>>Quentin Crain – November 9, 2006 @ 1:43 pm

Thanks, Quentin. As I remember, 2000 was an election year, and Nader ran a campaign in accordance with campaign laws in all 50 states, and his message was populist.

I know hindsight is 20-20, but it’s necessary for a longer view of events, and for cultivating intelligent compassion for our neighbors and momentary leaders. Part – only part – of the Nader campaign’s populist message was, “Democrats need to realize that by remaining a complacent partner in a corrupt two-party system, they have failed Americans on the environment, social justice issues, and the economy. As a consequence, they will not have our vote.” (My words, not N’s.)

For decades, Nader “worked from within” to get such problems addressed. In 2000, he saw that by going public – populist, in an election – could he really focus people’s attention on issues and allow the dissenting public to create and hold a position that the R&D candidates could not ignore.

From the 2006 election returns, it looks like the effort was not wasted.

Of course, we could not have arrived here in 2006, celebrating, relieved, far more awake and battle-ready, without the help of a certain Chimp & Co., whose actions have made it crystal clear what was always at stake, in 2000 and long before, when Nader and those like him were “working from within.”

You’re welcome.

BTW, now that Nader can walk around at major political events and be ignored, it should be clear that there is no such thing as a “Naderite.”

We are simply people who think for ourselves, and were glad that a brave man stepped up to be a lens for our outrage.

Sorry if that pisses you off.

I make a distinction between civil liberty issues and policy issues. If civil liberty is being violated — and teaching “ID” in public school classrooms is a direct violation of the First Amendment, IMO — then court challenges are appropriate. If we had waited until “popular opinion” was ready for desegregation, for example, we might still be waiting.

However, when interest groups use lobbying or court challenges to establish regulatory agencies or enact policies not involving civil liberties, even if they are really good agencies and policies, those agencies and policies become easy targets for demagogues.

And for that matter, desegregation became an easy target for demagogues. A big reason Republicans took over government was white backlash against the civil rights movement. Sometimes you can do the right thing and still lose. But racial discrimination is too terrible to leave to the caprices of public opinion. The Constitution must be respected.

Back during the Franklin Roosevelt and Truman administration, progressive policies had wide popular support. Through the 1970s and 1980s, progressive policies lost much popular support. Since the 1970s, people like Nader and many other progressive advocates have tried to enact progressive policies without trying to rebuild popular support. This works sometimes, but most of the time it doesn’t. And even when a progressive policy becomes enacted, it’s vulnerable to being smacked down after the next elections.

What a lot of us have come to realize — including people like me, who used to be Nader supporters a century or so ago — is that if we want to turn the nation in a progressive direction we must do it by winning elections and building a broad, progressive political base. As I wrote in the post, Tuesday’s election promises to make a substantial and dramatic difference in environmental policies, more so than Nader has been able to achieve for many years.

It took years of failure in Iraq for the voters to see the light. It will take a while for voters to understand the violation of Constiutional principles Bush is guilty of. I am referring to Congressional Oversight, and I don’t care if the bastard is impeached or not if a majority of voters understand what he did to the rule of law.

To achieve populism, Dems need to hitch the party to popular ideals. I suggested fair taxes; they have named raising the minimum wage; I mentioned fair redistricting; they are avoiding the word ‘impeachment’ (good), but holding true to the ‘obligation’ they have of oversight. (damn good). They need to ask out loud what exactly ARE the limits of ‘harsh’ interrogation which goes beyond the Geneva Convention and are not torture. Don’t go to socialized medicine right away (which I favor), but offer coverage for all children, strengthen the quality of care for vets and roll back the gift to the pharmacudical industry. Deliver success there and the ‘average’ voter will let us go further. Don’t go to amnesty for illegal aliens, but do go for border security and REALLY go after employers who are using illegals to drive down wages in non-ag industries.

You are, but I’m giving you one more chance.

you are saying you believe that the “legal reformers” and the “ten new regulatory agencies” have had a net negative affect for/on America correct?

No. That is not what I or the article I quoted said. The nature and purpose of the agencies were probably just fine. I probably approved of them. America probably needs them. That’s not the point. Go back and read this paragraph again:

Legal reformers initiated what, in regulatory terms, was almost a second New Deal between 1964 and 1977. Ten new regulatory agencies were created. Regulatory battles over everything from product safety to energy conservation took the shape of class conflict but–fatally for post-New Deal liberalism–without mass support. Without that support, the new liberalism, an alliance of lawyers and other professionals with minorities, was politically vulnerable.

Reflect upon the phrase “politically vulnerable.” Then put the two ideas together:

1. The regulatory agencies were good for America. However,

2. The regulatory agencies were politically vulnerable because they lacked mass support.

Any neurons firing now?