I respect enormously where he’s coming from, but he refuses to acknowledge the very simple fact that spoilers do occur, and in close-run races, they can change the outcome for the worse. He says the Democrats didn’t understand the winner-takes-all Electoral College in 2000, while he himself dismisses his own part in that. Yes, ideally, Democrats would have played a better game and won by a larger margin and the spoiler wouldn’t have mattered. But they didn’t, and I think every factor that lead to Gore’s loss should be looked at and criticised, including Nader’s run.
The first and most important change that could be made in America is moving to a real voting system. First Past the Post is a sham. It isn’t democracy. Whether the move is to IRV or MMP or STV or whatever almost doesn’t matter. Just move to something real. Eliminate the spoiler effect, and then you can begin to see real meaningful policy change.
He’s not refusing to acknowledge spoilers exist, he’s saying that the whole premise is that they are voters who would be voting for the larger party if their policy positions were adopted or engaged with by the party they’re “spoiling”, and yet when the e.g. Democratic Party just refuses to engage with any policy changes and thusly doesn’t gain those voters who were available to them, they turn around and blame the voters, when it was literally a choice they made to decline engaging with their positions. He is pointing out that it is the party choosing to stick with their corporate-backed positions over gaining voters (i.e. over winning).
They either don’t understand, or actively refuse to engage with, coalition-building.
I was a little kid in 2000; all I knew about him was that he was a presidential candidate who wasn’t gonna win. This interview opened my eyes up to who he actually is, what he did for America, and just how similar my views on politics in America are to his. I’m glad I don’t see him as just a punchline anymore.
Also, he was kinda daddy when he was younger.
In much of what he said, he’s not wrong.
I feel that until the republic is actively dying (successful coup, turning military against own citizens, etc), Americans will sit idly by and armchair-criticize what they perceive as “the other side.”
And while the media is certainly at fault for so very much, along with money in politics (Citizens United decision, lobbying, etc), fundamentally the blame really rests on us American citizens for becoming, on the whole, so uneducated, so apathetic, and so accepting of the us vs. them mentality that it will require some kind of revolution to shake things up.
My only hope is that I’m either dead before that happens, or that it’s not the Trump fascists (or any fascists) who succeed in the revolution they have already attempted once.
The idea behind third parties in the 19th century was you push one of the two parties—or maybe both parties—and they eventually adopt what you’re pushing. And I learned that wasn’t possible. The Democrats would respond not by moving in the direction of working for the people. They responded by scapegoating their losses onto the Green Party.
They’re great scapegoaters—they never look at themselves in the mirror.
I want to ask about 2024. It seems that the rhetoric of the “lesser of two evils” is especially heightened—
Wait a minute. It’s the wrong question. It’s the wrong question. The first question is: Why isn’t the Democratic Party and Biden 20 points ahead of a chronic liar, thief, crook, narcissist, smearer, slanderer, ignorant, stupid Trump and his followers? That’s the question. You don’t take the dereliction of the party knuckling under their corporate political media people and start there. You start with: Why aren’t they landsliding him?
You got to start digging deep, Jacob—you got to dig deep into the malaise, the surrender, the low expectation level, the narcissism, the smugness of our side. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves. We have the most powerful arguments in American history, against the worst tyrants and corporate indentured servants in American history.
Damn, this is what establishment politics robs us of; intelligent, coherent, pro-labor candidates.
I went on a whim to hear him speak back in 2008 and was so impressed ended up voting for him.
Granted, this was in Vermont, so it was already 100% clear that Obama was going to win the state.
An important point:
"The higher level is: What do we do with these big corporations? One is we’ve got to subordinate them constitutionally. So corporations should never have equal rights with real people. Now they’re connecting with AI. You want a deadly cocktail? Connect artificial persons called corporations with AI.
Founders intent was for corporations to be temporary
https://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/We have a system designed for 1% of the present population
We have a system designed for information moving at the speed of horse
Founders intent was a representative for 30,000 citizens, presently a representative for 700,000 citizens
We have a system that is completely over whelmed by the number & complexity of decisions to be made
We need more channels for informed feedback
Having a meaningful political opinion hasI lived in California in 2000 & voted for Ralph, knowing Gore had Cali in the bag
