That was actually a pretty good interview, even if it was conducted by Pat Buchanan. I think Nader is doing the right (correct) thing by pointing out the commonalities between the right and the left when it comes to Bush.
But what better way to present an alternate worldview to immigrant bashers and racists than to sit for an interview with The American Conservative? When I read the interview, it seemed that Nader was able to expound on his positions on the issues without being made to look like a fool by the magazine. We progressives can only win by engaging others in dialogue, not by alienating ourselves based on ideology.
To me that interview represents Nader clearly pandering to the Right. It's a completely different message than when he speaks to left-wing audiences. He doesn't seem to be trying to argue with or convert anyone. He seems to be trying to woo them by soft-selling his positions.
Right now it's unclear to me whether Nader is running a Left-wing campaign that is making overtures to the Right or whether he's running a straight Independent campaign appealing to all comers.
To me there's a very large difference between those two things.
Lastly, I believe there are some forces that if you are truly left-wing, you don't work consort with. Ever. And one of those is Pat Buchanan.
At first I thought that consorting with the Reform Party was not that big of a deal. But it became very stark very quickly when I started talking to immigrants and people of color. They had no understanding of how anyone on the left could even consider associating with a campaign that had Buchanan's forces as part of it.
I just went back and re-read that interview, and I can't tell that Nader is soft-selling his positions. Let's just say I will take your word on that. With regard to consorting with the likes of Pat Buchanan, I don't think allowing yourself to be interviewed by someone like PB equates to "consorting" with him. Yes, the very idea of sitting in the same room with him may bring sour bile to my throat, but we've got to keep the lines of communication open, even with the likes of Pat Buchanan.
I think this is true even if you are invited by the right-wing fanatic for an interview so that he can humiliate you and make you and your positions look stupid. I remember seeing Paul Wellstone as a guest on Bill O'Reilly once. O'Reilly was repulsive as usual, but Wellstone kept his cool and got to speak out on alot of his issues, while skillfully dodging O'Reilly's barbs by simply not responding to them. He was able to get free airtime and reach FOX News viewers.
That said, I don't mean to be an apologist for Nader, because I have been very disappointed in the fact that he seems to have no coherent message in this campaign, and I don't plan to vote for him.
One little point: Nader's dalliance with Buchanan goes beyond this interview. Nader was soft on Buchanan in 2000 as well. This time it's more magnified. The Reform Party's endorsement, under Buchanan's influence, speaks to the fact that Nader is more than just being interviewed by the right. He's letting those forces into the campaign and letting them influence his position and strategy.
That said, I agree with your final point entirely. His campaign has no coherent message. That is precisely because he has run to both the Left and to the Right. So he's attacked Kerry, but also called himself a "second front" against Bush and, oddly, sees himself as some sort of consultant to the Dems. (How can you be a "second front" in a winner-take-all set up?)
Today illustrates his contradictory position on the Dems entirely. On one hand, he got into a shouting match with the Congressional Black Congress who asked him to pull out of the race. On the other, he issued a press release endorsing Edwards as Kerry's veep pick.
Comments
wake up. Nader is the one person who hasn't sold anything. He's got my vote.
Posted by: rob | June 17, 2004 7:40 PM
That was actually a pretty good interview, even if it was conducted by Pat Buchanan. I think Nader is doing the right (correct) thing by pointing out the commonalities between the right and the left when it comes to Bush.
Posted by: betwana | June 21, 2004 5:16 PM
I think finding common ground with immigrant bashers and racists is exactly the wrong strategy.
Posted by: zagg | June 22, 2004 10:22 AM
But what better way to present an alternate worldview to immigrant bashers and racists than to sit for an interview with The American Conservative? When I read the interview, it seemed that Nader was able to expound on his positions on the issues without being made to look like a fool by the magazine. We progressives can only win by engaging others in dialogue, not by alienating ourselves based on ideology.
Posted by: betwana | June 22, 2004 11:03 AM
I dunno.
To me that interview represents Nader clearly pandering to the Right. It's a completely different message than when he speaks to left-wing audiences. He doesn't seem to be trying to argue with or convert anyone. He seems to be trying to woo them by soft-selling his positions.
Right now it's unclear to me whether Nader is running a Left-wing campaign that is making overtures to the Right or whether he's running a straight Independent campaign appealing to all comers.
To me there's a very large difference between those two things.
Lastly, I believe there are some forces that if you are truly left-wing, you don't work consort with. Ever. And one of those is Pat Buchanan.
At first I thought that consorting with the Reform Party was not that big of a deal. But it became very stark very quickly when I started talking to immigrants and people of color. They had no understanding of how anyone on the left could even consider associating with a campaign that had Buchanan's forces as part of it.
Posted by: zagg | June 22, 2004 1:27 PM
I just went back and re-read that interview, and I can't tell that Nader is soft-selling his positions. Let's just say I will take your word on that. With regard to consorting with the likes of Pat Buchanan, I don't think allowing yourself to be interviewed by someone like PB equates to "consorting" with him. Yes, the very idea of sitting in the same room with him may bring sour bile to my throat, but we've got to keep the lines of communication open, even with the likes of Pat Buchanan.
I think this is true even if you are invited by the right-wing fanatic for an interview so that he can humiliate you and make you and your positions look stupid. I remember seeing Paul Wellstone as a guest on Bill O'Reilly once. O'Reilly was repulsive as usual, but Wellstone kept his cool and got to speak out on alot of his issues, while skillfully dodging O'Reilly's barbs by simply not responding to them. He was able to get free airtime and reach FOX News viewers.
That said, I don't mean to be an apologist for Nader, because I have been very disappointed in the fact that he seems to have no coherent message in this campaign, and I don't plan to vote for him.
Posted by: betwana | June 23, 2004 3:53 PM
One little point: Nader's dalliance with Buchanan goes beyond this interview. Nader was soft on Buchanan in 2000 as well. This time it's more magnified. The Reform Party's endorsement, under Buchanan's influence, speaks to the fact that Nader is more than just being interviewed by the right. He's letting those forces into the campaign and letting them influence his position and strategy.
That said, I agree with your final point entirely. His campaign has no coherent message. That is precisely because he has run to both the Left and to the Right. So he's attacked Kerry, but also called himself a "second front" against Bush and, oddly, sees himself as some sort of consultant to the Dems. (How can you be a "second front" in a winner-take-all set up?)
Today illustrates his contradictory position on the Dems entirely. On one hand, he got into a shouting match with the Congressional Black Congress who asked him to pull out of the race. On the other, he issued a press release endorsing Edwards as Kerry's veep pick.
Posted by: zagg | June 23, 2004 4:46 PM