Ralph Nader: 'I still wouldn’t run as a Democrat'

[Eric J in MN]

Given another chance, I still wouldn’t run as a Democrat; I continue to disagree with the party’s platform and direction.

(Bernie) Sanders is different, though: However he’s appeared on Vermont ballots in the past, he’s really a progressive Democrat. He has caucused with the party in Congress for decades, even if its corporatist core has abandoned his New Deal priorities. This is perhaps why he has been able to make it so remarkably far.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/25/ralph-nader-why-bernie-sanders-was-right-to-run-as-a-democrat/

Nader doesn't explain in the article how his agenda is so different from Sanders that Sanders was right to run as a Democrat but Nader shouldn't.

Does anyone understand that?

[JonLeibowitz]

1. It's about the party platform and elders, not the ideas or the base

Nader correctly recognized the Democratic party as corrupted and ran as an independent for that reason. The Democratic party showed him just how corrupt they are (many details in the linked article) so he wouldn't change his approach even now.

Even so, he recognizes that given Bernie's goal (actually getting elected and effecting change from within the system) it is right to run as an Independent. This is double true now with the mainstream media which can ignore 3rd party candidates.

It's not about the agenda really, it is about how you see the process, corrupted entirely or possessing some bad actors and actresses.

The clarifying thing about this election is that conservative democrats (DLC types -- i.e. Democrats for the Leisure Class) don't want progressives at all: with Nader he was a spoiler and should have run in the Democratic primary. With Sanders he is an independent outsider and doesn't deserve Democratic votes or a spot on the ticket. The hate is for the ideas, but party identification provides a convenient wedge at times.

[hobbit709]

2. I trust Nader less than Clinton.

[Festivito]

3. Suggesting Nader not good at compromise. Bernie is.

Perhaps Nader wants to make things great.

Bernie settles to make things better.

The rest of us just want to avoid making things worse.

[Kalidurga]

4. Yeah I don't get it either...

That is probably why I didn't vote for him.

[DonJohnson]

5. He is right.

Individuals, like Nader, who vouch for consistency, transparency in government, maximum individual liberty, addressing rampant inequality (without either resorting to race-mongering or overly submissive tactics) in all aspects (race, class, etc), putting an abrupt end to corporate immunity, etc are frequently let down by the Democratic establishment which caters to the status-quo crowd, the square, the ironically conservative section of the Democratic voting base, etc. And Ralph is rightfully appalled at the hypocrisy and inconsistency of many establishment Democratic politicians who hide under the false guise of "genuine" liberalism. It isn't genuine.
Liberalism is compassion, justice, rebellion, rejecting traditional mores that deserve to be discarded (i.e. homophobia, overt emphasis on sexual abstinence), equality and individual liberty. Sanders caters to those ideals more than Clinton (historically speaking, especially) and Ralph Nader possibly more so.
That's why I'd much rather vote Green, Justice, Peace And Freedom, or even Libertarian (though Reaganomics has certainly done more harm than good).