Election 2004: The Nation joins the Democratic Party sycophants and tells people to shun Nader’s campaign. Everyone knew his campaign wouldn’t get the votes he got in 2000 and would likely be a non-entity insofar as being an effective so-called “spoiler” (even without getting into the prejudice of the term “spoiler”). But many billable hours were spent trying to keep Nader off the ballot even in gerrymandered states that would have gone Democrat no matter what (like Illinois).
Now: The Nation is telling us curious things like:
“Perhaps being shamed publicly, and being pressured by the grassroots, will help Congressional Democrats get their act together. Toward that end, we’ve initiated a biweekly “Minority/Majority” feature that identifies—by name—Democrats who give succor to the GOP. (It also praises those who’ve helped the cause of Democrats becoming the majority party again.) If Democrats don’t define themselves as an effective opposition soon, they could end up being an ineffective one for a long time to come.”
Perhaps being shamed publicly about their lack of support for genuinely progressive candidates will get the Nation to support such candidates when they run. If Democrats can be “ineffective [...] for a long time to come” something is wrong with the system. They shouldn’t have so much power that they can stick around for “a long time” and remain “ineffective” yet stop other candidates with far more impressive public service records from being heard.
