Nader

Economics Political Theory
1

Wow, has my thinking on Nader changed in just a few years! In my more Randian days, I once referred to him as Balph Nader, borrowing the name from Balph Eubanks, the Atlas Shrugged character. Now, with Paul having ruled out a third-party run, he’s in the running for my support. His economics are terrible, but, come on, are McCain’s, Hillary’s, or Obama’s any better? Absolutely not, and Nader is a real anti-war candidate. The only thing holding me back from supporting him now is that the LP hasn’t yet nominated a candidate - in May, I’ll decide if the LP candidate is acceptable, and if not, I’ll support Nader. I saw on the LRC blog the other day that Lew Rockwell is indicating that he’ll support Nader, unless of course Paul changes his mind. It’s also been awesome to see the supportive blog posts on Dennis Kucinich on LRC.

I have to say, I was disappointed with Nader’s VP choice. I sat and waited eagerly to hear who he chose, expecting some bombshell - Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards - someone with the name recognition to enhance the campaign and make it more viable. It didn’t happen, and I’m not quite clear why.

It seems from all this that I’m not the only paleolib gazing leftward in these days. Glenn Greenwald is frequently linked to by LRC, and in turn he’s been citing approvingly from all sorts of old-Right/libertarian writers, frequently including David Gordon. The signs of a left/right coalition against war and for civil liberties are everywhere, and are encouraging. A lot of it formed and solidifed around Ron Paul, but maybe at least we can hold it all together around something. Could the Nader campaign be a new core for the peace and civil liberties crowd, if Paul doesn’t win and doesn’t run third party? It’s not nearly as good as it was having it around Paul, of course, but I think it would be better than the anti-war coalition just folding and going away. We need a strong movement against the largest of government projects, even if it’s not an anti-statist movement - although anti-statist is better. Is anyone else thinking, though, that this might be where the anti-war movement can do the most now, rather than us libertarians still rallying around Paul, while leftists rally around Obama or Nader, and the anti-war movement is split and splintered? Myself, I consider Republican corporatism and soft-welfarism even worse than Naderite economic illiteracy, and so, while I still 100% support Paul, and will continue to call myself a Ron Paul Libertarian, I don’t have a problem supporting Nader when and if Paul is out of the race. Thoughts?

2

I don’t know much about Nader other than he’s affiliated with the Green Party. Which probably means he’s a socialist. The Libertarian and Constitution parties are both anti-war and share most of my values. Why don’t the Ron Paul supporters pick one of their candidates and rally around them after he looses the nomination.

3

Hillary or Obama, perhaps not. But as for McCain - slightly. It is for you to decide if other issues matter more to you. I am certainly no fan of McCain-Feingold for example, but on economics yea, he is better than Nader. Compare these two sites:

http://www.votenader.org/issues/

and

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/0B8E4DB8-5B0C-459F-97EA-D7B542A78235.htm

Please do not Misunderstand my position. I am not urging libertarins to support McCain. Nor am I saying his economic positions are perfect. But compared to Nader, McCain is better from a purely economic standpoint - if only somewhat.

Edit: One curious position Nader holds is his stance for Impeaching Bush and Cheney. If he becomes POTUS Bush will no longer be POTUS and Cheney will no longer be VPOTUS. How will he go about impeaching them since they are no longer in office? That isn’t even a presidential power.

4

Why not simply support Bob Barr, Steve Kubby, or Christine Smith of the Libertarian Party instead? They’re all anti-war, and are certainly more Libertarian than Ralph Nader is.

5

First, I’m not talking about an ideal libertarian candidate - Nader certainly isn’t. What I am talking about is someone who can rally all anti-war individuals, the way Ron Paul largely did early in the primaries. Many lefties were willing to support him, despite opposing his economic policies, because he was more viable than anti-war Democrats. Why should we not do the same in the general election, given that war is the most important issue that we face at present?

Also, on the LP side, it’s not clear that an anti-war person will be nominated. If one of the three you list is nominated (Barr is not running, as far as I know, but there is a “draft Barr” movement) I’d be inclined to support them, but if, say, Root, gets the nomination, I won’t consider that an option.

6

Among the Libertarian Party Kubby, Philies, and I think Imperato are all non-interventionists.

Among the Constitution Party Rieske, Grundmann are both non-interventionists. I don’t know about Templin.

7

There is more to libertarian than antiwar.

8

Of course there is, and I’m not denying that. There are also strategic considerations, at any given point in time, as to where to push. There is a large state edifice which does many things. Some of those things, like war, are more horrendous and harmful than others. There’s also widespread popular hatred of the war, whereas there is widespread support for other things. In terms of strategy, then, it seems that the war is the most important issue to oppose, and the one where we are most likely to be successful. This is why Rothbard supported Johnson, for instance. I think that my case is justified by the ideas in Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty. I don’t just want to sit back and let it come - I think if we do that, we libertarians will be among the most guilty, since we saw the totalitarian state coming and didn’t stop it.

The lefties dropped their economic foolishness to gravitate to Paul, didn’t they? Didn’t we praise them for doing it? Unfortunately, the GOP proved its fascist nature by nominated McCain. Why is it wrong to now gravitate to where the leftist anti-war people are?

9

So, you’re basically saying that since many anti-war liberals abandoned their economic looniness to support Paul, we libertarians should abandon our economic sensibility to support Nader, in the event that there is no better candidate. My theory is that it would be better to simply not vote at all in the event that the LP nominates Root. You would not have to legitimize the voting process by voting for someone lacking libertarian purity. Nader’s campaign platform (according to votenader.org), is national health insurance, cut military spending, eliminate nuclear energy, crackdown on corporate welfare, open up the debates, adopt a carbon tax, change U.S. foreign policy, impeach Bush/Cheney, repeal Taft-Hartley, adopt securities speculation tax, make it easier to get on the ballot, and eliminate corporate personhood. A Libertarian would support planks #2, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 11. However, they would oppose #1, 3, 6, 9, 10, and 12.

10

After a half hour or so of research I made a post here with the Libertarian and Constitution Party candidates that are non-interventionist with links to their 2008 campaign websites. But I guess it had too many links and was labled spam because it said I needed approval for it to be posted. If whoevers in charge of that could approve it that would be great.

It doesn’t matter whether you, I, or Joe Libertarian thinks the system is legitimate. It’s still going to exist and exercise it’s monopoly on force whether or not we choose to legitimize it by voting. I’d rather vote for someone who might increase the size of the state in some areas such as forcing me to receive government run health care than increase it’s size in other areas and force me to join the military and travel to a part of the world where people are going to be shooting at me. That said I’d still be reluctant to vote for someone like Nader. I think I’ll wait until it’s closer till the election to make up my mind.

11

On the contrary, antiwar emblemizes the very essence of the libertarian ideal. No war on Iraq, but also no war on property, no war on business, no war on foreigners, no war on drugs, etc.

12

Why would she? Don’t libertarians believe in equality before the law? Why should people have special laws for corporating?

13

which candidate is going to force you to join the military?

14

When people on the non-capitalist-left talk about “ending corporate personhood” they are not talking about ending special laws for incorporated entities. They are speaking about ending some basic rights with regard to free association. If an individual has the right to avoid self-incrimination, right to privacy and free speech why not a group of individuals? It is these basic rights that many of Nader’s ilk want to deny certain groups of individuals merely because they are interested in earning a living.

15

McCain, Obama, and Clinton. All three of them stated that “no options are off the table” in regards to Iran while McCain came right out with his “bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran” song. McCain and Clinton both voted to send troops into Iraq. Obama will probably want us to send troops into The Sudan. McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a hundred years while Clinton and Obama both aren’t that serious about pulling out. And none of them will try to withdraw America from the UN and NATO. Or get out troops out of the 60+ countries we have bases in or 150+ countries we have troops in.

16

This November, regardless if Ron Paul is on the ballot or not, my vote will go to him. I will write him in if I have to. I would have never known about Mises if it wasn’t for him.

17

I cannot then support a warmonger, like Nader.

18

I’m not willing at this juncture to totally caste aside Nader although there is wide difference of ideas. Ron Paul did bring together a coalition of folks who otherwise sit on different fences across the political spectrum. Leftists, if you will, on the grounds of stopping the Empire crossed party lines so to speak and to be honest and realistic, that in itself may be the most pressing issue. That said, in order to keep the message and coalition alive, it may require us to walk across the road so to speak. I understand those who can’t and in some sense why but as I said, if empire is the most pressing issue facing us, then together with the typical “leftist” we may have to caucus to keep the idea alive before the public. Also I do think Nader is open to the idea that the Federal Reserve is not the nice little gov’t agency many like to think it is and I’m not certain that you can’t make a case to not only kill the Fed. to Ralph but also how a return to hard backed money is not only anti-inflationary but also the savior to the little guy from run amuck gov’t. This 2004’ interview http://www.amconmag.com/2004_06_21/cover.html seems to raise questions that Ralph even in his “progressive” bliss may not be dictatorial and autocratic about it and a bit more willing to not have a “my way or highway” outlook. Also I came away thinking that Ralph is not opposed to free open, honest markets but rather opposed to controlled capitialist monopolized markets and I’d venture to say that none if very few here don’t agree with that point as well.

Look, I’m not naive enough to think that Nader will be a Ron Paul or even a Bob Barr if you are so inclined, but given the fact that we all know the other 3 beauty queens still in this thing are pro-empire/pro-war/pro american hegemony and Ralph is not, I’ll take Ralph’s brand of warts if it means keeping the anti-empire/antiwar coalition together and if you present a well fashioned case, some of these Nader lefty types will at least begin to concede some arguments from us anti-staters as well. It’s a seedbed worth tending with some fertilizer to see if we can grow something good instead of weeds.

JMO.

19

Not to burst your bubble, but your Ron Paul vote will most likely not be counted unless he filed as a write-in candidate.

20

As Ron Paul has just won his Congressional seat for another term, he is for all intents and purposes done as far as anything Presidential is concerned.