More on the Nader-Gonzalez question
Photo courtesy of National Press Club
I got a call from Matt Gonzalez this morning and he wasn’t happy about my post yesterday on his decision to run for vice president, which wasn’t surprising. But I was surprised to hear him sound so wounded and to say that my tone “was almost like a personal animosity.”
Displaying such thin skin is an inauspicious way to begin a presidential campaign, particularly one in which they’re arguing for the right to compete on the same playing field as the heavily scrutinized Democratic and Republican nominees. Ralph Nader was going to run anyway, Gonzalez said, and “if I’m his running mate then we’ll be talking about electoral reform.”
Less than a half-hour after our conversation, Gonzalez and Nader appeared on KQED’s Forum, in which the host brought up my criticisms, to which Gonzalez answered, “That particular journalist needs a basic civics lesson.” Nader also used the “civics lesson” barb against other critics.
Nobody is questioning their right to run, and I don’t dispute the need for electoral reforms that would chip away at the two-party hold on power. But Civics 101 also teaches that in electoral politics, it’s not enough to be right. You still must find a way to coalesce majority support behind your ideas, and at this point in history, a Nader-Gonzalez campaign might just be counterproductive to that goal.
When we spoke, I assured Gonzalez that I bore him no ill will and was focused solely on whether his decision and opening arguments were good for the country and prospects for progressive change, which I do believe is still an open question that is already being put to vigorous and healthy debate (in the comments section after my last post, among other places).
I’m certainly not the only progressive with doubts about the Nader-Gonzalez ticket. It’s telling that all the top Green Party leaders in San Francisco – including Sup. Ross Mirkarimi, school board president and supervisorial candidate Mark Sanchez, and Jane Kim, who got the most votes in the last school board election after Gonzalez encouraged her to run – have endorsed Barack Obama.
In fact, Gonzalez told me it was the enthusiasm for Obama on the left that prompted his pre-announcement column criticizing Obama. “I wrote that because there were so many people excited about his candidacy that I wanted to really look at his record before I made this decision,” Gonzalez told me.
Matt also noted that he wasn’t alone in doubting Obama's commitment to scaling back the U.S. military overreach, which the Guardian has also pushed the Obama campaign on. Gonzalez told me, “You can go on the Bill Richardson’s website and you’ll find almost the exact same critique of Obama.”
Perhaps, but Richardson is almost certain to get behind the Democratic nominee and may even end up as Obama’s running mate. There’s a difference between Richardson criticizing Obama for not wanting to get all troops out quick enough and the Gonzalez critique, which takes the unsupported next step in questioning whether Obama is “truly against this war.”
I asked Gonzalez about this, about whether he is really arguing that there’s no difference between Obama and McCain on the war. His answer was there’s not a “drastic” difference. Nader also has a penchant for glossing over the differences between the two parties and that’s a tactic that is probably not going to be very effective after eight years of a disastrous Bush administration, criticism of which has been the centerpiece of all the Democratic presidential campaigns.
Nader and Gonzalez are certainly correct in criticizing the Democratic Party’s complicity in the abuses and excesses of the last eight years and before (most of which predated Obama’s run in DC). Nader said on Forum this morning that Democrats should have tried to do away with the Electoral College after the undemocratic presidential election of 2000 (here’s a civics lesson, Ralph: that would take an amendment to the constitution, a nearly impossible feat right now).
Gonzalez said that a progressive publication like the Guardian should be supporting this candidacy. “There is a responsibility to help people to understand how something good can come out of challenging the two parties,” Gonzalez told me. “There is this fundamentally undemocratic electoral process and we need to reform it.”
But is a Nader-Gonzalez ticket the way to do it? Personally, I have a hard time seeing anything good coming from this, although I do hope to be proven wrong. In 2000, Nader was a fresh and inspiring voice, so much so that I risked my job as news editor at the Sacramento News & Review to urge readers to ignore our Gore endorsement and vote for Nader.
His super rallies that year felt like a real movement, but that energy had already faded by his 2004 run. This year, it is Obama who is throwing the inspiring super rallies. And on the radio this morning, Nader sounded like an embittered impersonator of his former self. He’s still right on the issues, but prone to rhyming platitudes, belittling quips, and binary choices, more like a reunion tour than a relevant political campaign.
It may not be fair and it may not be right, but Nader seems to have spent all his political capital. And I have a hard time seeing how Gonzalez, who resigned from political life at the peak of his power, brings much of that currency to the table. They have sharp minds and even sharper tongues, but if they’re essentially ignored by the media and can’t muster a large grassroots operation, will that matter?
Ah, but what if they do catch fire? What if Clinton surges and ends up as the nominee or it’s Obama and he stumbles in the fall? What if Nader gets his wish and we have something resembling a multi-party election this year, with Ron Paul and Michael Bloomberg also throwing their hats into the ring? Or maybe Matt is right that the two parties shutting out Nader-Gonzalez will finally enrage people enough to put electoral reform on the national agenda?
Personally, I can’t clearly see into that sort of future and I don’t think Matt can either. But they’re in it now, with the multitude of possibilities and perils that may lie ahead. I wish them, and the rest of us, good luck.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (24)
You are actually way too kind to him as far as I am concerned.
You assume what he wants is change things. Well, if what he wanted was to have a real impact, he would have run for Mayor last year or any other local race he would have had a great shot at winning and being able to actually change some things.
Running for VP on a Nader ticket won't change a thing and can actually hurt those who can actually move things in the right direction.
But you are giving him the benefit of the doubt and think that he made that decision because he is mistaken. But this is not about political judgement. It is about an ego the size of One Rincon Hill. And like One Rincon Hill it is a catastrophic decision that the whole city will regret for years to come because the ill-will is not going to go away and many of his former supporters will move on to people with feet on earth. Gonzalez will have changed squats.
But I guess being a spoilerish non-relevant joke in front of dozens of national cameras is more exciting than,say, staying on the Board of Supervisors and fighting for change where he could have made a difference.
Posted by Benjamin | February 29, 2008 06:15 PM
i agree with matt that your last post had a tone of personal animosity. you argued in 2000 that a third candidate was good for democracy. but this election it's not. gawd, a flip-flopper of the first order! if the guardian is moving to the right, which matt seems to agree upon, just 'fess up and call it clean: the guardian now marches lock and step with The Democratic Party. be proud of your politicial evolution. ps, we still find all the self-important references endearing. you're a very important player in all this, stephen t. jones.
Posted by student | February 29, 2008 07:17 PM
I think that it is telling that the SF Guardian and the SF Chronicle both endorsed the same person for President.
Posted by expatriate | February 29, 2008 08:04 PM
You prove that anyone can be a journalist.
"But Civics 101 also teaches that in electoral politics, it’s not enough to be right. You still must find a way to coalesce majority support behind your ideas, and at this point in history, a Nader-Gonzalez campaign might just be counterproductive to that goal."
A large population of Americans including myself WILL NOT vote for Obama, Hillary, or McCain. Should we, in the spirit of this country's great democracy, keep our mouths shut by not voting, or worse-- VOTE FOR THE MOST POPULAR CANDIDATE BY DEFAULT? You're still stick in the "spoiler" argument: instead of blaming Bush and his supporters for stealing the 2000 election, you use Nader as a scapegoat.
You've failed to understand that if Nader had been president, neither 9/11 NOR the Iraq war would have happened. Period.
What's to blame? Our nation's lovely 2 party system, in which the media gives superfluous publicity to the lesser of two evils.
This year, it is Obama who is throwing the inspiring super rallies.
No doubt, sheep will decide this year's vote. Anyone with a clue can see how ambiguous Obama's "Hope and Change" speeches are-- all delivery, no substance. We've had eight years of that already.
"here’s a civics lesson, Ralph: that would take an amendment to the constitution, a nearly impossible feat right now)."
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS ABSOLUTELY THE WORST THING THAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE ELECTION PROCESS. Only in America can a person be elected president even if they did NOT win the popular vote. And in case you've been asleep for the past eight years, BUSH HAS BEEN RAPING THE CONSTITUTION. Do you support the Patriot Act, the removal of Habeas Corpus, Wiretapping, Waterboarding, and our illegal federal income tax? (research it; THERE IS NO LAW REQUIRING AMERICANS TO PAY A FEDERAL INCOME TAX ON WAGES).
P.S. Do some homework; Bloomberg isn't running. You should be promoting democracy, not asking people to shun independent thought.
Posted by Talk Show Host | February 29, 2008 08:32 PM
Finally, a post of Steven T. Jones' which I agree with. But first, Talk Show Host:
"You're still stick in the "spoiler" argument: instead of blaming Bush and his supporters for stealing the 2000 election, you use Nader as a scapegoat."
And Bush's election is the direct result of Nader campaigning aggressively in states where he knew that campaigning would tip the vote to Bush.
I'm not saying that Bush isn't at fault for stealing the 2000 election. I'm saying that Nader is AS RESPONSIBLE as Bush is. I'm saying that Nader voters are AS CULPABLE in the raping of the constitution as Bush voters are.
Congratulations. Your support of a third party candidate, without understanding the mathematics of why third party candidates will always be spoilers, has undermined every progressive cause you purport to uphold.
Posted by Jer | February 29, 2008 11:31 PM
By the way, at least Nader is talking about abolishing the Electoral College rather than just sticking his head in the sand, bitching about the same problem every four years, and hoping that it all will magically vanish. Try to keep in mind that it took TWO constitutional amendments to allow blacks and women to vote. Should REAL progressives have just written that off as pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking?
In addition, it doesn't take a consitutional amendment to change the Electoral College altogether. It's called National Popular Vote. It won't solve the so-called "spoiler" issue, but it proves you wrong:
http://www.fairvote.org/?page=32&newslettermode=showspecific&showarticle=108
Also, it is still taking a long time to connect to this blog.
And to be fair, both McCain and Obama support IRV. However, whether they walk the talk is another question.
I'm amazed that so-called progressive Democrats can be just as bitter, close-minded, snotty, petty and reactionary as any Republican when forced to face a challenge to their high-minded and arrogant worldview and assumption that the Democratic Party is good enough.
Posted by expatriate | March 1, 2008 06:05 AM
By the way, do you think that Obama would be able to vote (let alone run for president) if there wasn't a constitutional amendment allowing him to do so? Thank REAL progressives like Matt Gonzalez and Ralph Nader for granting Obama this privilege.
Posted by expatriate | March 1, 2008 06:10 AM
By the way, at least Nader is talking about abolishing the Electoral College rather than just sticking his head in the sand, bitching about the same problem every four years, and hoping that it all will magically vanish. Try to keep in mind that it took TWO constitutional amendments to allow blacks and women to vote. Should REAL progressives have just written that off as pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking?
In addition, it doesn't take a consitutional amendment to change the Electoral College altogether. It's called National Popular Vote. It won't solve the so-called "spoiler" issue, but it proves you wrong:
http://www.fairvote.org/?page=32&newslettermode=showspecific&showarticle=108
Also, it is still taking a long time to connect to this blog.
And to be fair, both McCain and Obama support IRV. However, whether they walk the talk is another question.
I'm amazed that so-called progressive Democrats can be just as bitter, close-minded, snotty, petty and reactionary as any Republican when forced to face a challenge to their high-minded and arrogant worldview and assumption that the Democratic Party is good enough.
By the way, do you think that Obama or Clinton would be able to vote (let alone run for president) if it weren't for REAL progressives like Matt Gonzalez and Ralph Nader. Or should we thank people like Gavin "Ichabod" Newsom and Dianne Feinstein for such rights?
Posted by expatriate | March 1, 2008 06:19 AM
matt gonzalez a thin skinned, egotistical, arrogant, jerk? who told?
Matt's failures are many, and he's not going to be much of a factor in this year's presidential race. All anyone has to do is listen to Ralph in 2000 say "Gore's no different than Bush" , look at the record of Bush and Gore since 2000, think about things like the Iraq war, and Gore's Nobel Prize, and realize that Ralphie's judgment sucks.
Matt couldn't get it up to run against a wounded Newsom in 2007 even with all the gimmicks his supporters passed for him. Now, Progressives are in deep shit as the Mayor's folks take out the ugly stick and beat 'em with it. Why he somehow thinks he'll be anyting but an asterisk in the 2008 race just show how out of touch and stupid he really is. Hell he's not even running as a green this time - he probably won't be on the ballot anywhere important anyway.
Posted by gdewar | March 1, 2008 08:08 AM
I wish Gonzalez (and Nader) good luck. Both know the odds. Both are willing to take it.
Third party candidates introduce some interesting ideas-like Medicare, Social Security and the gold standard. They didn't win, but their ideas eventually did.
The Bay Guardian is seen as the "third" or "fourth" paper-after the Chronicle, the Examiner and to some, the SF Weekly. So the Guardian should understand why Gonzalez and Nader would want to use that stance to influence change.
Posted by kimknox | March 1, 2008 09:36 AM
Nader's campaign filmmaker, Jurgen Vsych, has just released her new book about the 2004 campaign, "What Was Ralph Nader Thinking?" http://thewomandirector.com
Posted by Jurgen Vsych | March 1, 2008 10:53 AM
Yes, there are differences between hotdogs and hamburgers but their long term nutritional benefits are the same.
I will compare the Republican to hotdogs and Democrats to hamburgers. Can you at least have some fries on the menu?
Trust, Ralph Nader! When has he ever cheated you?
Where has he invested his money, his profit? Has he invested it in making wars or in making your life better?
Weapons are manufactured in private businesses, your taxes are used for paying weapon bills, profits go to the business owners (share holders)... In short you are slaves.
Secret societies, built a world order to benefit few.
Ralph Nader is another Jesus! He is the savior of the weak and the poor.
Presently, the wheel of economy is turning in the direction which benefits secret societies and devil worshipers. It is your choice; it is your future!
Posted by Independent | March 1, 2008 12:59 PM
I wish Nader and Gonzalez good luck, but I do agree that they would do a far better community serivice by channeling their efforts into reforming the political and electoral process instead of engaging in political theatre by running a half-assed presidential campaign which has absolutely no widespread support.
Of course, I don't want to be too pessimistic about their campaign; after all, Nader and Gonzalez seem to have a lock on the conspiracy theorist vote if Talk Show Host's post is any indication.
(By the way, Talk Show, since you enjoy research so much, why not check out the number of people every year who are prosecuted for failure to pay federal income taxes on their wages and other earnings? It is strange that so many people end up paying hefty fines and/or going to jail based on violations of a law you claim doesn't exist. You might start your research with the 16th Amendment, begin with Sec. 1 of the Internal Revenue Code and read through to the end, and also read 1 USC Sec. 112 and Sec. 204. When you're done, spend some time researching the numerous court cases which have upheld the validity of the Internal Revenue Code).
Posted by Chris Brown | March 1, 2008 02:55 PM
Stop funding the terrorists!
No more Oil Wars!
Energy Independence Now!
Drill in Anwar.
Build more nuclear power plants
Use More coal.
Use more natural gas
Turn trash into energy
Double the efficiency of windmills and solar cells.
If France can do nuclear power so can we.
If Brazil can do biomass/ethanol power so can we.
If Australia can do LNG power so can we.
Domestically produced energy will end the recession and spur the economy.
Stop paying oil dollars to those who worship daily at the alter of our destruction.
Preserve our Civil Rights and defend our Freedom by ending dependence on foreign oil.
Posted by poetryman69 | March 1, 2008 04:36 PM
To Independent: Trust Ralph Nader?
In 2004, Peter Camejo ran for president (or Alpha Male, as I tend to think of it) on the Green Party ticket and won the primary in California, as well as other states. Two days before the Green Party nominating convention in Milwaukee that year, he announced that he had only been running as a stand in for Ralph Nader and that he was actually going to be Ralph Nader's vice presidential candidate. Camejo and Nader wanted the Green Party delegates who had gathered in Milwaukee to vote for NOTA in the first round of votes and then vote to endorse a Nader/Camejo ticket -- but enough people were enraged by the deception that these two had practiced that they refused to go along. David Cobb ended up receiving the Green Party presidential nomination.
Nader and Camejo, however, refused to give up. They came to California and attempted to hold another convention in order to reverse the results of the original convention -- so that they could be on the state ballot as the Green Party candidates. They also circulated petitions to get themselves on the ballot. While I signed the petition to get them on the ballot because I believe that people have the right to run and that voters have the right to choices, I opposed their efforts to replace David Cobb's ballot line with themselves.
Ralph Nader had an absolutely illustrious record as a consumer advocate until his entry into politics -- especially post 2000. (The Democrats have had one sound bite that they have been repeating over and over since then: Ralph Nader spoiled the 2000 election for Al Gore and caused the election of George Bush. I contest that sound bite and invite everyone to push back with another one: our archaic electoral system, complicated by corruption, caused the selection of George Bush.)
Yet now he is engaged in yet another quixotic crusade, bringing the ever narcissistic Matt Gonzalez along with him.
I wish that Nader and Gonzalez were focused on building the multi-party system from the bottom up instead of from the top down. But since they aren't, I hope that they do not mess with Green Party nominating convention in Chicago this year (and the likelihood that Cynthia McKinney, a former congresswoman of color from Georgia, will be the Green Party nominee) -- so that Greens may continue efforts to heal the wounds from 2004 and do the grassroots work needed to eliminate the corporate influence that has infected so many of the campaigns of the two major parties.
Posted by Sue | March 1, 2008 11:10 PM
Stop funding the terrorists!
No more Oil Wars!
Energy Independence Now!
Drill in Anwar.
Build more nuclear power plants
Use More coal.
Use more natural gas
Turn trash into energy
Double the efficiency of windmills and solar cells.
If France can do nuclear power so can we.
If Brazil can do biomass/ethanol power so can we.
If Australia can do LNG power so can we.
Domestically produced energy will end the recession and spur the economy.
Stop paying oil dollars to those who worship daily at the alter of our destruction.
Preserve our Civil Rights and defend our Freedom by ending dependence on foreign oil.
Posted by poetryman69 | March 2, 2008 10:30 AM
Who’s Helping the Republicans, Gavin?
http://www.chrisdaly.org/?p=63
Posted by Chris Daly | March 2, 2008 01:47 PM
“Ralph Nader spoiled the 2000 election for Al Gore and caused the election of George Bush”
1- Can you confirm that the people who voted for Ralph would have voted for Al Gore? Could these be independent voters? There is nothing that can definitely confirm that these voters would have voted for Al Gore. Your accusations are baseless or invalid
2- The problem is in the electoral system. This electoral system is endorsed by the Democrats besides the Republicans.
If this same system allowed Ralph Nader to spoil (assumption) the elections for Al Gore, then who should we blame for that? The parties who are endorsing this system or Ralph Nader? It is a situation where the magic has turned on the magician!!!
Please, direct your rage on the parties who gave you such a pathetic electoral system.
Now regarding your tale on the Green Party convention: How could this make people not trust Ralph Nader?
The question is: can we trust Ralph Nader intentions? His, record and background should be used for such a conclusion.
Ralph Nader cannot be blamed on how he plays any electoral system/game; he is not the one who sets the rules, instead he is playing by the rules set by others.
Can you trust him with the lives of millions of Americans: yes or no? This is the question everyone should ask before voting.
Do not vote for the person who you think could win, instead vote to the person who you think should win!
Ralph Nader is Martin Luther King of blacks and whites. He is trying to free you from brain washing propagandas!
Posted by To_Sue | March 2, 2008 06:51 PM
Hello "To_Sue":
You did not read my entire post. Read it thoroughly.
I have excerpted the relevant paragraph here:
(The Democrats have had one sound bite that they have been repeating over and over since then: Ralph Nader spoiled the 2000 election for Al Gore and caused the election of George Bush. I contest that sound bite and invite everyone to push back with another one: our archaic electoral system, complicated by corruption, caused the selection of George Bush.)
You can scroll up and see for yourself.
Posted by Sue | March 3, 2008 06:38 AM
Steven T. Jones,
Please explain/defend Obama's support for the death penalty and escalation in Afghanistan, his statements that we need "to keep all options open" in regard to Iraq -- he voted no for the invasion, but he supported the Iraq appropriations bill--and that he would consider the nuclear option for Iran.
Posted by Michael Worrall | March 3, 2008 10:46 AM
Steve,
It seems the question I asked actually did post on the last blog entry. I never got a comfirmation, so I assumed it never posted, so my apologies for repeating myself.
However, I do not see your response as a compelling argument as to why to support Obama. My questions to you were not to paint Obama as a "some kind of hawk or corporate shill," but to point out that Obama's position, however camouflaged, do not dissent from bourgeoisie/ruling class politics.
How do you think voting for him will be a step in the right direction? By throwing us a few bones? Wasn't Bill Clinton supposd to put us the right track after 12 years of Republican rule?
But all this begs a greater question that I have been wanting to ask: do you actually believe that Capitalism can be reformed? That we can have a more "kinder, gentle" Capitalism when profit is the ultimate motive of Capitalism?
If indeed Capitalism could be reformed, how would voting for Barak Obama be a step in this direction?
Posted by Michael Worrall | March 3, 2008 11:09 AM
Hello Sue,
You're right we agree that Ralph is not a spoiler!
On another hand, parties are for politicians. Ralph is not a politician he is an activist.
His goal is to allow many parties to flourish, if he wins. He is not self centric as they claim.
He wants a better place for everyone and not for the few.
It is either people get smart and vote for him or the corporate powers and the war lords will chain us for long time. He could be our last chance!
Posted by To_Sue | March 3, 2008 09:01 PM
Steven,
I also wanted to ask how does it follows that a person not using their real name on a blog weakens or invalidates their argument? I mean, can you be sure my name is Michael Worrall?
Posted by Michael Worrall | March 3, 2008 10:23 PM
I've been reading various progressive criticisms of Matt over his decision to run with Nader. Overall, these criticisms seem quite emotional in tone. It's as if Matt has betrayed his own people.
Looking at it closer, the far left (e.g. Green, progressive) sort of represents community over individual. The far right (e.g. Libertarian) sort of represents individual over community. Coming from Canada (a community over individual place), this duality seems obvious to me. If true, this would explain the emotional criticisms of individual Matt coming from the left community.
My dream is to see a merger of Green and Libertarian -- with only the common positions surviving. What you'd be left with is a nice balance between the individual and the community, all with a local focus. Sort of a "long tail" party -- opposed to the old "head" parties.
With Clinton's "wins" yesterday, we're now facing the non-trivial possibility of the Democratic machine gifting her the nomination in August. What happens after that?
My hope in that event is that Obama breaks off from the Dems, starts a new party (a la Teddy Roosevelt), collects the Greens and the Liberations, plus huge chunks of Dems and Reps, with a platform somewhere in the middle of Nader/Gonzalez and Ron Paul, and wins in November with an FDR landslide. A month ago, I put that possibility at 5%.
After yesterday, I'd give it 15%.
Before you say these ideas are lunatic, have you noticed the prices of crude oil and gold lately? We're already into uncharted territory. It's just starting.
Posted by Peter | March 5, 2008 08:36 PM