Lay off Nader
I don’t like Ralph Nader’s politics one bit, and I would be frightened if he became our nation’s leader. However, he should be a part of this presidential election. Not because his entry will particularly benefit one candidate, but because American voters deserve a range of choices in their most important election. And the flurry of personal attacks directed at Nader that have come out in the past week reinforces two of the most negative stereotypes about American liberals: that they are elitists who think they know what is best for voters and that they save their most vicious attacks for those considered to be traitors to their cause.
The premise of many attacks is that Nader cost Gore the 2000 election, and that he may do the same to the 2004 candidate. I am skeptical of the claim about the 2000 election (although its relevance is more emotional than factual). It is true that Nader captured enough votes in Florida to swing the state, and that if only a modest proportion of these voters would have voted for Gore over Bush in a Nader-less race Gore could have won. But this ignores the two ways that Nader’s candidacy generated votes for Gore. First of all, thousands of voters engaged in illegal internet-based pacts in which they promised to vote for Gore in close states (like Florida) in exchange for voters in other state voting for Nader. Also, by presenting himself as a credible left-wing candidate, Nader validated Gore’s stance as a moderate, which surely helped him capture independent voters. As hard as it is to say what Nader’s impact was on the last election, it is harder to see how he will affect the next one. History indicates that third-party candidates tend to have less impact the second time around, and my gut tells me that Dean has exhausted a lot of the activist support that Nader will need. But then again, I have been wrong in almost every other prediction I have made about this race. More importantly, whether Nader can tip the scales is an issue that each voter can consider in deciding which candidate to support. Candidates should and will articulate the benefits of voting for major party candidate (which the Gore campaign did a decent job of by focusing on the idea that Bush would appoint several Supreme Court Justices, although that seems pretty silly in retrospect). But it is not appropriate to try to taunt Nader into leaving an election just because one fears that voters might like him.
American voters are not dumb. They understand that the presidential vote they get to cast every four years matters, both in terms of who governs the country and what signals it sends about the direction our nation should go. These are often difficult factors to reconcile, but voters make decisions they can live with and vote accordingly. All Americans should understand that their vote can make a difference in determining both who wins and what lessons they learn from the election. The last election certainly helped reinforce that belief. Many voters believe that the most important thing in this election is for Bush to lose, and they will vote for a Democratic candidate. Nader believe that Americans aren’t well served by our two parties and desperately need an alternative. Some voters will agree and support him with their vote. Howard Howard Dean captured the heart of the Democratic Party by suggesting that voters need to find candidates with ideals they can agree with, not just pragmatically follow pundits looking for winners. Numerous third-party candidates run in every election trying to appeal to principles underserved by major party candidates. Mainstream politicians generally do not attack them for being ‘egotistical’. If anything, they are criticized for being too idealistic. Nader deserves the same treatment, and the same opportunity to battle for supporters based on his ideas. Americans are smart enough to make good political decisions, and the idea that Nader shouldn’t run because his supporters might vote for him because they don’t ‘know what’s best’ is elitism at its crassest.
This week did not bring out the best in the Democratic camp. (However they still managed not to advocate a reprehensible Consitutional amendment dedicated to abridging Americans’ civil rights, which probably puts them ahead.) It will be instructive to see how long Nader stays in the race, and how he is treated by both sides.
February 29th, 2004 at 3:29 am
And the flurry of personal attacks directed at Nader that have come out in the past week reinforces two of the most negative stereotypes about American liberals: that they are elitists who think they know what is best for voters and that they save their most vicious attacks for those considered to be traitors to their cause.
I wasn’t aware that either of those stereotypes was restricted to liberals (except in conservative circles, of course). Both parties certainly try to paint the other as catering to elite interests that do not represent “average” people — the right casts the left as “intellectual elite”, and the left casts the right as “wealthy elite”. And sure, certainly both parties do a lot to reinforce their own perceived elitisms, though the reality is a lot more complex in both cases.
As for the other, I don’t know if that’s a stereotype so much as a well-established pattern of group psychology. Witness the treatment of David Kay by the White House and CIA, of France by the US during the prewar buildup, and so forth. With group identity of all types and at all scales comes the possibility of seeing someone as a “traitor,” which frequently leads to a particular vile kind of personal attack. Is that a stereotype or an empirical pattern?
February 29th, 2004 at 11:46 am
Okay, my attempt to express a complex idea in a single 57 word sentence did not serve me well. Let me try to elaborate a little.
I certainly agree that there are negative stereotypes about both sides of our spectrum, and that both of them face accusations of elitism. I also agree that certain actions help reinforce these stereotypes. However, I think that there is a difference between the types of elitism that conservatives and liberals are accused of. Conservatism elitism is generally characterized for a disregard for the well-being of others. Conservative elites do things like thoughtlessly eliminating entitlements and regulation, and cutting their friends taxes. Whereas liberal elitism is more characterized by doing things to help people, even if they arenÂ’t things that the people being helped want. Thus liberal elites believe that students are best off in public schools even if their parents want to send them elsewhere, and that labor unions should be able to make political contributions to causes that their members donÂ’t support if they are in the members best interests. Or in a more extreme example, European political elites are pushing an agenda for integration that most Europeans donÂ’t support. This isnÂ’t a comparison that I have totally thought through, so feel free to tell me IÂ’m off base.
The line about traitors should have been removed, as I removed its supporting paragraph. The idea was that liberals are known for attacking those who do not support their ideas but are still part of a natural constituency, as witnessed by the uniquely virulent personal attacks on Clarence Thomas and Miguel Estrada. I donÂ’t think that conservatives are known for this kind of attack, although that could be because they lack a natural constituency. It is certainly the case that this administration is particularly focused on loyalty. I didnÂ’t think they treated David Kay that badly, but I may not be informed (and he fell into line). But the treatment of Paul OÂ’Neill has been something else. Regardless, I think that Nader doesnÂ’t exactly fit into any of these examples. However, I do see a pattern of personal sniping that we donÂ’t witness when someone like Pat Buchanan runs for president. This is probably more tied to resentment over the last election than feelings of treachery, but it still doesnÂ’t inspire much respect.
One of the reasons I do such a poor job of keeping this website is that the things I want to write about are complex, so I want to spend a lot of time writing and revising, which makes it hard to get anything done. So when I finish something I try to convince myself not to revise it. Thus the writing is not as clear and focused as I would like, but at least something get published every two months or so. People who maintain articulate and regularly updated weblogs while keeping a job (e.g. Eugene Volokh) must be fast and disciplined writers.
February 29th, 2004 at 1:58 pm
I think that there is a difference between the types of elitism that conservatives and liberals are accused of. Conservatism elitism is generally characterized for a disregard for the well-being of others. … Whereas liberal elitism is more characterized by doing things to help people, even if they arenÂ’t things that the people being helped want.
Well, yes, I’m familiar with the stereotypes. But what I was getting at is that the attacks on Nader (whether right or not) are not completely due to liberals thinking they know what is best for others, just as, for example, tax cuts (whether right or not) are not completely due to conservatives looking out for number one.
Many conservatives, I think, honestly believe that tax cuts lead to widespread economic growth, and that such growth really benefits everyone more than government spending would. Now if you’re a liberal who refuses either or both of those premises, and can’t imagine that anyone else would honestly accept them, it does look as though the conservatives are Bad People who are out for themselves.
The reasoning goes like this: “I do not believe their stated reason. They are intelligent and rational people, therefore they must not believe their stated reason either. They must have another reason. The most comfortable explanation is that they fit the stereotype of being rich people who have no concern for others.”
The problem with the reasoning, of course, is that many people really do believe that tax cuts are a good way to help everyone.
Similarly, many liberals believe that Nader shares their political goals, and that his running hurts their achievement. If you refuse either or both of these premises, the parallel reasoning is tempting: “I don’t accept the liberals’ logic. Intelligent and rational liberals thus must not accept their own logic, and thus must have another reason. The most comfortable explanation is that they always think they know what’s best for other people, and in this case must think they know which choices they should have in a vote.”
The thing is, many liberals really do believe Ralph Nader shares their goals, and also believe that his running may cost them the election. Your arguments to the contrary do not necessarily have any bearing existing on the beliefs of others, and thus do not shed light on their motivations. The Nader-bashing only reinforces the elitism stereotype if you think that the bashers don’t actually believe what they say they believe.
I personally do not think that Nader actually shares the political goals of most liberals. But suppose for a moment that you are a liberal, and you think he (1) shares exactly your goals and (2) is dangerously undermining them by drawing attention to himself. If you actually believed these things — as many people honestly do — he would look quite egotistical, and it would have nothing to do with thinking you know what’s best for everyone else.
I donÂ’t think that conservatives are known for this kind of attack …
Oh, but I think just about everyone is, conservatives included, and it’s real, not a stereotype. That’s why I brought up David Kay.
I didnÂ’t think they treated David Kay that badly, but I may not be informed (and he fell into line)
He went through some really vile ad hominems, although it was only for a few days.
But the treatment of Paul OÂ’Neill has been something else.
Sure, much better example. Clarence Thomas was also an excellent example. And the reason I brought up France is that it’s the same pattern, but now with countries instead of parties: France “should have” been our ally, so by disagreeing with the war, they were traitors — there are still some disturbingly vicious attacks on the French circulating around, often from people who are normally uninterested in politics. Interesting.
Thus the writing is not as clear and focused as I would like….
Well, that’s why you have your friends to read your writing and poke back at it! It’s the “open text” model of argumentation. Don’t let me discourage you from posting.
Gads, that got long. Back to work.
March 1st, 2004 at 2:48 pm
I donÂ’t think that one becomes an elitist by being dishonest (and I do not know how we got on that line). Rather, being an elitist has to do with beliefs about whom should have the power to make decisions. It is the nature of politics that its participants have deep convictions about what policies would be best for the nation; we wouldnÂ’t want politicians any other way. That makes it appropriate for the Democrats to suggest that NaderÂ’s policies are either bad or just indistinct, and that people are best off supporting the Democratic nominee. However, there is a big difference between saying that voters should not support an opponent because their ideas are bad, and that my opponent should leave the race so no one has an opportunity to support him. The former indicates the conviction of oneÂ’s beliefs. The latter suggests that voters are best off with fewer choices, which shows little confidence in their decision making abilities. Whether truthful or not, this is an elitist position. Maybe most politicians feel this way about most of their opponents and just donÂ’t say so. Regardless, saying it publicly does not indicate faith in our political process.
I suppose this is a little simplistic. One of the premises of the party system is that a group of individuals is best served by disregarding their differences and uniting around a common candidate. And Paul is correct that if one believed that Nader was going to undermine his cause over minor differences, it would look pretty self-centered. This is reinforced emotionally by his connection to the 2000 election. But even if the convictions are genuine, it is still poor form to air it publicly. Many Democrats believe that KerryÂ’s opponents should have dropped out of the race by now to let him focus on getting read for the general election, but they have kept quiet about it.
Working on a Sunday? IÂ’m glad we could help you put that off for a while.
March 2nd, 2004 at 1:07 am
However, there is a big difference between saying that voters should not support an opponent because their ideas are bad, and that my opponent should leave the race so no one has an opportunity to support him. … The latter suggests that voters are best off with fewer choices, which shows little confidence in their decision making abilities.
I understand your argument, Aaron, which you stated perfectly well in the first post. I don’t think I’m stating mine as well. Let me try again. Consider the following statements:
(1) “I favor tax cuts because wealthy people work harder and deserve to keep their money.”
(2) “I favor tax cuts because I want more money.”
(3) “I favor tax cuts because they spur economic growth, which benefits everybody in the long term — a contention for which there solid evidence, both theoretical and empirical.”
(4) “I favor tax cuts.”
I claim:
(1) is an elitist position.
(2) is a selfish position.
(3) is a conscientious and possibly a scientific position which is neither elitist nor selfish.
(4), with no insight into the reasoning behind it, is a position that is not inherently conscientious, selfish, or elitist.
I think it would be fair to say that somebody who believes statement 1 is an elitist. I do not think this judgment would be fair at all of somebody who believes statement 3, as I would guess you do. Now a rather narrow-minded liberal might argue that you must believe either 1 or 2 if you put forward argument 3, and you are therefore elitist and/or selfish. They would be wrong. Even if they managed somehow to argue that statement 1 or 2 is a logical conclusion of statement 3, they would still be wrong. To argue that you are “elitist,” our hypothetical liberal would have to argue not just that 1 is a logical conclusion of 3, but that you actually believe it too.
“Elitism” is a judgment not just of a person’s position, but of the reasoning and/or motivation behind that position. Are we agreed on that?
Aaron, my objection to your argument is that you are transplanting your reasoning into the minds of other people, and judging their actions by it. Consider:
(5) “I do not want Nader to run, because people are better off with fewer choices” is most certainly an elitist argument.
(6) “I do not want Nader to run, because it would leave the candidate I favor fighting a battle on two fronts” is a pragmatic decision, and perhaps a selfish one, but I don’t think it’s elitist.
(7) “I do not want Nader to run, because in first-past-the-post elections, having more than two choices makes the election less accurately reflect the real preferences of society, which hurts everyone — a contention for which there solid evidence, both theoretical and empirical” is a conscientious and possibly a scientific position which is neither elitist nor selfish.
You are presuming that the statement “I do not want Nader to run” implies (5). And according to your reasoning, it does. Others (including myself) disagree. You may fault our reasoning — indeed, we may be completely wrong — but that does not fault our motivation. Even if you convince yourself that (5) is a logical conclusion of (6) and/or (7), you still cannot rightly conclude that others are “elitist”. To make that claim, you would either have to convince somebody else of your reasoning and yet see their position remain the same, or you would have to argue that they really think (5) without being willing to say it.
That is why I said in my earlier post that your argument does not reinforce the elitism stereotype unless you don’t think liberals believe what they say they believe.
To see what I’m harping on here, and why I take offense, put yourself in the tax cut position and imagine the parallel argument. I am … oh …. Michael Moore after a few too many coffees, and I say in my blog: “Favoring tax cuts is an elitist position, because it says that the poor do not deserve the help that the rich could easily provide them, which implies that rich people are better than poor people. Thus, by cutting taxes, conservatives once again reinforce the stereotype that they are wealthy elitists who are only out to benefit themselves.”
Would that be a fair argument?
Shorter next time, I promise. It’s just nice to be writing prose instead of code at the moment.
March 2nd, 2004 at 1:18 am
Addendum:
Regardless, saying it publicly does not indicate faith in our political process.
Agreed — certainly (7) does not. And (7) is, in fact, my own position: I do not like first-past-the-post elections, so I suppose I lack faith in that aspect of our political process. I don’t think that faith in a political process is a good thing; I prefer reasoned trust. But if Nader’s campaign is a protest against our election system, I do not agree with his method. I would not call him egotistical for that, though — merely unwise.
But even if the convictions are genuine, it is still poor form to air it publicly.
I disagree: constant criticism of the political process is essential, even during an election. It is only the vicious ad hominems that are “poor form,” and that they are indeed.
March 3rd, 2004 at 3:29 am
I tried to write something earlier on this which came out way too long, so letÂ’s see if I can keep this a little more restrained. One thing I did not realize until reading your last post is that we use the term elitism somewhat differently. I am using it to refer to a system which gives political power and decision making to a select group of citizens. By contrast, you discuss elitist policies as being those that benefit a small portion of society. Both of these are consistent with the dictionary definition of the word; yours is closer to definition 2a and mine to 2b. Yours is also close to how it might be applied to conservatives and mine is similarly geared towards liberals. Also, your proposition 1 qualifies as elitist under your definition but not mine, which explains some of our disagreement. There is another difference that lies at the root of our disagreement. Because your form of elitism is a measure of motivation, it is internal to an individualÂ’s decision making process. Whereas I am concerned about elitism as an outcome where individualsÂ’ preferences are ignored based on the beliefs of a minority. What this means is that my kind of elitism allows for statements and systems to be prima facie elitist. For example, before the widespread use of Presidential primaries the presidential candidates were chosen in smoky rooms by the senior members of political parties, without an accounting for who the rank-and-file would like to nominate. Regardless of the views of the nominators, the system is elitist. Which is why we have butted heads about whether accusations of elitism reflect oneÂ’s intentions.
You suggest a number of reasons that a Democrat might not want Nader to run, including a realpolitk belief that it will hurt their candidate and a belief that our system simply works worse when third-party candidates participate. These all seem to be valid intellectual propositions. In fact, most politicians would doubtless be thrilled if their opponents abandoned the field and let them govern in a manner they consider appropriate. But there is an essential tension here. Politicians are supposed to both advocate the policies they believe to be right, and they are supposed to zealously represent voter’s preferences as expressed through elections. If a politician is so convinced of the correctness of their ideas that they don’t want to face political opposition, then that indicates a belief that they know more about what is right than voters do. If a politician slavishly devotes themselves to mirroring voters’ preferences, then they fail to muster the leadership and integrity we expect from them. So we expect politicians to have deeply held beliefs about policy and to relish having them checked by elections. When I speak of a ‘respect for the political process’, I am talking about a belief that they are better off for having been tested in an open election. Maybe most politicians privately lack respect for the political process. I like to think not, but I could be wrong. However, politicians rarely simply brazenly suggest that it is stupid and pointless to oppose them. This certainly comes across as elitist; and not without good reason.
Nader believes that there are things he can achieve with enough Presidential votes which are vastly more important than which major party wins this election. Most voters will not agree with him. I think that most Democrats calling for him not to run fall into your sixth proposition, they believe that this would place an undue burden one the Kerry campaign. This prompts statements that ‘the only reason he’s running is either he’s an egomaniac or as a Bush contractÂ’. Believing that his candidacy is bad for your candidate is not an elitist position (although I do not think they are correct). But making the inference that he should not run and is an egotist for doing involves believing both that he is wrong in thinking that his candidacy can make the world better, and that it is more important to win than for voters to have a say in this area. That is the point at which I think their statements cross the line. I donÂ’t think that Republicans welcomed the Buchanan and Perot campaigns, but they also didnÂ’t try to force them out (as far as I know).
You also suggest that Nader’s effect in this election actually distorts the outcome. I am skeptical of this, seeing as third-party candidates can shape an election without winning it, and voters who support him know the ‘rules of the game’ and understand what they get and give up by supporting him. Nevertheless, many Democrats may share your view that our system simply isn’t set up for third parties, and they inevitably end up hurting the side they are trying to help. If so, they could stand to express themselves less selectively and more articulately, or for that matter try to change the system. But I suppose if one really believes that the system is rigged so that from the start voters are incapable of effectively supporting a third-party candidate, then asking him to leave is not abridging the voters of anything, so it would not qualify as an elitist act.
Lastly, you suggest that perhaps our political process is flawed, and not deserving of our faith. It may be the case that there are adjustments which need to be made to the system, which can be discussed on their own merits. But it remains the case that any time a party or candidate is a participant in an election; we expect them to believe that the process is a meaningful (if not perfect) representation of votersÂ’ views which should be respected. And this belief is betrayed by attempts to limit the choices that voters are provided in the rules of the election. Obviously it is appropriate to suggest ways to fix the system, and that can be part of a discussion in an election. But this is not the position of the Democratic leadership. They arenÂ’t concerned about any distortion of preferences except the one that might keep them from winning.
Your closing thought is that criticism of the process is appropriate, where vicious ad hominems are not. I would agree with that, but I would consider process criticisms to be aimed at the process holistically, not at a single candidate in it. But I hear plenty of the other, which is what ticket me off in the first place.
Too late, this wonÂ’t be proofread, so count the embarrassing errors.