SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Nader-Kristol Axis Of... Well, Not "Good"

JONATHAN CHAIT AUGUST 5, 2011

The Nader-Kristol Axis Of... Well, Not "Good"

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

Ralph Nader advocates a left-wing primary challenge (though not by himself) to President Obama, apparently unaware that his credibility to make this case might be limited by certain electoral events. Bill Kristol catches a whiff and fans the flames, arguing that such a challenge will aid the left-wing cause:

So what of the Democrats? Surely they’ll produce a primary challenger to their Wall Street coddling, Afghan war prosecuting, drone assassination ordering, and debt ceiling deal-signing occupant of the Oval Office! That opponent might perhaps not be “serious,” but his effort could be attention getting, issue raising, and meaningful for the future. Far be it from me to give advice to the professional left. But it has been a sign of the health and vitality of the right over the last forty years that it could at least produce primary challengers to moderate and establishment Republican officeholders. For the left to roll over totally for Obama, after giving Clinton a pass in 1996, would be a sign of a massive failure of conviction and imagination and nerve.

So, Russ Feingold or Dennis Kucinich, Robert Reich or Paul Krugman: Won’t one of you be willing to raise the progressive banner high? Across the ideological chasm, THE WEEKLY STANDARD will salute you!

I think I detect an open wink here, signalling to the reader that Kristol understands full well that a primary challenger would not actually wind up pushing American policy leftward over the long run. But of course Kristol actually is an operative who uses his perch to wage political campaigns rather than honestly describe the world as he sees it. It's genuinely unclear whether this particular item is the Machiavellian Kristol, or Kristol openly satirizing his Machiavellian style.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 18 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

18 comments

This just in: Ralph Nader announces any one of the many voices in his head might challenge Obama for the presidency in 2012.

- Tristan

August 5, 2011 at 2:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I think I detect an open wink here, signalling to the reader that Kristol understands full well that a primary challenger would not actually wind up pushing American policy leftward over the long run." I'm not so sure. If a genuine progressive ran to the left of Obama from within the party, it would be interesting to see how he/she would perform. A better than expected performance would, I think, push policymaking to the left or at least provide a counterweight to the loony right. Who that candidate would be, I don't know. For example, I think Huey Long played a useful role in pushing Roosevelt to the left.

- poldpf

August 5, 2011 at 2:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Far be it from me to give advice to the professional left..." Billy, you're not being fair. You're also unqualified to give advice to the professional RIGHT. For reference, see all your politico/military/economic predictions over the last decade.

- Tristan

August 5, 2011 at 2:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So why is anything that this ludicrous old man says newsorthy? And why is Dennis Kucinich, for crying out loud, a carrier of the "progressive banner"? Taking money from the Pakistani secret service should disqualify you from that honor.

- stanmvp48

August 5, 2011 at 2:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

At this point a progressive challenger for Obama would only draw laughs from the media and marginalize the left even more than it is now. A primary challenge from Obama's RIGHT however from a candidate also willing to use ethnic appeals to white working class voters could do horrible damage to the President's reelection chances

- Archon

August 5, 2011 at 2:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nader gave us 8 years of Bush II and the current economic disaster. Bill Kristol egged America into Iraq and Afghanistan, the historic graveyards of empire. What a sly dog.

- amidut

August 5, 2011 at 2:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I remember Diane Rehm asking Nader, essentially, "Exactly what did you think you were doing?"

- Nusholtz

August 5, 2011 at 3:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Happen to agree with everyword Kristol wrote, which is very disconcerting. Robert Reich 2012!

- IggyPop

August 5, 2011 at 3:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If progressives want to punish Obama, the best way to do it to elect liberal majorities in the House and Senate. Just imagine his outrage when Congress sends him a bill that adds a strong public option to the ACA. (As much as he'd hate it, he'd have to sign it because he's way too spineless to veto anything.) What's he going to tell the Koch brothers when he signs a cap-and-trade bill, with a hefty gas tax too? I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that conversation. Immigration reform? That would strike a mortal blow to poor old Barack, who has so far had the luxury of pretending to be for reform when we know he isn't. What if the Dems called his bluff on an infrastructure bank? Obama, previously so damn proud of the fact that our infrastructure is crumbling, would be forced to watch as bridges got rebuilt, train tracks got laid and homes got insulated. I hope they glue his eyeballs open a la Clockwork Orange. The biggest thing of all, the thing that would hurt him the most, would be a big, new round of stimulus, with a large cash infusion to repair state budgets and reverse the lay-offs of the last three years. Just imagining the hurt look on Obama's face when unemployment starts falling is enough to make the whole thing worthwhile: "I wanted to be Hoover and they made me Roosevelt."

- GeoffG

August 5, 2011 at 3:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dennis "The Menace" Kucinich may be moving to my city and running for the US House. I have garlic cloves and a cross out just in case. I don't at all like DK but your post is a calumny, stan. Barack Obama and other Democrats took money from the same source as Kucinich did, surely unaware of the genesis of the cash. What Kucinich can justly be assailed for is that he is an apologist for the thuggish Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad. Herewith a few books I have read recently from cover to cover that I recommend: Blind Spots - Max Bazerman and Ann Tenbrunsel (An excellent book for partisans of the right and the left, except that it probably wouldn't leave a leaf scar). The Great Stagnation - Tyler Cowen (Tyler puts up an incredibly good econblog, Marginal Revolution - visit it). Triumph Of The City - Edward Glaeser (A great book by a noted economist and urban expert. I received a nice email reply from him after I read his book). Works And Lives - Clifford Geertz (Anything by this late anthropologist is worth reading. He had a literary style and his intelligence is manifest in his writings.) The Name Of The Rose - Umberto Eco (I have meant to read this novel forever. It came out in Italian in 1980 and it was translated into English in 1983. A fabulous read by the "magus of Bologna," as Richard Rorty once called him.) Foucault's Pendulum - Umberto Eco (This is another Eco novel I have forever meant to read. It is even better than TNOTR. The insights and apothegms are more incisive and come more frequently than in his earlier bestseller). Designer Genes - Steven Potter (An excellent primer on cutting-edge genetics, possibly too hopeful, but still entertaining and hugely informative. Thanks to my wife Sheena for spotting this book). The Origins Of Political Order - Francis Fukuyama (This 483-page work is stunningly good. After feeling ill earlier in the week, I have been taking it easy and I read some 340 pages of this book yesterday, and I finished it off in late evening. Fukuyama is always worth reading). Here is a fine quote from the Fukuyama book on page 142: "Even in today's mobile, entrepreneurial capitalist economy, rigid defenders of property rights often forget that the existing distribution of wealth doesn't always reflect the superior virtue of the wealthy and that markets aren't always efficient."

- liberalref

August 5, 2011 at 3:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"What Kucinich can justly be assailed for is that he is an apologist for the thuggish Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad" Not to mention Milosevic. With respect to Pakistan-I recall (I think correctly) a vote in the House shortly after the terrorist attacks in mumbai in 08. This was a resolution which had no effect but which condemned the attacks and expressed sympathy for the victims. It passed with 4 dissenting votes. I believe, if you follow politics, you can name the four. (Two of them have run for their party's Presidential nomination.

- stanmvp48

August 5, 2011 at 3:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

He seems to be fairly over-the-top. I'm pretty sure it's satire.

- GSpinks

August 5, 2011 at 4:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Perhaps Kristol at some level recognizes the weakness and vulnerabilities of the Republican field of candidates and sees hope in the Democrats doing to Obama what they did to Carter. Let's let the Republicans play out their drama uninterrupted.

- gstoddard

August 5, 2011 at 4:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The exclamation point is a clue that Kristol is being tongue in-cheek. As are ironically formal phrases like "far be it for me", "won't one of you", "across the idealogical channel . . . will salute you." Comparing Kristol to Machiavelli is grossly unfair to Machiavelli. The Rennaissance philosopher never would've picked Sarah Palin as a winner, fallen for Ahmed Chalabi or advocated a disastrous war in a country he didn't understand. Machiavelli would've done a much better job with an NY Times column, too, and very likely have been able to hold on to the gig for over a year. There are better adjectives (and phrases) than "Machiavellian" to use to describe Kristol: "shameless", "pathetic", "invariably wrong" and "disgraced" all come to mind.

- mtinora@me.com

August 5, 2011 at 6:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...a primary challenger would not actually wind up pushing American policy leftward over the long run." Wouldn't it? It is indisputable that right-wing primary challenges have pushed Republican politics and thence American politics further to the right. I see no reason to believed that similar pressure from the left, if applied consistently, would not shift Democratic politics in a leftward direction. Those of you who poo-poo the idea are suffering from short-sightedness. To be sure, a primary challenge to Obama from the left would have no effect during this election cycle other than to render Obama more vulnerable in the general election--which quite obviously is why Kristol is getting on board--but you can bet that that during the next election and the one after, if uncompromisingly liberal candidates put themselves forward, it would have an effect.

- AaronW

August 5, 2011 at 8:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nader, OTOH, is a classic narcissist. His nomination to the Green Party ticket in 2000 set the American Greens back twenty years.

- AaronW

August 5, 2011 at 8:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I thought Nader abandoned the Democratic party years ago. Didn't his run in 2000 help elect Bush? He is the nadir. Even lower than Pat Buchanan.

- arnon

August 5, 2011 at 10:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Grimes, your comment is humorous and trenchant. And Aaron, you are dead on with your remark.

- liberalref

August 5, 2011 at 10:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close