Guest Voice: God Bless Ralph Nader
Feb 28th, 2008 | 31 responses
Here is another Guest Voice by Joel S. Hirschhorn who is highly critical of both parties.. Guest Voice columns do not necessarily reflect the opinion of TMV or its writers.
God Bless Ralph Nader
by Joel S. Hirschhorn
Because he wants to salvage American democracy and help Americans, Ralph Nader is running for president again. He deserves the support of all Americans that see themselves as progressives, dissidents, independents, and patriots who want to remove the stranglehold of the two-party plutocracy on our political system.
When it comes to being an honest, proven and trustworthy change agent, Nader is the gold standard. So why are so many Democrats going ballistic and spewing hate towards Nader?
They are in denial about both Obama and Clinton. Both owe much to the corporate and business world that Nader has waged war against for decades. Like Clinton, Obama has taken huge amounts of money from several business sectors. Both refuse to advocate a single payer universal health care system that Nader champions; this protects the enormously profitable health insurance industry.
They are crazy-glued to their misplaced blame of Nader for the Bush victory in 2000, even though several other indisputable factors also explain Gore’s loss, including his poor campaign that was unable to deliver his home state of Tennessee, the incompetence of the Democratic Party to stop the Supreme Court’s disgraceful action, and the cowardly behavior of the Democratic Party over many decades that kept them from working to replace the Electoral College with the popular vote. And rather than blame Nader for the Iraq war, the Democrats have only themselves to blame, not only for authorizing the war but for many assaults on the Constitution that Bush has gotten away with.
They fear the public becoming more aware of the many policy positions of Obama and Clinton that are downright asinine, in contrast to Nader’s sound positions. For example, Nader is against nuclear power, while Obama has had a very cozy relationship with powerful people in that industry. And Nader wants a carbon pollution tax to combat global warming, that neither Obama nor Clinton favor. And no surprise, Nader makes the case for impeaching Bush and Cheney that Obama and Clinton are too cowardly to embrace. He also straightforwardly supports total public financing of political campaigns – the only way to rid our political system of corrupt forces. Meanwhile, Obama is backing away from his written commitment to using public financing for the general election.
They fear Nader siphoning enough votes away from the Democratic nominee to make McCain president, despite Nader having little campaign money compared to the Democratic nominee. What happened to all that yes-we-can confidence?
Do the Democrats think that all those people who have gone nuts over Obama will finally see the light and reject their political messiah? This is only plausible if the Democratic bigwigs and pundits really know that Nader’s positions and arguments (certainly not his slick rhetoric or personality) have the capability of breaking through the hope-hysteria of the army of Obamatons.
They fear Nader being persuasive enough to move the Democratic nominee to the left (more populist and progressive) and making it more difficulty in beating McCain and his appeal to independents. Democrats prefer the centrist bait and switch approach to sucker in voters and then surprise them after the election.
They fear the public seeing a truth-telling, independent candidate not driven by a thirst for political power. Nader is not running for president again because of ego or some deep ambition to be president, but rather out of a sense of obligation and responsibility to serve the public and the nation, as he has done for many decades. He is the only credible opponent to corporate special interests. It is not a matter of exercising his constitutional right, it is a matter of being a truer populist and progressive than the Democratic nominee.
The Los Angeles Times editorialized in support of Nader: “The Democrats and Republicans may believe your vote belongs to one or the other of them before it belongs to you, but they are wrong. More choices among candidates mean more opportunities for you to make your views known in an election.” Nader said. “It’s real political bigotry by the two major parties who have locked up the system with these ballot access obstructions against more voices and choices and giving voters a chance to have their free choice of candidates.”
How sad that Democrats show such little respect for a patriotic dissident like Nader, who has always been a troublemaker fighting for ordinary Americans.
In many ways, the Nader candidacy is not about him becoming the best president possible, but rather in pushing any Democrat who becomes president to be a far better one by serving the public interest in the noble Nader tradition. A vote for Nader is always a vote for rebooting American democracy. All the nasty talk from Democrats about Nader insults we the people more than Nader.
31 Responses to “Guest Voice: God Bless Ralph Nader”
Good commentary, but to those Youtubed voters, such sense never penetrates.
Perhaps before running for President, it would make sense to build general support for more than a few months by building broad based support around the country, so that there is a slight chance of success. One year of dedicated work every four years isn't a national movement.
pacatrue,
So you think Nader just sits at home when he's not running a campaign? He writes articles just about every week concerning government and big business collusion or some other topic that's usually ignored by the MSM.
Paca: Your model wd de facto remove any incentive for any 3rd party to get going since a few mos is never enough time to build a real party.
That's just more status quo talk.
Social change requires extremely persuasive leaders who have a grasp of how far and fast to push. Nader's ideas are valid but his ability to sell them is weak.
McCain has a relatively refined sense of how far and when to push.
For all of the high expectations about Obama he would only be able to move in incremental steps.
It is not merely having good ideas but also the talent and skill to bring a critical mass of the public and political establishment along with you.
What I'm actually saying is that the Nader movement should grow in a grassroots manner, taking hold in places that are already inclined towards such ideas, and then continue building across the nation as they persuade others. If the Green Party can't elect a congress person from the Bay area or Vermont (or wherever there's a superior fit), they stand little chance in a national election. There are other offices in government than President.
I should add that of course I think Nader has the right to run and people have the right to vote for him. Duh.
Even that's too weak. If people feel this is the best way to fight for their causes, then that's what they should do. My own thought is that many of those causes they fight for are set back by only going for the most important office in the world as the single prize.
You're right, he doesn't appeal to the masses.
And a surprising ability to pander and flip flop on issues of conscience. He's all over the place.
Probably true, but if you believe his rhetoric, I think he'd be moving us in the right direction, unequivocally.
To Pacatrue: You do know Nader is not part of the Green party anymore, right?
Yeah, I do, Chris. But it's hard to advocate for the growth of the Independent Party. Winning some Congressional districts would be a great target for the Green Party / Progressives of Nader's ilk. Ooh, I got to use the word 'ilk'!
Thinking out loud again, it all comes down to what one considers the primary voting issue, as always. If one considers the influence of business to be the prime evil in the world, then Nader's candidacy makes more sense. I happen to find our role in Iraq, legalization of gay marriage, reproductive rights, being a deficit hawk, and environmental responsibility to be greater voting issues. I can support my favorite causes to some degree by voting Democratic, but I won't be hitting the corporate interests issue much. If that were my fave issue, then there would be much less difference between Dems and Repubs.
Paca: You also have to realize that the Ds and Rs actively and legally drown out all attempts at 3rd parties, and the very Electoral College system, and lack of runoffs, and second choices all lead to a system inclined to duality rather than plurality? This is why it is hard to mobilize others. These legal impediments need to be gotten rid of, although it wd take a 3rd party w vigor to do so- the Catch 22 that gets the Coke and Pepsi of American politics all wet inside.
[...] The English Guyâ??s Personal Blog wrote an interesting post today on Guest Voice: God Bless Ralph NaderHere’s a quick excerptAnd rather than blame Nader for the Iraq war, the Democrats have only themselves to blame, not only for authorizing the war but for many… [...]
cosmoetica: You make an excellent point. The Dems and Reps make it nearly impossible for 3rd parties to get a foot in the door. However, one guy running for President won't change that. I think that what pacatrue is trying to convey is that a real 3rd party movement can't start at the top and filter down. They need to get in at local and state levels, put pressure on state legislatures to quit gerrymandering in favor of the 2 dominant parties, and make a serious effort to elect multiple candidates across the country. The problem many people have with Nader is that aside from his quadrennial press announcement that he's running for President again, you don't hear much out of him. Whether that's his fault or the media's is up for debate, but it does make you wonder if he's serious about the campaign or if he's just looking for attention.
Well, speaking from the Dem's point of view, Nader really accomplished nothing in 2000 but to throw the election to a partisan incompetent who ruined our economy and our military, and filled the government with incompetent partisans like him. Yes, in close states, Nader's few votes matter, and I doubt if otherwise those votes would go to McCain. Even social conservatives were smart enough to realize that they would elect Hillary or Obama if they backed their own candidate.
He has every right to run, but the results could be disasterous again.
I suggest you look over his written work at Nader.org.
I agree, but I also think it's important to have someone fighting for 3rd party access to the Presidency all the time. The more barriers he can knock down now, the less barriers there will be for the next Ross Perot.
There are other ways he could make more of an impact, without angering millions of people. if Pat Buchanan ran every year, I doubt McCain supporters would be happy about it. I have no problem with third party candidates, just those like Nader and McKinney who run to make a statement.
It's up to those angry millions to make a compelling case for their own candidate. Nader voters aren't the stolen property of the Democratic party.
I said he has the perfect right to run, but I think anyone voting for him will share the guilt for the consequences with him, if another Republican who enacts conservative policies is elected. If McCain gets in and appoints another Alito, do you think the average American or multinationals will benefit?
I think a case could be made holding Nader and those who voted for him accountable for taking the country in the opposite direction than his political platform. He should have demonstrated penance by raising his profile and coming out strongly against the destructive policies he helped bring about.
That's an awful lot to put on the shoulder's of a man who garnered less than 3% of the votes nation wide.
While we're blaming people, are you ready to blame Gore, Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards, the primary voters that gave us Kerry?
You can make the case that voting for Nader is against your best interests without making these ridiculous proclamations of guilt.
I'm encouraged to see support for Nader's ideas. He's on the right track with most. Now, since he isn't going to win, how can we make them happen ourselves?
Item 12 of his list, ending corporate personhood is probably the single item that would enable the accomplishment of most others. Misplaced priorities on health care, energy, military spending, subsidies, corporate welfare, corporate corruption, twisted tax policies, industries writing their own laws and regulations, hiding from regulatory oversight, lobbyists, hijacking our democracy; all of these exist because of the legal fiction of corporate personhood.
Chris- he garnered the votes in Fla that would have changed the election. Gore lost the state by a couple of hundred votes.
And I won't take it back, because I'm sure Nader realized that Gore would have won without his candidacy. He has great ideas, but this is the wrong venue. I'm not critiquing his goals, but his tactics have achieved the opposite of what he's striving for. He bears some responsibility for being the spoiler.
GreenDreams: Go over to this thread: http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/moderates/…
and slap some sense into CS re: corps.
Kritt: Twas you folk who voted hacks like Gore and Kerry to their noms. Want my support- stop doing that! Gore had no right to be Prez, as did not W nor Hillary. Take responsibility for YOUR actions, and lay off a man who's done more for this nation than any man alive and since FDR!
Gore lost Fl because thousands of blacks were denied their right to vote and the Supremes were stacked. That Gore's banal candidacy did not excite a few hundred more people is his fault.
kritt11 —55 minutes ago with 1 point
Chris- he garnered the votes in Fla that would have changed the election. Gore lost the state by a couple of hundred votes.
Looks like you won't have to worry about that this time around, kritt.
McCain leads both Obama and Clinton in potential general-election match ups with either candidate in the all-important swing state of Florida, according to a Mason-Dixon poll out today.
McCain leads Obama 47%-37% and Clinton 49%-40%. The Arizona senator leads the Democrats across the board. About 80% of Republicans are behind McCain. Only 66% of Democrats are behind Obama and 72% are backing Clinton in one-one-one match-ups with McCain. Currently, 17% of Democrats indicate that in a match up with Obama, they'd support McCain; 16% say so in a match up with Clinton. Seventeen percent of Dems also say they are undecided in a match up with Obama; 13% say so with regard to McCain-Clinton.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/…
Kritter: How many McCain supporters would ever vote for Buchanan? Really…
* * *
As far as Nader is concerned, too bad for Hirschhorn — Nader chose some other “moderate” (as some on here would say) for his VP this year. Tsk, tsk.
And is Nader going to successfully siphon lib votes — or does Clinton worry you?
I notice that the article hardly says anything about Nader at all. It's all about Clinton, Obama, and the Democratic party. No list of Nader's accomplishments or reasons why he should be president. I think that says a lot about the nature of Nader's support — it's actually not about him at all; he hasn't done anything of note for decades except run for president. It's the right wing using him as a club against the left. What a shame he cooperates with that.
Casual- Its a little early to award Florida's electoral votes to McCain isnt it, lol???
Obama has shown if anything that he is excellent at coming from behind, as we have seen him decimate the presumed nominee, Hillary Clinton.
DLS- A Conservative may hold his nose and vote for McCain to keep Obama or Hillary out. The lesser of two evils thing.
Cosmo- What exactly has Nader done for this country in the last 20 years besides enable incompetent corporate shills like W achieve their quest for power? Do you seriously think that Gore would have put anti-consumers like Alito on the SCOTUS? No if you voted for Nader, and got Bush, you got the govt you deserve!
Let's see, he has led a consumer watchdog group that has been on the balls of corporate America for the last 40 years, and gotten major legislations passed. He's started dozens of other groups that have done similar things. Are you even seriously questioning that this guy should be in a Great Americans Hall Of Fame?
Gore had a terrible environmental record, and we have no idea the type of justice he wd have apointed, but he was always a right of Center Dem with Big Biz ties.
If you voted for Gore you showed no discernment, and picked a candidate an incompetent lijke W could beat, by any means necessary. Bush is not on the hands of Naderites, but on the Bush supporters and the morons in the Dem party that picked losers like Gore and Kerry, de facto telling Indies like me, vote for our scum cuz he's better than theirs. You take responsibility for your actions- both personally and the whole goddamned Democratic Party that's shown the only thing worse than the evil of the Reps is the utter nothingness of the Dems.
'The lesser of two evils thing.' That's what you did by voting for Gore- and you got evil. I voted conscience.
Cosmo- Nader would have been wrong about Gore and what he wanted to do for the environment. No one has done more for the environment than Al Gore. And what exactly was Gore's right of center voting pattern? I was proud to vote for Gore, and wanted him to run again for the Democrats. Gore argued in front of Congress about accepting the Kyoto treaty–he is as green as they get. Bush has the most dismal environmental record of any president in recent memory. The EPA under him courts industry, and Cheney had the oil execs write our energy policy without any environmentalists present. He met with auto industry execs when Calif asked for a waiver on CO2 emissions. We have been in global warming denial for 7 years!
Obama , the likely nominee, has the most liberal voting record in the Senate. His campaign contributions are from the grass roots, not the corporations. Would Nader rather McCain won?
Check out this blog entry about Nader's run:
http://jsiegel.blogspot.com/2008/02/butt-out-yo…
jayman-Makes my point exactly. Thanks for the link.
Also,If the Democratic nominee moved further to the left he would turn off the middle-of-the-road voters giving a landslide to the GOP (as long as their candidate could appeal to the middle). Nader's quest is ludicrous and hurts the causes he believes in. In politics 80% area of agreement is a win-when you go for 100% you get the opposition's backs up. Nader voters are naive to the extreme, even if they sincerely believe they are voting their conscience. They will hand victory to the other side as they did in 2000, and so are dangerous.
A dumb link where the blogger only shows his ignorance. Like Kritt, he prob does not even know three of the dozens of Nader accomplishments.
'No one has done more for the environment than Al Gore.'
Bullshit. Go look at the reports that many of the top ecological groups gave the Clinton Gore admin and that's simply not so. Many said they were worse than Reagan & Bush.
'We have been in global warming denial for 7 years!'
Funny how Gore could not persuade his boss to do something about it the prior 8 years.
'Would Nader rather McCain won?'
First off, Nader got .5% of the vote last time, and every time a candidate runs he gets less. If you think O is only gonna beat Mac by .5% then you must believe there are alot more warmongers than there are. 75% of the Am public wants out of Iraq yesterday.
'They will hand victory to the other side as they did in 2000, and so are dangerous.'
That is delusional, and if Obama cannot defeat McCain and Nader he deserves to lose. I, however, am voting for Obama- unless Hill stages a comeback.