the entire notion of being taken off the ballot.
Maybe they should think of it that way, and allow democracy to take its natural course in 2004. But let's face it, left-wing hypocrisy will prevent any notion of the Democrats allowing this to happen, and they'll blame him [again, ed.] if they lose in November.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Some Democrat supporters are angry that Nader is running, sure. I think Gen-X-Wing can tell you how frustrating it is to deal with what seems like a nonsensical vote-split. I think those angry Democrats will at the same time happily acknowledge the right for Ralph Nader to run.
But you can't have a reasonable discussion about the frustration Democrats are feeling on the issue without giving fair and full context. The groups getting Nader's name on the ballot in several states are associated with or sympathetic toward the RNC. Those nominations are a cynical effort to split votes, not an attempt to invigorate the democracy.
Until that part of the story is mentioned, the rest of the discussion is nonsense.
(I owe you a reciprocal link... thanks. Nice blog.)
Glad you like it! Stop in anytime.
Oh, and as for Nader's candidacy, it may be that RNC-allied groups are working to get him on the ballot. I have no idea. But Democrats should be more cautious about how they approach his candidacy because they risk looking like sore losers or worse.
Jimmy, thanks for stopping in. We at NR are fairly eclectic -- with political views to match. On some issues we line up single-file with the party regulars (some call them conservatives) and on others, we run in all directions. So, right or left, come by and comment. We appreciate the visit!
Post a Comment