Chlorophyll

[cross posted on Babblemur!]

This is hilarious - some fool blogger is still blaming the Green Party and Ralph Nader for not only George Bush 2000, but also:

Without the Greens we would not have George W. Bush as our President. 3000 soldiers would still be alive. No child left behind, which leaves many children behind and the dangerous environmental policies would never have been enacted. Had the Green party not been successful we would have actually signed the Kyoto accord on greenhouse gasses under President Al Gore.

Hey, Captain Caveman! It's 2007! Come out of your hidey hole! Blaming Nader for the world's problems is SO last week!
It seems like we have to re-live this conversation over and over and over with some moron who can't stop searching for a simple scapegoat for the world's problems. The argument used is really a simple one:

1. Take one bad event (in this case, the Bush Team's stolen Presidency of 2000);
2. Of all of the myriad things that happened prior to that one bad event, pick one that, if it hadn't happened, would have changed everything. (In this case, not just Ralph Nader, but the Green Party in general).
3. Ignore every other historical event that led to that result and singularly load all blame for bad event on that one thing.

This is the "Time Machine" argument that basically goes like this: If you had a time machine and could go back in time and change something, this one thing would alter the events of history and change the present to make it better. It is the old "would you kill Hitler in 1931" game. In this case, the argument is that if Ralph Nader didn't run for President in 2000, Al Gore would win. Actually, the writer goes one further and nixes the Green Party, for obvious reasons (He hates the Green Party because he is jealous of how much fun we have casting protest votes).
Let's try and break it down some.
First, the writer argues that the Green Party & Ralph Nader are the cause of 3,000 US Troop Deaths, "No Child Left Behind", and the failure of the US to sign the Kyoto Protocol. Why? Because the Green Party and Ralph Nader were one of the reasons Gore lost to Bush. But if we are going to be fair and cast the weight of the Iraq War et al on one cause of Gore's defeat, we should share that blame with the other causes of Gore's defeat. That is fair, yes? Any other individual or group that caused Gore to loose to Bush in 2000 should share in the shame. This includes:

• 50,456,169 Americans, many of whom are Veterans and Soldiers, who voted for George W. Bush. Come on - you have to share the blame with them, right?
• 2,287 Floridians who voted for John Hagelin (Natural Law Party) who is just as left wing (if not more so) than the Green Party / Nader. (Note: the final vote difference in Florida was 1,425 votes between Gore and Bush) Certainly if Hagelin hadn't been on the ballot those 2,287 Floridians would have voted for Al Gore.
• Thousands and thousands of Miami-Dade Co. Jews who accidentally voted for Buchanon instead of Gore. If you are going to blame the Greens for the Iraq War, you have to blame the Jews as well. Let's not be anti-semetic, now, shall we?
• Katherine Harris, who oversaw the elections in Florida and was involved with the purging of the Florida voting rolls targeting african americans in Florida. Is she free of blame, oh blue finger of justice?
• Bill Clinton: yes, Bill Clinton. If he hadn't have been playing truth or dare with an intern, and consequently impeached by a blood thirsty right wing legal machine, Al Gore would have cake walked into the White House. That one event (or multiple events) likely was a greater cause of Al Gore defeat than Ralph Nader.
• The Electoral College: NOTE - Al Gore WON the popular vote. He LOST the Electoral College.
• Al Gore: Duh! Look, I like Al Gore, he's a nice guy. But he didn't get enough votes in the right places, namely - Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire, Tennessee. Why didn't he get those votes? Was he out-hustled? Did he not campaign hard enough? Was it his distancing from Clinton? Or was it that damn Ralph Nader stealing his votes?

Second, to be fair, let's see what happens when Ralph Nader and the Green Party don't effect the outcome of the election. Fast foward to 2004. Ralph Nader runs as an independent, and the Green Party runs David Cobb for President. Double the damage you would think, but in actuality the Greens and Nader suffer at the polls. VICTORY for the DEMS! Right? What happens in 2004? Remember?

• Bush 62,040,610
• Kerry 59,028,439
• Nader 463,655
• Cobb 119,859

Whaaat? You mean, when BOTH the Green Party and Ralph Nader are not factors, Bush still wins? Huh? In fact, Bush picks up Iowa and New Mexico in 2004, while the Dems only pick up New Hampshire. Otherwise, same score, but no Nader Factor.
If I were going to load all my angst and anger regarding 2000 on any one individual or group, I don't think I would pick the Green Party. The Green Party and Ralph Nader inspired a whole new group of people to vote and get involved with politics. Many of those new people voted for Nader, but many did not. Nader was polling at 7% in Florida prior to the election, but he barely cracked 3%. Where'd the other 4% go? Gore. The Greens may have been the reason that Al Gore won the popular vote, but you won't hear the Green Bashers suggesting this.
And finally - the whole idea of having an election is for the people to go and vote for whom they want to be president (or Governor, etc.) The Green Party offered a candidate in 2000 that appealed to 2,883,105 voters. Those 2.8 million voters voted for whom they wanted to. If you would deny those voters the right to vote for whom they wanted to because your candidate lost then you are nothing more than a fascist.