I hear tell that in at least one national poll, the inclusion of Ralph Nader as a presidential candidate has the potential to split the progressive vote so that John McCain wins a plurality. Tonight at least, that’s just grand and fine with me. What it tells me is that the Democratic Party has so flubbed things that a man who from 2001 through 2006 was the the subject of gigantic disdain looks better to a lot of progressives than more of the same old from the Democrats. And you know, they’ve got a point. OK, not so much about Ralph Nader: I don’t believe he’d make a good president for some reasons based primarily on personality. But they do have a point about the Democrats. The Democrats simply haven’t done what they said they’d do.
The Democrats said they’d end the war in Iraq. Not accomplished.
The Democrats said they’d overturn the Military Commissions Act. Not accomplished.
The Democrats said they’d restore habeas corpus. Not accomplished.
The Democrats said they’d restore constitutional rights. Worse than not accomplished; they’ve played an active role in eroding constitutional rights through the Protect America Act and the FISA Amendments Act.
The Democrats said they’d turn back the mega tax cuts for the rich. Not accomplished.
The Democrats said they’d make Bush accountable. Not accomplished. Bush has atrophied on his own, not because of Democratic political action in DC.
So why, these progressives ask, should we vote Democrat again? On core issues, the Democrats have simply not delivered, even when given a majority. It is legitimate for progressives to ask why not, and it is legitimate for progressives to consider alternatives. After all, we’re not automatons, and we’re not feudal serfs. We’re citizens with the right to independence, and independence is no good unless it is taken out for some exercise now and then. Every once in a while, an leashless and independent sprint across an open field of candidates is just the thing.
