Nader wants the most Progressive on the left, who barely tolerate Democrats, to join Libertarians?

[stevenleser]

Last edited Thu May 1, 2014, 11:14 AM - Edit history (1)

As most of you know, I am around conservatives and right wingers a lot and the Libertarian ones among them are always asking me on and off the air whether I think there is a chance that progressives would vote for Rand Paul and support Libertarians in general.

I always give the same answer.

"You guys understand that many of these folks are routinely, almost continuously, upset at Democrats because they insist on Left-Progressive orthodoxy on a wide range of issues despite the fact that in my opinion, across the board the distances between mainstream Democratic thinking and Progressive orthodoxy are not particularly far. They routinely hammer Democrats each and every time they feel that distance is too great. You're not going to appeal to them by being fairly close to them on two or three issues, and light year distances away on the other 70. The first time one of those issues comes up where there are light year distances, they are going to run, not walk away from any proposed coalition, assuming you get any significant progressive group to begin to listen to you at all in the first place."

Now, I realize that despite the above missive, there are 1-3 progressive groups that might be tempted to explore this. Code Pink comes to mind and one or two progressive groups specifically aimed at marijuana/drug legalization are the other. But in the end, I think the leadership of those groups would be smart enough to understand that cozying up to the Libertarian right is a sure way to completely destroy their support in the progressive community and leave them with what? Support from Libertarians that would be tenuous at best anyway?

Not going to happen.

On Edit: Here is a video which seems really bizarre. As if Libertarians will try to raise the minimum wage or pass federal laws to regulate and reign in corporations. Will not happen.

[onehandle]

1. Nader needs to retire his mouth. nt

[stevenleser]

2. I'm really surprised at this one. Libertarians are corporatists pure and simple. You would think

given everything Nader has said in the past that the last folks with whom he would suggest a coalition would be folks that are 100% pro-corporate.

[DrewFlorida]

102. 100% right on! Libertarians are corporatists, and Ralph Nadar is a shadow of his former self.

Ralph Nadar is the reason George Bush was elected twice, his candidacy was partially funded by GOP donations, and the small percentage of votes he stole, all came from the democratic side. As far as I'm concerned Ralph Nadar is a sellout.

[BlueStreak]

3. It is inaccurate to call Nader a libertarian

I can't think of any major cause he has advocated that is remotely close to the libertarian sphere, if that means people who are essentially anti-government, leave-me-alone types.

[stevenleser]

13. I never called him a libertarian. nt

[NobodyHere]

60. He advocates many things that are in the libertarian sphere

Legalized drugs, anti government spying etc...

[pnwmom]

70. And yet the irony is he's suggesting that Libertarians should join together with progressives

and that Rand Paul could be the standard bearer.

Or, as an alternative, he's made a list of twenty billionaires that he thinks would help break the two party system because, you know, billionaires will be so helpful in reducing corporate power.

[BlueStreak]

85. He isn't promoting Rand Paul

He is promoting the idea that if you can find any common ground with followers of Paul, many of whom have the same concerns about the viability of our democracy that progressives have, then a significant political change is possible. And his thesis has always been that no political change is possible with what he refers to as the "Twiddledee, Twiddledum" two party system. Given what we have seen with Obama, I don't see how anybody could possibly dispute Nader's argument and the preservation of status quo that happens when it is all left to the two entrenched parties.

[pnwmom]

86. Tweedledee and Tweedledum -- right, like Al Gore and George Bush.

No difference between those two -- that's what Nader insisted in 2000.

Despite what you say, he does see Rand Paul as the potential leader of a libertarian/progressive coalition. But he's also promoting billionaire hedge fund founders and leveraged buyout firm founders. His progressive mask has fallen off completely.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/02/24/oprah-for-president-nader-seeks-modestly-enlightened-billionaire-to-run/

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/ralph-naders-america-impeach-obama-decriminalize-drugs-libertarians-progressives-unite-110418813.html

But Nader qualified that the success of his envisioned left-right alliance is dependent on strong leaders. He said Sen. Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, has the potential to be a leader for the alliance, but added that he thinks the Kentucky Republican has certain shortcomings as a leader.

“He’s a mixed bag, you know, he's evolving. He's broadening his issues that he's talking about and they’re beginning to resonate,” Nader said. “On the other hand … he has problems dealing with people.”

[BlueStreak]

87. There are stylistic differences between individuals, and a few substantive differences

but it is absurd at this point to argue that the system is not rigged to preserve the status quo for the oligarchs.

If you are talking about good intentions, I am with you. If you are talking about actual results, not so much. I will simply note that not a single 2008 bankster has been prosecuted. Gitmo is still in business. The insurance companies and Big Pharma are still in charge of our HC system, and the we are nowhere on climate change.

I will stipulate that we would probably be even worse off with President Romney, but really, how different could it be?

What Nader is talking about is what would be necessary in order to assemble a coalition strong enough to actually turn back the oligarchs. I am not saying his prescription will work, but I don't think any of us should be very satisfied with the Obama years, no matter how much we admire President Obama's efforts.

[Major Nikon]

4. Fuck Ralph Nader

...and the Corvair he rode in on.

[pscot]

9. Spoken llike a man

who never owned a Corvair.

[Major Nikon]

25. Even if I had I don't put much stock in anecdotal evidence

YMMV. But if such things mean anything to you I had an uncle who owned a Corvair for some 40 years and loved it. I'm sure it's still on the road today.

http://www.corvaircorsa.com/handling01.html

[pscot]

64. I owned one

The windows fell down when you slammed the doors. Which was OK, because the ventilation was needed to keep the exhaust fumes from killing me. Great sheet metal though. nobody bent iron like GM back in the day. Nader was a public benefactor.

[Major Nikon]

75. Nader made none of those claims

Just sayin'

[aquart]

77. Yes. He was. And I'm as grateful as you are for that.

But politics ain't the same as manufacturing.

[pscot]

80. It's true that he's a bit mad now

And he was wrong in 2000. It turned out there really was a difference between Bush and Gore. I still can't hate the guy, the way some around here do. He's been out there alone for a long time.

[woo me with science]

5. Best post on this I have seen, by DUer DirkGently.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4890996

... There's no danger in finding points of agreement.

That is a specious proposal, like blackballing playwrights for being Commie sympathizers.

"Look out! That person's dogma is unclean!"

Bullshit.

No one is an ideological robot with secret programming you can uncover. And no ideology is 100% clear or consistent across the board.

So the whole game of shooting something down because a Paul family member agrees with it, on the theory that the Paul family has a lot of stupid ideas, or the mangled vision of Libertarianism some people claim to embrace is terrible, is a disingenuous premise from the beginning.

There are Republicans that are occasionally right about something across ideological lines. There are Democrats who are wrong.

No one's magically correct or incorrect because of the supposed point of view they may or may not fully embrace, which people may or may not even agree upon in the first place.

This has been applied in a particularly putrid way with the Snowden / NSA battles here on DU, and I notice the cross-posted material goes out of its way to bring that up.

The only thing that makes sense is to discuss the viability of ideas and policy on their own. No one is the Keeper of the True Faith. No one is an apostate or heretic.

No one is wrong about one thing because they're wrong about something else.

Sorry, Rand and Ron can be racists, and free-market morons, and crypto-anti-reproductive rights-ians, and still be right that the NSA overstepped its bounds or that the U.S. should stay of out needless wars in the Middle East. No one has to embrace the rest of their bullshit to clock them or anyone else being right about something.

If you don't acknowledge that, you're just asking people to engage in mindless partisan head-butting until the the end of time. We'd be stuck agreeing with every Democrat who's wrong and fighting everyone else, no matter what.

[ProSense]

6. "There's no danger in finding points of agreement.

There's no danger in finding points of agreement.

<...>

Sorry, Rand and Ron can be racists, and free-market morons, and crypto-anti-reproductive rights-ians, and still be right that the NSA overstepped its bounds or that the U.S. should stay of out needless wars in the Middle East. No one has to embrace the rest of their bullshit to clock them or anyone else being right about something.

This is not about simply agreeing on an issue or point. I mean, there are bills cosponsored by Democrats and Republicans everyday in Congress.

You can see Elizabeth Warren (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024877747) talk about her bill to reinstate Glass-Steagall, which is co-sponsored by McCain. That is not the issue.

It's about selling people on the idea that progressives should form an alliance with libertarians. How does one form an alliance with a bunch of frauds? Look at the poster's description of Rand Paul? By implication, this is advocating that it's OK to find points of agreement with the Kochs. People who can be labeled "racists, and free-market morons, and crypto-anti-reproductive rights-ians" are not to be trusted.

"Stand with Rand"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022742805

Fuck no!

[pscot]

10. But an alliance with Billy Tauzin

and big pharma is hunky dory?

[ProSense]

22. WTH are you talking about?

"But an alliance with Billy Tauzin and big pharma is hunky dory?"

The President's efforts to pass health care reform were successful, and those who opposed those efforts are a still hanging onto four-year-old spin. Libertarians are working to deny people health care.

The ACA increased the Medicaid rebate percentage.
http://www.medicaid.gov/AffordableCareAct/Timeline/Timeline.html

Issue Brief - Medicare Drug Negotiation and Rebates

<...>

Best Price. A third argument is that it makes sense for Medicare to receive the best price available for prescription drugs, just like Medicaid and the VA. In Medicaid, the drug manufacturer provides the federal government discounts for drugs, which are shared with the states. The discount is either the minimum drug amount or an amount based on the best price paid by private drug purchasers, whichever is less. Current law requires drug companies to charge Medicaid 23 percent less than the average price they receive for the sale of a drug to retail pharmacies. Drug companies also must provide another discount if a drug’s price rises faster than the rate of inflation (Thomas and Pear, 2013)...Medicaid rebates, if applied to Part D, would save the federal government money. According to a 2011 study conducted by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Medicaid rebates were three times greater than the discounts negotiated by Part D for 100 brand name drugs. In 68 of these drugs, Medicaid rebates were twice as high as rebates granted by the drug companies for Medicare drugs (OIG HHS, 2011; Hulsey, 2013). Similarly, a 2008 study of drug pricing information by the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform found that Part D paid, on average, 30 percent more for drugs than Medicaid (Hulsey, 2013).

- more -

http://www.ncpssm.org/PublicPolicy/Medicare/Documents/ArticleID/1138/Issue-Brief-Medicare-Drug-Negotiation-and-Rebates

The President has proposed the same rate for Medicare (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022670043 ), which would save even more than the Senate proposal (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022725266), $164 billion to $141 billion, respectively.

Also: Fuck Nader.

[pscot]

12. Pearls before swine..

[1StrongBlackMan]

14. I largely agree with this ...

Sorry, Rand and Ron can be racists, and free-market morons, and crypto-anti-reproductive rights-ians, and still be right that the NSA overstepped its bounds or that the U.S. should stay of out needless wars in the Middle East. No one has to embrace the rest of their bullshit to clock them or anyone else being right about something.

But the question is whether NSA overstep and/or U.S. involvement in needless wars in the Middle East (or elsewhere), is enough to overcome Rand and Ron being racists, and free-market morons, and crypto-anti-reproductive rights-ians?

IOWs, is NSA overstep and/or U.S. involvement in needless wars in the Middle East (or elsewhere) enough to prompt the progressive left to join with Ron/Rand's brand of "libertarianism"?

[stevenleser]

17. Nader is proposing a broad Libertarian-Progressive coalition

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/ralph-naders-america-impeach-obama-decriminalize-drugs-libertarians-progressives-unite-110418813.html

What is even more bizarre is he somehow believes this coalition will "dismantle the corporate state" i.e. the title of his new book “Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State”

If you know/understand anything about Libertarians, you know they intend to remove any regulations or restrictions at all on corporations.

[KoKo]

31. What can we Democrats do to reign in Corporations and Wall Street to thwart the libertarians?

Perhaps that's part of a discussion we should be having.

[stevenleser]

48. The two things I would recommend would be

#1 - Fight for a Constitutional amendment to ban all campaign contributions and political spending by companies and entities (only individuals can contribute) and reduce the maximum individual contribution any individual can make to any candidate to a maximum of $1.

#2 - Increase the capital gains tax so that the investor class pays at least an effective tax rate equal to the highest tax bracket.

[Lasher]

90. Capital gains and dividend tax.

If you don't include dividends in such reform, the investor class would just switch to equities that convert their gains into high dividend payouts. Otherwise that's a great idea. All investment income should be taxed the same as earned income.

[stevenleser]

91. I agree and usually lump them together.

[Lasher]

92. I figured you were using shorthand, nothing wrong with that.

But there are spectators who want to learn.

[pnwmom]

71. Nader has another brilliant solution to that: get a billionaire to run.

Because a billionaire will really help rein in the corporations.

[BlueStreak]

56. I think you miss the point of his thesis

His book is about the fact that the oligarchs always use the divide-and-conquer strategy. In the case of progressives vis-a-vis libertarians, the PERCEIVED gap is huge, but in fact, we ought to agree strongly on many things, such as tax fairness and the idea the corporate welfare is killing our economy and hopes to maintain a viable middle class.

His main thesis is that we should reach out to others who are artificially distant from us because of the persistent efforts of the oligarchs to create that separation.

Will libertarians ever support a strong minimum wage? Maybe not. But they may support rolling back the military industrial complex. They may support reining in the corrosive effects of money in our political system. They may support eliminating some of the loopholes that allow the mega-rich to became even more rich every year.

[stevenleser]

57. No, I didn't. I know where the potential areas for agreement are.

And by the way, I disagree that they "may support reining in the corrosive effects of money in our political system". They believe money is speech. And as far as eliminating some of the loopholes, whatever loopholes they might be in favor of would be more than offset by removal of regulations and the lowering of taxes on the wealthy.

They are the ultimate supply-siders and Laissez-fairists. You should not have any illusions about what that means for income inequality.

[BlueStreak]

84. "They" is a big word

Nader's book is intended to try to get "them" to think whether their interests are being served by allowing themselves to be led around by the corporatists. There is certainly a fair question whether or not Nader will change any minds, but I don't think we should misrepresent his premise.

[winter is coming]

97. I've seen zero indication that Progressives are interested.

Looks like Nader is trying to sell a book and centrists are trying to beat progressives up with Nader's bullshit. I'm not interested in buying either, thanks.

[stevenleser]

110. See #'s 104 and 106 below. Clearly some progressives are giving it serious thought. nt

[winter is coming]

114. Neither of those posts indicate that a progressive is thinking of voting for Paul,

or any other Libertarian candidate. There's a enormous difference between "happen to have similar positions on some issues" and "willing to vote for".

[Ratty]

53. What Mr Gently doesn't address

Of course he's technically right: an idea, taken by itself, is good or bad regardless of who espouses it. But there is a danger of the strings that are almost always attached. Against federal drug laws, fine. The Libertarian attaches the whole "state's rights" string to that which opens a whole nother can of worms. Against foreign wars stems from isolationism. Reducing the national debt stems from reducing the federal government. You support a Libertarian who holds these views, you invariably support those pesky strings they always attach.

"No one is wrong about one thing because they're wrong about something else." I would disagree with this statement. If you think we should work to reduce the national debt by eliminating the Depts. of Energy and Education then, yes, your idea is wrong. If you think federal drug laws should be eliminated because states should have the right to decide that, and civil rights laws, and anti-miscegenation laws and institute forced christian prayer in their public schools, then yes, your idea is wrong.

But my biggest gripe with the argument you reposted is the same one I have whenever someone posts those "broken clock" arguments: Why have anything at all to do with a reprehensible and immoral philosophy when there are already so many progressive politicians you could be supporting? Really, Libertarians are the only ones who support a sane drug policy? Nobody else works to end unnecessary war? There aren't any democrats who support reducing the national debt?

[stevenleser]

111. And thats the few areas where there is seemingly some agreement between the philosophies

That's as good as it gets. It goes downhill from there.

Well put.

[zeemike]

55. It is all about keeping us divided.

thus you need to keep it up...if they are wrong about one thing they are wrong about it all and not like us.
And they have us attacking our friends like Nader and anyone that they can call a libertarian suporter....makeing us a smaller and smaller tent. While the GOP will never criticize even the most radical of their supporters.

[woo me with science]

67. +1000000 You nailed it.

It's no accident that these bids for partisan division and the Two Minutes Hate nearly always come from the reliable defenders of corporate policies and politicians.

The corporate/predatory agenda DEPENDS on this sort of divisive propaganda and loyalty to parties rather than principles in order to survive. When you are implementing predatory policies against the will of MOST of the people, it becomes critical to make sure they hate one another enough to never be able to unite against what you are doing to them.

Thanks for that post. You captured the real reason for this garbage in a nutshell.

[winter is coming]

118. Beautifully stated. That should be its own OP. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

7. Great response ...

and, I believe, an accurate assessment.

However, judging from the comments here at DU, there seems to be quite a few, "non-progressive group" affiliates (of the groups that you mention), for whom Rand Paul's anti-NSA, anti-government intervention on "personal liberties" (whether real or imagined, e.g., "the government could/might/is gonna/will ...&quot message seems to hold appeal, as the most important issues of our time.

And I don't think the groups that you mention much care about their support/standing in the progressive community, as any push back will just be seen as evidence of insufficient progressivism.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

8. What did I miss? Where is this supposition coming from?

You aren't linking to anything elsewhere, so is Nader actually saying this, or is it simply your interpretation of something he or someone else said?

If libertarians want to support the left on anything, I'll welcome them aboard to support it. That doesn't mean I'll 'join' them in any of their beliefs, simply that in some tiny, specific ways, we might overlap, and I'd be happy enough if they put their money and votes behind whatever it is, and pressure their typically rw nutjob elected officials to vote with lefties on whatever it is.

[stevenleser]

11. Nader said all that and more in an interview concerning a book he has coming out

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/ralph-naders-america-impeach-obama-decriminalize-drugs-libertarians-progressives-unite-110418813.html

He calls for a Progressive-Libertarian coalition.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

16. Thanks for the link.

You might want to add it to the OP so people know where you're coming from.

[stevenleser]

19. It's been the big topic on DU for the last 48 hours so I thought everyone had seen it.

I'll see if I can find an even better link and put in the OP.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

21. Heh, I've been under a rock, I guess.

Busy in the meat world.

[stevenleser]

27. I put a video up of Nader on Democracy Now where he explains it.

Right off the bat, I can't believe he thinks Libertarians would support a minimum wage increase. They do not believe a minimum wage should exist AT ALL.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

30. Doesn't sound like he actually even understands what a libertarian is.

Or where they come from, philosophically.

[stevenleser]

37. I saw things like this from some Progressives when the Tea Party started in 2009 and also in 2007

During Ron Paul's candidacy that election year. There is a recurring fascination with the idea of a coalition grass roots movement between Libertarians and progressives, the problem is, when you get down to the nitty gritty, there isnt much agreement.

Here is a diary I posted on OpEdNews in 2007 when Paulites were trying to get Progressives to support Ron Paul's candidacy in 2008. http://www.opednews.com/Diary/Ron-Paul-Supporters-need-t-by-Steven-Leser-071118-746.html?show=votes#allcomments

And if you remember, the Tea Party was also trying to get progressive supporters in 2009-2010. This is a recurring issue that really is one sided. Libertarians want Progressives to vote for their guy(s) but they have no intention of moving in the direction of Progressives on any issue. Whatever minor agreements exist are the only things that Progressives would get from such a coalition.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

38. Oh I wouldn't agree to voting for any CANDIDATE.

But I would be willing to join up in pushing a single bill or issue if it was one I agree on.

I sure as hell wouldn't vote for that fool Paul (either one, actually) for anything, not even dog catcher.

[stevenleser]

42. Well, as ProSense notes upthread, that happens now.

Elizabeth Warren is teaming up with John McCain to try to re-enact Glass-Steagall. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024877747

Brief elected official and grass roots coalitions around the passage of or opposition to one or two issues are not unusual.

That doesnt seem to be what Nader is talking about. He seems to be talking about establishing an ongoing coalition where progressives vote for Libertarians or Libertarian leaning Republicans and he hopes some of the reverse happens, which it won't.

[1StrongBlackMan]

20. The danger is ...

The Ron/Rand brand of Libertarians wouldn't be joining with or supporting you ... because of their single-mindedness of message and "organization", they would quickly dominate any coalition with the scattered progressive-Left; just like they did with the gop.

[stevenleser]

24. Correct. Libertarians would have Tea Party support and the support of Large corporate donors.

If Progressives are unhappy with the attention and support they get from Democrats, wait until they see what happens if they join a Libertarian coalition. They would be completely drowned out and shunted aside except for those two or three issues that there is some agreement.

Libertarians would not be interested in bending at all to work with Progressives, let alone the huge amount of bending it would take to accommodate the widespread issues of mass disagreement that exist.

[1StrongBlackMan]

41. And, or should I say, BUT ...

any "coalition" formed would far better serve the libertarians because they are only trying to hold out the progressives in an attempt to bleed off would be Democratic support ... just like they did with the gop; they strengthened their hand within the gop by publicizing the support of a few conservatives on those few issue where they agreed, while (largely) ignoring the issues they disagreed.

Now, they at a phase where they are attempting to garner progressive support, so that they can jettison the gop and accomplish their real goal ... gaining the numbers to become viable 3rd-party.

[stevenleser]

46. I agree 100%, see my #45 below regarding Bernie Sanders.

That's probably the best bet each time this comes up. You want a coalition? Great! Vote for our guy first.

You won't even hear crickets in response.

[Doctor_J]

50. It's a stupid straw man

no liberals are going to vote for Rand Paul, much less "form an alliance". Check my sig. As soon as "libertarians" support doubling the minimum wage, guaranteeing health care for everyone, raising the SS cap to $150K, and 90% or so tax bracket starting at $5million, I'll think about voting for them. Until then, I will hold my nose and vote DINO when there aren't any real dems available.

[stevenleser]

51. No straw man or other logical fallacy involved. This is what Nader is pushing. nt

[hobbit709]

15. Nader wants attention and you're giving it to him.

[stevenleser]

18. My not composing an OP will not prevent it from being discussed.

It's very big news right now in Libertarian circles. That this happens is everything they hope for.

[demigoddess]

23. every time Nader gets involved

in things, he benefits the republicans. I say he is a republican.

[stevenleser]

32. Pretty hard to argue with that.

He can say he is for whatever it is he wants to say. If the net effect of his actions is to always help Republicans, why shouldnt we consider him a Republican?

[Capt. Obvious]

26. Well, if what you say is true

Then I suppose we can stop seeing progressives called libertarians, etc.

[FarCenter]

28. In that twilight neverland where the anarcho-syndicalists meet Ayn Rand?

The underlying theme may be distrust of big organizations, whether corporate or governmental.

And big organizations do tend to become exploitative and self-perpetuating, e.g. religious organizations who have succeeded in doing so for centuries.

[stevenleser]

29. Except, calling Libertarians distrustful of corporations is stretching it, I think.

They are against any regulations on businesses. They think the magical free market will cause all corporations to behave like they should.

[FarCenter]

33. At least part of the libertarians want to abolish limited liability

No corporations (chapter C or S or LLC) or limited liability partnerships would be legal. Businesses would be structured as partnerships or proprietorships with the owners fully liable for the business.

They view corporations as a pernicious invention of big government.

Regulation of corporations by the government is said to be a Band-Aid to fix the problem that the government created through limiting liability.

[stevenleser]

43. Interesting. Do you have a link? I would like to see that. nt

[FarCenter]

54. Big government and big business are symbionts

Libertarians are not corporate apologists

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2012/oct/22/libertarians-are-not-corporate-apologists/

While the Big Oil/Big Government relationship of earlier decades is foundering, the DoD/MIC relationship and the HHS/health care industry relationships are as strong or stronger than ever.

[scheming daemons]

34. For the past 30 years, Ralph Nader has been a NEGATIVE force in American politics

...as far as progressives are concerned.


Every action he has taken the past three decades has hurt the Democratic party and helped the Republican party.

[2banon]

39. ....

now there's a new twist in logic, or maybe it's grammatical errors requiring a bit of editing, perhaps?

on the other hand, an almost perfect Steven Colbert satire routine..

[2banon]

35. Thanks for the video... n/t

[KoKo]

36. I think he's trying to shake the trees and liven up the debate to get people

thinking out of their chosen shelter boxes or ideological chains.

All discussion is good...particularly since the 2016 Election seems to have already started with the Dems having a chosen candidate and the Republicans doing their usual (hope for Jeb) but we will try to run the best of the crazies. I think most of them would be happy with Hillary because she's known and they really don't like many of their own these days. Nader is working on Republican disillusionment with their Tea Party Crazy and lack of being able to put forward anyone who could siphon off votes from Hillary.

Whatever....

[octoberlib]

40. While I may agree with the Libertarian view on the NSA, I can't stomach

most of the rest of their agenda. We have a Libertarian budget director in NC. If he has his way, our state is going to look like the movie Elysium. Libertarianism and Democracy are incompatible. Corporate Authoritarianism would be the system of government in which their ideology would work. No,no,no! Forming a coalition with them in Congress to get a bill passed on areas where we agree is fine. But actually voting for one?? Hell, no!

[stevenleser]

45. And once it's talked through, I think that is where Progressives come down on this issue

this idea of a grand grassroots coalition between Progressives and Libertarians sounds great on the surface until you actually start discussing candidates, issues and a platform.

And if you notice, all the discussion centers around Progressives voting for a Libertarian candidate.

Why shouldn't the discussion be for Libertarians to vote for Bernie Sanders? Just try to put that forward though, and you will see how much of a 'coalition' Libertarians have in mind.

[whatchamacallit]

44. There are no liberals who take this seriously

I've noticed the ones who waste time invoking and stressing over Nader and Paul are mostly party-obsessed centrists.

[frylock]

68. yep

[YoungDemCA]

47. I find the Libertarian ideology revolting and horrifying

and I agree with your OP.

Thanks.

[DCBob]

49. I voted for Nader back in 2000... he was cool back then but now he is simply pathetic.

He has gone off the deep end now with some of his comments. Libertarians are nowhere near Progressives/Liberals/Democrats. Its rediculous.

[Walk away]

52. Sorry, but he wasn't really cool then either. nt

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

58. I was going to make a snarky comment about dementia...

But that would be unkind (and not very funny) to people suffering from dementia...

So I'll just go with the old reliable...

...what an asshat!

[salib]

59. My understanding is that Nader believes it is already too late for anything else.

Remember, he is suggesting that only the super-rich can save us: http://onlythesuperrich.org/

It is worth the read, and many here have already given up on the political process.

To simply "Dis" it does not play well in Progressive Peoria.

Let's try something more considered. The idea that people are too easily swayed off course by intriguing BS is actually BS itself when it comes to progressives. Progressives are informed, motivated, and quite capable of "consuming" ideas without losing track. Thank you very much.

[stevenleser]

61. A couple of points in response

On the one hand, you say that his arguments, like those that suggest that only the super-rich can save us, shouldn't be "dissed" and on the other, you say that progressives are 'too smart to be swayed off course by intriguing BS'.

I think the super rich argument is intriguing BS that shouldn't sway people off course but when I say that, it poses a dilemma according to the two premises you set up because I have dissed Nader's argument.

I don't think anything should be assumed until it is talked out and since DU is for talking things out, here we are.

[JoePhilly]

62. When will he be starting NaderUnderground?

[jeff47]

63. I eagerly await his next book, proposing an alliance between the NAACP and the KKK (nt)

[JoeyT]

65. And to make that even worse,

the issues progressives and libertarians tend to overlap on are way down the priority list for libertarians. Sure, most of them would like to see weed legalized, abortion legal, scaling back the MIC, and LGBT people with equal rights....But if you give them a choice between those and tax cuts for rich people, they're going to take tax cuts every single time, even if it means actively opposing progress on the other stuff.

They're too selfish to trust as allies.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

66. On Monday, Nader was on "Democracy Now!" talking about how trade agreements reduce sovereignty

...which he even conceded was generally a right-wing talking point, but an area in which he feels the far left and far right now have common ground (obviously I'm paraphrsing).

So maybe Nader will endorse Rand Paul?

[Blue_Tires]

69. Ralph, I've always been a fan of yours...

but you're freakin' killing me right now...

[mwrguy]

72. Fuck the libertarians

[Starry Messenger]

73. I doubt this will go anywhere, for reasons.

But mainly I just wanted to post this gif:

[Rex]

74. Political libertarians do not understand the fundamentals of running the government.

So why the FUCK anyone would vote for them...is a mystery to me. They seem even more dumbfuckingstupid than the GOP...which is why I always tell people, "show me a libertarian, and I will introduce you to one messed up and confused republican."

[aquart]

76. Nader is the ass who thinks the parties are identical.

And he really wants us to lose because we aren't pure enough for His Saintliness.

As for the left joining the inhumane libertarians, he's an idiot if he thinks that could ever be a working coalition.

[fredamae]

78. Nader Can Kiss My Ass. n/t

[herding cats]

79. Nader just wants to sell books.

His attempt to align the most left Progressives with the Libertarians is wacko, at best. He's just looking for a market for his book and for some reason he thinks those two demographics are gullible enough to buy it if he mentions them by name.

Libertarians are not in any way progressive! Just because some extreme left Progressives oppose a few things the Libertarians do, does not make the Libertarians progressive. Progressives actually do share some important common ground with the Green Party, but Nader has already exploited that angle and is off to a bigger market.

Nader has fallen so far since his days in the sun. What happened to his caring about auto safety, clean water and pensions? None of these things matter at all to the laissez-faire capitalism Libertarians, as he well knows.

[Iggo]

81. Fuck Nader.

[Generic Other]

82. One thing most Democrats share with this far left liberal?

We have hearts. Libertarian jerks think I would vote for Rand Paul just so they don't have to pay taxes and can smoke dope? And that I am going to abandon the environment, women's issues, minority issues, the social needs of the poor for what they have to offer? They need to put down their crackpipes. I'd sooner join Kim Jung Un.

[arely staircase]

83. marijuana reform needs to continue to mainstream. joining a coalition with code pink, nader

to elect libertarians seems counterproductive.

[SidDithers]

88. Fuck Nader...nt

Sid

[Puzzledtraveller]

89. maybe

[LondonReign2]

93. What bullshit

And I'm not even talkign about Nader, I'm talking about:

"Progressive on the left, who barely tolerate Democrats"

Maybe you menat to say, "Pragmatic Centrists, who barely tolerate Democrats"

[stevenleser]

95. Not it's not and no I'm not. One only has to read firedoglake or

Common dreams or wsws to see what the most left progressives think of Democrats these days. We can argue about whether they are right to think those things, but they do think them.

[LondonReign2]

96. Your entire attempt

to claim the mantle of Democrats for the centrists and cast progressives as others is bullshit

[stevenleser]

98. That is your strawman. I did no such thing. nt

[LondonReign2]

99. Its too bad you don't know what a strawman is

You see, when I quote you saying progressives barely tolerate Democrats, it isn't a strawman. Its you quite clearly and blatantly claiming progressives aren't Democrats. Utter bullshit.

[stevenleser]

100. I know exactly what a strawman and the other logical fallacies are. You changed my argument

and then beat up your changed version of my argument.

[LondonReign2]

120. Nope. I took issue with your bullshit framing

that progressives aren't Democrats.

[Wolf Frankula]

94. Little Ralfie Rumplesuit

Is running around the country crying, "Look at me! LOOK at me! LOOK at ME! LOOK AT ME! I'm important! I'm still relevant!" It's all about little Ralfie Rumplesuit's ego.

Give it up, Ralfie. You're the left's Ann Coulter.

And is it true that Alfred Fenster, a personal assistant to Rumplesuit, pre-rumples Ralfie's suits?

Wolf

[MADem]

101. I have completely lost patience with that whackadoodle, fabricating scold.

He can take his faux "poor man" suits, his Army-Navy store boots, and his shit-stirring ass, and go park it in one of those millionaire mansions he owns but pretends to not live in. He is a tiresome babbler. He routinely makes things worse, not better.

Go AWAY, Ralph. He pokes his head up every four years to fuck with the process. How much is the GOP paying this nitwit?

As for Libertarians raising the minimum wage, yeah right, that'll happen when Libertarians decide that Health Care For All has merit--Libertarians are Republicans who want to smoke pot. I think Bill Maher said that, but whoever did, they're right. The only thing that Libertarians want to rein in is spending for the public good, to include things like social security and worker protections for the average schmuck...if government does it, it's baaaaaaaaad. No matter what it is.

[Zorra]

103. If he advocated for progressives who barely tolerate Democrats to join the Greens, he would

not be so totally full of bullshit.

"Libertarians are republicans who want to smoke dope and get laid". ~ Thom Hartmann

[stevenleser]

105. As much as I would hate it, at least it wouldn't be completely illogical from an ideology

perspective.

Not to mention that Libertarians are not interested in a merger of equals. They are interested in acquiring Progressive votes for Libertarian leaning candidates.

I hate sounding like a broken record, but I keep saying, at the first mention of any such talk, the first thing Progressives should say is, will you vote for Bernie Sanders?

[Zorra]

115. Agreed.

And only a naive, dim witted, and uninformed self-identified progressive would vote Libertarian.

Libertarians are radical conservatives, IMO.

[Armstead]

104. That's the problem with The Left Right Template

I have a friend who is a conservative. Daid he's probably vote for Rand Paul if he had the chance.

But yesterday we were having conversation when the subject of Obama and Net neutrality came up. I said I was really pissed at Obama for letting the FCC get filled with Corporate Stooges who are going to alow the Internet get hijacked by the Big Corporate ISPs.

I expected him to call me a Commie, bu he agreed with me very stringly.

"That really pissed me off too," he said. "I agree with you 100 percent. The Internet should be free for everyone to use equally."

We also aree on the awful TPP tat Obam is tryin to shove down our throats.

So there are issues when left wing progressives like me actually agree with libertarians (real ones, not the knee-jerk reactionary ones) more than we do with the Corporate Wing of the Democratic Party.

[woo me with science]

106. +10000 It's a tactic of division by corporatists

Note that it's typically the corporate posters here who make these arguments, because they are terrified that factions of the left and the right will come together and start to disrupt their monopoly of corporate candidates and predatory agenda.

You can't oppose NSA spying if Ron Paul opposes it!

The truth is that there's a LOT to agree on across party lines about what is being done to this nation. Manny just wrote a great post about how Elizabeth Warren seems well poised with a message to appeal to Americans across party lines. I really do think that she may be the voice to refocus people from these partisan con games to what is good for the country.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024911118

[stevenleser]

109. See my #108 below. The Libertarians are the ULTIMATE corporatists. nt

[woo me with science]

112. LOL. Exhibit A, and way to miss the point deliberately. nt

[stevenleser]

113. Yes, you did miss the point, and you are an example of whom Nader is targeting. nt

[stevenleser]

108. Just about everyone can find a couple of areas of agreement. That is not the point.

Whether you are Liberal, Progressive, Green, Constitutionalist, Libertarian, Republican, Conservative, etc. There are almost always going to be a few areas of agreement.

The question is, does it make sense for the farthest Left Progressives, who are frequently giving Democrats a hard time in their uneasy alliance, to instead ally with Libertarians and support Libertarian candidates like Rand Paul with whom progressives would have a few areas of relative agreement, and scores of others where they are light years apart.

You used the word Corporate three times. What do you think Libertarians are? They are for zero restrictions on corporations and are Laissez Faire capitalists in general. They believe Money = Speech.

What exactly do you think would happen to progressive principles under a Libertarian government?

[Armstead]

116. You're labeling again

Back in the early 20th Century, tere were Progressive Populists who fought for economic justice and were also socially conservative Christians.

yes, there are many Libertarians who are Corporatists. But there many Democrats who are just as Corporatist as any Libertarian or GOPPER

That's my point about labeling along the familiar L/R divide. In my opinion, the BIG issue that drives many others is concentration of wealth and power into increasingly fewer and bigger hands.

That's were many other issues flow from, and that's where coalitions ought to be based on.

It's extremely discouraging to be on the "same side" as a President and other Corporatists with a D who are giving the Internet to the Corporate Pirates, who would rather placate Big Insurance than actually stand for affordable Universal Healthcare, who wants to shove more corporate power our throat with TPP, etc.

[stevenleser]

117. You would have a point if that was not how people self-identify. Moreover...

...people who self-identify as Progressives usually have a pretty good idea of why they associate with that label.

Ignoring that self-identification and focusing on my using the label is a distraction.

[Armstead]

119. Not distraction -- Its the point

One can label to the point of meaninglessness.

Labels are obviously necessary in a political process. But when they become strangulating then they are destructive to actual progress.

I might disagree with someone on, say abortion, but totally agree with them on the fact that the Internet should not be handed over to Big Corporations as if it is their private cash register.

And I'm sure as hell not going to give Obama a big cheer if he does that. And the more he and other Democrats do that shit, the less inclined many people are to get very enthusiastic about supporting them any morre than they would some GOPPER who does it.

[Zen Democrat]

107. Nader must be senile.