Hacker News Reader

Comment by mindslight | Hacker News Reader

Yes, it was totally Nader and Nader voters that caused the invasion of Iraq, not the 50 million people who voted for Bush, nor the hordes of people who cheered on going to war, nor the butthurt NYPD that suppressed protests (only mentioned due to personal experience), nor the mass media that started fanning the flames and beating the drums before the dust had even settled.

Let us remember, Bush II ran on a platform of no nation building. Then an opportune event happened that made it time to perform some already-planned nation building. Why are we so sure Gore would not have approved the same invasion?

The protest vote is called so for a reason. This system takes your dissent and converts it to support by frightening you with a scarier bogeyman. I would respect its elegance if we weren't all trapped in it.

View on HN

This argument might make you feel better, and it sure sounds sympathetic, but it doesn't change the fact that Nader's hopeless campaign gave the election to Bush. It's not as if the concept of spoiler candidates is new to US politics; it's how we got Clinton, the President in office at when Nader ran!

I feel fine with my decision and would do the same thing again. In fact, I voted third party in 2k4 as well.

The thing is, I don't really care that Bush II won. In fact I miss those days when most of my peers were anti-government since their team hadn't won.

I am not particularly interested in what flavor of shit I will be forced to eat, and I won't legitimize the process by asking for the one that seems less foul.

I don't blame you. There was no reason for you to know any better. I blame Nader.

I could say the exact same thing about my younger self with respect to having voted at all.

The argument that a vote for nader is a vote for bush is flawed. The basic premise of voting is that you vote to support a candidate and or a set of ideas you align with. Its a step better than voting "none of the above" as it provides an idea of what you would prefer.

The concept of voting for the "lesser of two evils" just further perpetuates the mess that we find ourselves in today.

Ideologically, from a single voter's perspective, you're right. But practically, and looking at the entire population, it's not. The first past the post voting system we use will always result in two prominent parties, and the spoiler effect certainly exists.

I've always found this video a good explanation of the problems of our voting system https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

That's a rather intriguing causal chain of responsibility, though. You didn't say that Nader was a potential chain reaction for the election of Bush leading up to Iraq. No. You quite clearly said he was the reason for Iraq, and that is nothing but frothing lunacy. What kind of perverse ethics could lead to anyone but the actor who affirmed invasion (Bush) bearing responsibility for it? Or, to paraphrase from a scene in Kieslowski's film Przypadek, is someone who bumps into a person causing them to miss a train, leading them to encounter an old acquaintance, reuniting, becoming a doctor and taking the place of a colleague to deliver a lecture in another country, only to die in a plane crash - is the one who bumped him responsible for the doctor then dying in the crash? Preposterous.

I'm going to assume, I think safely, that a response that characterizes my comment as "frothing lunacy" is not one asking for further discussion with me.

Not necessarily, it's just a dramatic expression of bewilderment. Besides the whole issue of whether Nader being a spoiler and costing Gore the election as a result is even factual [1][2] (or just another intriguing but ill-supported legend like that of the disparate perceptions of Nixon/JFK on TV and on radio), there is the problem of whether blaming the person subject to an inefficiency in FPTP is overly disproportionate relatively to blaming the FPTP inefficiency itself, or the person actually responsible for the military intervention. Blaming the spoiler strikes me as a compositional fallacy at best, ethically repugnant at worse. Hell, we could even make the case that the spoiler is a victim.

[1] http://prorev.com/green2000.htm

[2] http://politizine.blogspot.com/2004/02/debunking-myth-ralph-...

This is another example of an exculpatory analysis for Nader trying to convince readers that many of his voters would have broken for Bush instead of Gore if he had dropped out. Like Wikipedia, it points out that Floridian Democrats voted in anomalous numbers for Bush, implying that Floridian Naderites were the same --- which of course they were not.

You do realize that if Nader dropped out, "his" voters could have voted for another third party, a write-in, or even simply not voted, right?

Sure they could have. But statistically, we know that they wouldn't. They'd have handed the election to Gore. Nader's core supporters are liberal, and Bush was decidedly not that.

Since you really insist on analyzing things in a two party framework -

It seems then that the democrats simply overplayed their hand from 1992-2000. They were too brazenly incongruent with their grassroots support, causing their constituents to cry uncle and look elsewhere. Getting the people to line up for what their sponsors have bought is the fundamental game, and they failed.

So in effect, Bush's invasion of Iraq was actually set in motion by Clinton. I mean, in addition to that actual bombing he authorized.

I do not understand this argument at all. Clinton would not have invaded Iraq. Neither would Gore. To get an invasion of Iraq, you need to put Bush in the White House.

You misunderstand my above comment. I'm saying that by your reasoning with Nader, we can also say that Clinton caused Bush's actual invasion.

The Democratic Party and the Republican Party each must maintain two different facets - the values they preach to their grassroots support (for votes), and the policies that their sponsors purchase (for money to run campaigns).

Clinton failed to sell his actions to traditionally democratic voters, causing them to look elsewhere instead of falling into line and voting for Gore.

We're sure Gore wouldn't have "approved the same invasion" because...

Wait. Were you even fucking AROUND in 2002? W didn't just "approve" the invasion. Are you aware of recent history?

Let me fill you in. Gore wouldn't have "approved" of invading Iraq because his entire fucking administration would not have been packed with Nixon-era holdovers who were criminally obsessed with re-invading Iraq. This isn't complex or controversial. There is no fucking chance that Gore would have invaded Iraq.

Sure, Bush II's administration was packed with such people. But it's a stretch to say the inverse would have been true for Gore, especially since he never named a cabinet. National policy had been decided some time before that - remember Clinton bombing etc? Your referenced gang of holdovers shows exactly how that works.

It's not a stretch to say that Gore would not have filled his cabinet with Neoconservatives. He would not have.

Only Neoconservatives can invade Iraq?

The democratic party is traditionally better at selling domestic totalitarianism, but what exactly would be the point of letting an opportunity such as 11SEP2001 pass them by? I don't think the democratic sponsorship had a different country lined up to attack, and going after Iraq was already on the agenda, so they would have been beating those exact same war drums. There would probably have been more sustained bombing and less ground forces, but I'd call that a flavor.

No, only Neocons would have invaded Iraq. They're called "Neocons" because they break from the Baker/Scowcroft isolationist foreign policy that was mainstream in conservatism at the time. The "neo" part is almost literally "new willingness to send ground troops".

I'll concede the point since "invasion" implies the large ground force and land occupation, and democrats seem to favor death from above. I do think that Iraq would still have been invaded sometime, given that repaving the country was on the bipartisan national agenda. Those rats in W's cabinet would have been waiting in the wings for 4 more years.

Fundamentally I'm not going to support terrible event A in an attempt to stop terrible event B from happening, especially when there is a large contingent of people with different priorities doing the reverse. That's a setup for manufacturing popular support for a lot of terrible events.

Also is predicated on the notion that Nader voters would have went for Gore. That's hilarious. Do these people actually know true leftists? I bet he even thinks if Sanders doesn't win (likely) that we would vote for Hillary.

Never going to happen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com