Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Nader Deserves More Respect than He Gets
Ralph Nader has been the victim of more playa' hatin' than just about any figure in contemporary American politics. Merely whispering his name is enough to elicit hisses of derision across the political spectrum.
The Right hates Mr. Nader because his decades of activism have emboldened ordinary citizens to challenge the prerogative of big business to profit at the expense of the American consumer.
Many on the Left resent him because they believe his perennial presidential quests siphon votes from the Democratic candidate. Though he's never received more than 2.74 percent of the popular vote, liberals continue to blame him for making the Bush presidency possible instead of blaming the U.S. Supreme Court for stopping the Florida recount in 2000.
For the last decade, Mr. Nader has been portrayed as a pill by the popular press -- a humorless, Quixotic figure doomed to eternal political isolation thanks to his uncompromising devotion to principle.
Nation columnist Eric Alterman and filmmaker Michael Moore, a former supporter, have slapped Mr. Nader around for repeatedly playing "spoiler" and risking a repeat of 2000. Glancing over back columns, I'm ashamed to say I did my share of Nader-bashing during the 2004 presidential election, too.
In an Oct. 15, 2004, column, I applauded a Commonwealth Court judge's decision to knock Mr. Nader off the Pennsylvania ballot.
While conceding that Ralph Nader was the candidate who truly reflected my values on the issues, the headline of my Feb. 24, 2004, column lacked any sense of nuance: "Principled vote for Nader isn't what this nation needs."
In retrospect, it was easier to scapegoat Mr. Nader than to question the values of a so-called progressive political party that would nominate candidates as beholden to corporate interests as the incumbent we were desperately trying to unseat.
Mr. Nader says without equivocation what millions of people believe in their hearts but are afraid to vote for when the polls open. Even folks who don't like him acknowledge his honesty and concede the value of his critique of our thoroughly corrupt political process. It is easier to fault him for occasional lapses in decorum and political correctness than his political positions, which are solid and irrefutable.
It doesn't make any sense to get mad at those who exercise their franchise by voting for the candidate they sincerely believe in -- like Ralph Nader -- instead of settling for one of the major party candidates who will say anything during a campaign, but disappoint us at the first opportunity once elected to office. At least the Nader voter can look in the mirror the day after the polls close without feeling mad or embarrassed.
Earlier this week, Ralph Nader delivered a stirring call to civic engagement to an overflow crowd at Point Park University. Nobody opens a speech titled "The Mega Corporate Destruction of Capitalism and Democracy" with a humorous anecdote. Instead of going for laughs, Mr. Nader got down to the business of inspiring the next generation of potential activists and troublemakers by highlighting his own experience as a young law student, taking on the automobile industry and spurring unprecedented reforms and design changes that have saved thousands of lives.
"All social justice movements start with one or a few people without power," he said surveying the crowd of mostly university students and faculty. "The difference between us and [Rosa Parks, Mother Jones, etc.] is that they didn't make excuses."
Mr. Nader credited his parents for cultivating the skepticism that has made him the bane of corporate and political power. "My father used to say: 'Ralph, what did you learn in school today? Did you learn how to believe, or did you learn how to think?'"
After the speech, Mr. Nader dined with several faculty from the School of Arts and Sciences and the Global Cultural Studies program in the university's presidential suite.
An unusually robust 75-year-old, Mr. Nader is Lincoln tall, but not particularly lanky. He has a big appetite and eats with his mouth full like a real American. He also has a very dry sense of humor and laughs easily and generously. He reminded me of the droll Arthur Dietrich character played by Steve Landesberg on the sitcom "Barney Miller."
He playfully badgered Point Park University President Paul Hennigan to follow through with plans to create a course or program devoted to civic engagement. Though he shows no signs of slowing down, he knows he's not immortal. Mr. Nader is eager to see another generation step to the plate.
Asked if he had ruled out another run for president, Mr. Nader laughed. It was too early to tell, even for him.
197 Comments so far
Show AllBring America Back !!!!
**They tell me Nader is too Old for a real run for the Gold!
**So He just does the 'bad boy' Role to see how many write in votes he can get !! An ego-game !
**Contrary to the last sentence of the article, it is NOT too early to get in the 2012 Race !! We now know Obama has failed on All promised campaign pledges, reforms, and esp the coveted CHANGES which never were !!
**BUT, Nader needs to register Democratic, and Dem Pres Gov Howard Dean has indicated willingness to a challenge to Obama from within the Party==esp in view of the Healthcare
fiasco !!,, <<<<<-----Cave in to Big Med & Lobbies.
..So, with a three year headstart, real promises, and our progressive backing for a solid period--we could get Team Obama out and keep the Neocons from getting back in !!
**Just do it Ralph, Just say Yes to the USA for a change! There are those who also state that a departure from the Green, Independent, or Environmental parties is impossible for Nader==well then, so is victory; "been there done that"--total Failures?
Wow! This is really a dumb comment. After saying that Obama has failed, Truth Knoller says Nader should register as a Democrat!! The Democratic party is a corporately funded party. Democrats take the big bucks and vote and work for their paymasters. The Democratic party is corrupt -- as are nearly all current members of the Congress. In Washington D.C. they talk about 'campaign financing'. In the corporations they talk about 'lobbying'. Most intelligent people know they are really talking about BRIBES.
People who take bribes and sell their votes to the highest bidders are corrupt. We need to kick these people out of Congress and vote for independent candidates such as Mr Nader.
Bring America Back !!!!..........!!!...Then you will be able to say that you
patriotically cast your vote for Nader, and you proudly voted for him as
an Independent loser, as always, you wasted your vote once again on a
'not a chance in hell' candidate. Even dumber, you have heard the oft quoted
definition of 'insanity': ...doing the same thing over and over and expecting a
different result !!! It's okay if Nader again waits til the last minute, gets
a write-in ballot, then plays same old bad boy spoil sport game, ego trip !
By then, we will have found a much stronger Progressive candidate !! Kucinich !
The loser is not Ralph Nader. The losers are those who voted for Mccain or Obama in putting party over principle first.
Jennifer B.
Bingo! You nailed it.
Spot on.
Mr. Nader (and I do like to put the Mr. before his name) will have my vote, unless there is a candidate who is more principled, intelligent, and compassionate than Mr. Nader.
...how many americans do you personally know who would even recognize as issues, the principled views Ralph, (or Dennis, or Howard Dean, or Bernie Sanders), has championed? The witless masses continue to consume corporate framing and direction as "team amerikans". Try to talk up labor unions, (as a basic example), with your family and friends if you like cold stares and self defeating opposition. They don't know we are all played losers, and would never accept that fact to seek a better future. Serfs up!
"Try to talk up labor unions, (as a basic example), with your family and friends if you like cold stares and self defeating opposition."
Talk up abortion and intelligent design and those same people will be talking and arguing like mad. It's all a lousy popularity contest in the end that counts.
RoveRoveRoveYourBoat and Martian Bachelor,
Yes, I have been through that with my conservative parents but even they are willing to support ideas such as single payer when they realize what it is. I know that trying to talk economic issues such as labor, health care, wages, etc... is not as "sexy" as talking social issues such as abortion and same sex but please read my post where I stress the need for getting people to open their hearts and minds to the issues and judge the candidate by what he or she stands for and not the party affiliation.
"the oft-quoted definition of insanity"...is voting for republicans or democrats and expecting them to listen to you.
Nader is a great man but his age IS prohibitive. It's time to start getting SERIOUSLY behind Dennis Kucinich. There has NEVER been a more Populist person in Congress in recent memory. Don't let the media run him out this time and he will beat Obummer in the primary and NO repugnican will come close to beating him!
Ralph comments on Palestinian rights, the bungled TARP doleout and scrutiny, and every thing that mainstream media chooses to ignore. There hasn't been a political truth sayer and seeking like Nader ever in the history of this country - which is why he will never have a chance at public office.
Keep plugging Ralph. I'll still vote for you.
Proud to be a 2.74%er. There's more of us every day.
I voted for Ralph in 2000.
I would have voted for him in 2008, but I liked Cynthia McKinney. I also wanted to pay the O-holes back for being misogynists, calling their fellow Democrats racists, and in general destroying the party.
Ralph Nader is getting up in years, and may not be a force in politics for long. After Ralph, then what? Vote Green?
Some claim that if Nader were elected he would be blocked by a business as usual Congress from accomplishing anything. This is a bogus claim. If the people elected Nader, the Congress would freak out, as would the entire elite establishment. They would not look at Nader as a toothless Quixote, but as the representative of a sleeping giant that finally awakened - the people. The elites fear this awakening more than anything and it will paralyze them, so Nader could throw the Congress in a cart and take them anywhere. Because they will fear the people's next move, after the people proved they can take back the oval orifice. The same effect comes out of the alternate approach, the people's shifting all of their business to their local communities. The elites will freak out and fear what comes next. They will be paralyzed.
You don't know if you don't try.
I voted for Nader last three times, not because I thought he was going to win, but if he was going to win, my vote would be needed. And even if it was for no other reason he best represented my issues, that would be sufficient.
If all the people voted for Nader who liked Nader better, there would be a different discussion right now on health care (single payer would be rationally discussed), Guantanamo would be closed, and the middle war would be winding down. And this would have been the case even if Nader didn't win but just got a sizable percentage (more than 10%).
The only way single payer health care has a chance is that if the democratic party leadership is assured that it won't get our vote next election.
Single payer or single term.
Public option is not an option.
Ralph Nader = GREAT AMERICAN AND TRUE LEFTIST UNLIKE ALL THE PHONY LEFTISTS IN AND AROUND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.....
Remember folks---Al Gore was hawkish on Iraq. Gore supported the first Iraq War and criticized the elder Bush from not going into Baghdad in Gulf War I and taking out Saddam Hussein. When Gore and Lieberman were running they had very hawkish and neoconnish views on American Foreign Policy....When Clinton was president, Gore was quite chunmy with some of the hawkish neocons. Gore was in full support of the regular raids of the Clinton administration into Iraq in the so-called "no-fly zones." Gore is also a committed globalist who never saw a free trade agreement he did not like.....There were plenty of issues to oppose Al Gore on in 2000.....Al Gore not only supported welfare reform but would have also looked into reforming or privatizing Social Security....This year Barack Obama has FROZEN the annual Social Security Increase.....And you all thought a right wing Republican would be doing such a thing to those elderly the Democrats always say they so much cherish as voters!!! Bunch of Democratic Party B.S. and bat snot!!! Ralph Nader is so much better than any phony "liberal" and phony-ass "progressive" who are posers at best and frauds at worst.....The Democratic Party are PATHETIC!!!!
Al Gore like most Democratic Party politicians had an awakening against war as soon as he was not running for anything....
Al Gore truth be told ran an awful campaign against Dubya and Cheney.....Gore did not come out swinging against Bush hard enough.....Rememeber the Cheney-Liberman Lovefest Debate? Go back and read/watch it...
Gore ran an awful campaign against Bush in 2000. Remember that Gore shut out Bill Clinton from campaigning for him in 2000?
Yes, it is easy and convenient for phony "liberals" to blame Ralph Nader for Gore's awful 2000 presidential campaign. At least Nader unlike Gore was not in the pocket of the AIPAC Lobby....
Al Gore was a hawk on foreign affairs and that is why Clinton chose him in 1992 to run as his VP candidate.....War and Imperialism have left America BANKRUPT.....Al Gore was part of this neoliberal economic crap and the Democratic Party-DLC which has gotten American into this awful bind it is in now....
Oh, yeah, Al Gore was a big defender of NAFTA and GATT too!!!!!
You phony liberals blaming Ralph for the Democrats loss in 2000....That election should have not been so close in 2000, if only Al Gore was not such a lousy camapigner and one who loves the Milton Friedman outsourcing ecomomic policies of NAFTA and GATT.....Gore couldn't even win his home state of Tennessee in 2000!!! How pathetic...
I have not seen very many fair or insightful critiques of Gore's failed 2000 campaign other than to scapegoat Ralph Nader by phony and fake "liberals."
By the way, President Barack H. Obama is a CENTRIST & NOT a "LIBERAL." And the jobs keep shipping out of America under Obama-Biden-Clinton....
Hey, "Liberals" & "Progressives," Wake up out of your drunken stupors, Already & Remove your Rose-Colored Glasses!!!
Thank you Tony Norman for giving Nader the credit he deserves. Nader has been an inspiration throughout my younger days even when I was rejected for thinking differently. Without Nader, I don't know if I would have risen to the level of thinking as a bold independent or overcoming severe depression. I was still depressed after Nader lost but when I look back at the lessons I learned about quality vs quantity throughout my education and career, I look at politics entirely differently. To be political is to put vote getting before choosing to vote for someone who truly identifies with you. To be non-political is to open one's heart and mind to the issues and judge a candidate not by party but by what he or she stands for and stack it all up. This is the kind of thinking that made me not only realize that Nader and Mckinney are top quality progressives but that even social conservatives have a heart that screams for liberalism. Nader shares that feeling but maybe the Democrat and Republican voters are afraid to confess and give him a chance. I'm willing to forgive those who voted Obama or Mccain as long as they are ready to look at the issues with an open heart and mind and help us heal those wounds. Even if Nader doesn't run in 2012, the least we can do is find people on local, state, and federal levels who share his vision and help them win public office so that they can take away political power from the monied elites and put it towards making society truly happy and stable straight from the heart.
P.S.: If there's something that doesn't make sense, please let me know. I'm writing this while I'm still in tears remembering last year's tragic election. :(
Jennifer: Well said! God give Mr. Nader a long life, but one day I hope to see his face carved on Mt. Rushmore! This country owes him at least that.
Good luck getting that through in my state. I can't turn that state blue let alone green. South Dakota could benefit from Ralph Nader any day now.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
It's not impossible to go from red to green and avoiding that "blue" middleman. :)
"I'm willing to forgive those who voted Obama or McCain as long as they are ready to look at the issues with an open heart and mind..."
–(Jennifer Beddingfield)
–Jennifer, you have a positive attitude and from reading many of your heartfelt postings it serves you well and I am not criticizing that here.
But always be careful whom you "forgive" in politics. I suspect that one of the dire problems of the travesty which calls itself American politics is that there has been too much 'forgiveness.'
Time and time again this thankless recidivism returns with even greater virulence as a haunting of the present and a sabotage of the future: Voting Democratic is one such moral abomination which haunts the present; what that forebodes for the future is all too obvious for most of the commentators who post here.
The next stage–and I believe the one most difficult for Americans– is to know when never to forgive.
My maternal grandparents where slaughtered by American soldiers in the Vietnam war in a gratuitous night raid on their village. Perhaps that makes some things easier for me. Certain ways of thinking about politics and what politics mean. I leave you with the following:
"The dictatorship is necessary because it is a case, not of partial changes, but of the very EXISTENCE of the bourgeoisie. No agreement is possible on this ground. Only force can be the deciding factor" –(Leon Trotsky), caps mine.
It finally becomes the mere EXISTENCE of the Glenn Beck's, the Dick Cheney's, the Hillary Clinton's and yes, perhaps even the "Obama voters" themselves. I myself cannot 'forgive' the Obama voter.
So, to my mind, what this quotation offers as an insight is that the higher forms of political consciousness pivot on the ability not to forgive.
Those who voted for Obama and McCain may come in time to see the 'errors' of their ways, but they cannot be forgiven; it would be tantamount to a moral obscenity to forgive them in their complicity: ...As the Predator drones embossed with the 'smiley face' logo continue to slaughter the innocents in Afghanistan they were brought to us courtesy of the Obama voter.
It is easy to say they should have known better, because it is precisely that: They should have KNOWN better. They should have voted differently. Nader and McKinney were better candidates.
See you around the neighborhood!–(Jill Bains)
Jill, you got me on "forgiveness" and where to draw the line. With what you told me about your maternal grandparents, I am further angry at the party of the 1960s. The soldiers wouldn't be there to begin with otherwise.
The way our cornfed electorate is at, I only fear that either Obama will get a second term or some fringe Republican will win. Either way, we all lose. I fear a second term from Obama more than I fear the GOP winning because with the GOP we know what's coming but with the Democrats, it's slick talk and stabbing. My greatest fear is that Obama will have a better chance at privatizing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid quietly whereas the Republican will dare not touch it lest he or she fear obvious backlash. There's also signs of Obama quietly moving forward to allowing the Internet to be privatized which could mean putting this wonderful site out of business.
If those who I forgive choose to backstab in the end and make lame excuses for voting Republican or Democrat, they're not only making themselves losers but they're dragging us into their misery. Yes, it's tricky to know who to forgive. I go by how they handle the issues and their behavior towards Obama showing his betrayal. You are correct that even that is no guarantee but I try to overcome that hard feeling that nothing big will change even if my heart and mind cry for it.
nuts
Jill, and I thought she was passionate enough for me hehe but it's actually ok. I like your posts too. Sometimes it takes passion to see the truth better and I like you style. Keep up the great work.
The one comment reportedly made by Ralph Nader in the piece that I absolutely agree with is the need for a fresher faces to replace him. Of course, the natural comeback is who. I, for one, suggest Jello Biafra.
Wouldn't it be great if we could go into the 'Way back ' machine and heed his warnings about the influence of K street lobbyists, the dire financial shenanigans of the big banks/wall street and so on(and on and on), since the 70's and earlier. He is a prophet. I love him, and his spirit of not succumbing to negative opinions and hopelessness. We should all care about our nation/people like he has.
Ah yes,"the Wayback Machine".
Yes, if somehow we had just understood history and the rise of labor in the 30's and why it happened we wouldn't be going down with the Titanic today. We would have stayed active in managing the course of our working lives instead of trusting CEO's, and when attempts to offshore came around to bypass labor agreements, we could have shut the country down with an SOS (suspension of service) until heads rolled. Both Labor Unions and the Duopoly Political parties in the US, were neutered by Big Business meddling. The mafia was brought into the Unions to discredit it, and the spin doctor's were put on TV to confuse and mislead everybody.
Our biggest obstacle to regaining our footing is TV. Most of it is mindless propaganda, showing countless episodes of citizens getting investigated and roughed-up by law enforcement and the military. Conditioning everybody to believe that the Big Federal Government always knows best. Now this Frankenstein government that we have created, has broken free of our control and it is terrorizing the whole world including us more and more.
Ralph spent his whole life reforming government and standing up for the little guy. One Eighty-Year-Old Nader is worth a hundred Forty-Year-Old Obamas.
The "ego" charge against Ralph is really quite tiresome. If Ralph had been about ego, He would have sold out to the big parties and K Street like every other politician has, as to secure funding and realize his dream of being president. But Ralph would not stab America in the back the way the "prince of darkness" has. He spent too many years making it a great country, just to tear it down.
Ralph is the Greatest American patriot known to me.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Sign me up. I wished I hadn't been a conservative Republican who ruined myself and my family before I grew up. I wished I had been a liberal instead of a conservative a decade ago. I feel rotten even though I slowly recovered. Gaaaaa !
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
I don't blame Nader for the loss in Florida by Al Gore. I blame nepotism. I blame Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris and the Republican political machine in Florida. THEY stole thousands of votes by legitimate voters, through their program to remove "felons" from the voting roles, as reported by Greg Palast on the BBC. The story was never reported by Big Media in the US.
http://www.gregpalast.com/the-great-florida-ex-con-gamernhow-the-felon-voter-purge-was-itself-felonious/
I'm with you on 'blame of nader for gore's loss in florida' because it did take those you mentioned to at least secure a charade of having to use the supreme court of the u.s. to seemingly step in and help poor america out of her dilemma by criminally stopping the recount which according to some made those 5 justices criminals for their actions to which I agree to that and for my money those 5 absolutely belong in jail as they about had to know what they were being made ready to do and those 5 subverted the constitution by not signing the order to stop the re-count so now it seems that no one person or group bears responsibility for stopping AND investigating the vote in florida then to add the finishing touch, timmy russert so eloquently stated on his show following the scotus' re-count stop 'florida, florida, florida, it's over' and that had the seeming effect of stopping any further inquiry or investigation in what happened and once again american bent over the coffee table for the benefit of the criminals.
while you're at it, toss some blame at the 94,000 registered florida democrat voters who went for shrub.
I should state that I have other issues with Nader, going WAY back.
I honor what Nader has done for this country his entire life but I will say the same thing about Nader as I do about Obama. It does no one any good to bash or worship him. The author also forgets that the election is over.
My take on most issues is as close to Nader's as are most everyone's on this forum but we have to be practical and realistic. We have a system that prevents any third party from winning. The Constitution and Libertarian parties are far right but they don't win just like the Green Party is far left but stands no chance of winning. I would like to join the Green Party too but seeing that they stand no chance of reaching 5%, I prefer to join most progressives who support pushing the party to the left. Dennis Kucinich and Anthony Weiner know that they stand no chance of influencing legislation if they switch to Independent. The same goes for Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann of the Republican Party.
Nader would make an excellent senator of CT against Dodd or Lieberman and then later run for the White House and win just like Obama did. Doesn't anyone believe that he would make a great senator who could in return join Sanders and Franken in influencing the Senate?
No one cares what you think. But feel free to throw another tantrum.
Please do tell that to the 70 million of us who voted for Obama vs the combined 2 million who voted for all third parties put together. With your kind of attitude, hardly any of the 70m who voted for Obama or the 60m who voted for Mccain would plan on joining your team. Nader doesn't need you.
I rest my case.
I think he has had enough of last week's flame war so let's give him a second chance and hold our fires. You are progressive, not conservative, right? There is nothing out of line Shawn said this time. Please go back and read what he wrote and try to reply to his points and lay off the personal attacks. You can always take him on posts where he gets controversial. Here's a good rule of thumb. If there is nothing nice you have to say, then don't say anything at all, ok?
Whether you like nader or not does not negate the probability that his ideas of running a country are more real and fair than the general msm candidates for their personality contests, but who now listens to the voice of rational reason anymore when it seems the 'billy bad ass' corporate puppets are all that are allowed to participate in the grand show of national elections and you CAN thank the MSM for their part in criminally subverting what information they allow their perfectly manicured vegetable garden to be fertilized with on an hourly and daily basis and on top of that this country is still crazy enough to probably let another clinton hold the white house and then by probably another bush.
Here’s a bit of pop psychologizing on why Ralph Nader doesn’t get the respect he deserves. I met him when he visited my law school 15 years ago, and he seemed to be truly warm and friendly – unlike how he often appears in the media.
(1) He takes seriously the limited amount of TV time he gets, and is moved to fill every moment with valuable information; he feels rushed to skip the pleasantries. Viewers interpret his sense of urgency as being edgy or pushy. (Most citizens’ only exposure to him and his ideas is through brief TV clips.)
(2) Viewers recognize at some pre-conscious level that there may be some truth in what he as to say – which can be scary. Many people have a strong denial reflex; they simply can’t face that the truth could be so different from what they’ve been conditioned to believe. They shoot the messenger.
(3) The first two factors reinforce each other: He considers much of his information to be valuable precisely because it has been under-reported. So, much of comes out of his mouth is unfamiliar to viewers. He doesn’t have time to connect on the commonly-shared truths, which he takes as read.
(4) We civilized creatures tend to downplay the animal aspects of interaction, but they can be important. Nader is not pretty; his gaze is a bit assymetrical – a sign of suspect genes. And to some, he may appear just a bit too foreign, culturally or ethnically. (Relatedly, we also tend to defer to “alpha” types – often male, though not always – such that if Dennis Kucinich were six inches taller, he might be President now. ;-)
To many Americans, Ralph Nader is an unflattering mirror.
There is little doubt that Americans are susceptible– more so than other electorates– to such subliminal, pre-conscious suasion.
I remember clearly people telling me that they found Nader "shrill" and that he looked like a "gargoyle"; Dennis Kucinich appeared as "deformed" or "dwarfish." To put this in some perspective these people were not 'lumpen' elements, but highly paid professionals with advanced degrees.
Issues, truth and even reality, have little or nothing to do with determining how many Americans vote. The degeneracy of American politics is now so advanced that it seems suspended in a dream state of inchoate, near sociopathic delusion–completely unmoored from reality. I am not exclusively talking about the Glenn Beck 'Neanderthal' contingent here, but the 'liberal' and 'progressive' tribes as well.
This, coupled with the deliberate sabotage of public education over generations has created an ignorant and uneducated citizenry that is predisposed to telegenic demagoguery. Fascism becomes the default mode of consciousness. Any rationality is abjured and the dominion of the irrational becomes the normative standard. Socialism as a concept is too rational to make sense.
But beyond that is the even darker, systemic truth: As Emma Goldman once famously said of bourgeois democracy: "If voting made a difference, it would be illegal."
Even if an educated mass public could 'elect' a centrist with a decent or rational programmatic agenda like a Ralph Nader or a Cynthia McKinney, they would never be allowed to assume power in America.
Serious political thinking begins once one has realized that brutal little fact. –(Jill Bains)
"The difference between us and [Rosa Parks, Mother Jones, etc.] is that they didn't make excuses."
Everyone should tape that to their mirrors so they see it every morning.
Although always introduced as a 'Consumer Advocate', Nader is the greatest 'Democracy Advocate' that this country has.
Nader is the only presidential candidate, and one of the only political figures in the US, who is committed to addressing and confronting EMPIRE ---- the ruling-elite corporate/financial EMPIRE that now almost fully controls our country by hiding behind the facade of its two-party 'Vichy' sham of democracy.
He has publicly pledged to confront and fight this rogue EMPIRE while Obama will not even dare to whisper the word 'Empire' ---and the only time that Repuglicans recognize the word 'Empire' is when they cash their EMPIRE pay-checks!
Nader is among the select Hall of Fame in confronting Empire aka "Corporate Communism" which Dylan Ratigan bravely names as the equivalent cancerous pathology.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
[4 time Nader Supporter/Voter for President]
Kucinich should quit the D. Party and run as an Independent if he's to have any hope whatsoever. Mainstream Media (MSM) did not cover him so people don't even know his name.
Leading Democrats will never accept him because they value their campaign contributions much more than truth or principle.
To me, Kucinich isn't principled unless he leaves the corrupt D. Party and exposes D. leadership for what they are.
Nader said he would support Kucinich if he got the nomination (or ran as an Independent). With that kind of support, and people disgusted with what is, Kucinich would have a serious chance of overthrowing the corporate candidates.
Otherwise, Kucinich is just another back-bencher mouthing off now and then to a pretty much empty room. Too bad.
DoSomething, good points.
Very few politicians actually in the Democratic Party are worth crap.
Bernie Sanders had the sense and courage to be a Socialist.
As Christopher Hitchens (with whom I seldom agree) said after the Clinton and DLC/DNC shameless, Chamberlainesque caving to corporate fascism, "the Democratic Party is not so much dead as actually, visibly, palpably rotting on the slab."
I used to think that the Democratic Party and Democrat politicians/pros/whores were merely gutless --- but now I know that "its worse" that they are fully complicit enablers of this ruling-elite corporate/financial Empire that controls our country by hiding behind the facade of their two-party 'Vichy' sham of democracy.
They are nothing but the second-string Empire enablers of "Corporate Communism" willingly marinated in their whore's pay for selling us all out to Empire.
Democrats are way below contempt and disgust -- and I should apologize to whores for comparing them with Democrats. Democrats are treasonous vermin.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
...my nose doesn't match my face.
I KNOW....I'LL CHOP IT OFF!!!
in the uk they have magazines with titles like what hi fi?
what motorcycles? in america i propose starting one named
what democrats? and one for the kids wheres waldo the
democrat? i have a feeling that they wouldn't be best
sellers! in fact we would find in very short order that
most dems are in fact pure mythology. ralph however
would be both the cover and centerfold for as long as
he would tolerate it.people don't understand that ralph
isn't a politician but a activist who doesn't engage
in the smooth talking chit chat that our current pretenders
engage in. ralph should for a change let america see
his human side and relax us about him. most of us aren't
really smart enough to get ralph and the right has taken the
opportunity to demonize him and really lessen his impact.
which of course has been a unmitigated disaster for
america.
Why don't more progressives and liberals join the Democrats instead of defecting to a third party? Why should we let Republican Lites take over the people's party and chase liberals out? If conservatives can infiltrate the Dems, they can subvert third parties too, wouldn't you think so Ralph?
Joining the Dems and voting conservatives out seems to me a better strategy than letting cons take it over. Why would we want to throw Kucinich, Grayson, Feingold, Weiner, Woolsey, Lee and other Dem progressives under the bus?
Before we can get rid of conservative Dems we may need to make an intellectual leap: To understand that "it's the conservatives stupid". The same ones that have been demonizing liberals for centuries, like they demonized Jesus the bleeding heart liberal hippie.
Are not conservatives the cause of every man-made disaster? The modern conservative is no longer, if it ever was, the plutocrat cultivated image of a nice, decent, frugal, careful, traditional, hard working, job providing human being. He's proven to be an ignorant pawn of plutocrats, or an actual violent, war-mongering, fear-mongering, racist, greedy, polluting, job destroying, lying, invading, raping, stealing, murdering reactionary beast.
The nice, frightened, little old conservative lady and her wounded vet husband who voted for Reagan, Bush, Baucus and other conservatives share the blame for the disastrous global situation.
I think we need to shed the image of "conservative" being a good thing. To stop thinking that "conservative" means right wing and "liberal" left wing. Left wing conservatives have proven to be as bad as right wing ones.
Recent online pics a conservative sent me with his caption: "This is what we should do to drug dealers", show a pretty young Chinese girl being led into a stadium and accused of selling drugs. A Chinese soldier executes her by blowing half her head off with an AK47 from a foot away. It shows graphically that the conservative left is every bit as murderous as the conservative right.
Cons mostly champion the individual while libs champion the people. But representative government needs leaders and that favors conservative individuals. that want to centralize power. So instead of decentralized liberal democratic government, concentrated power produces Stalinist left wing or Bushite right wing dictatorships.
Nader and Chomsky support vote.org. I think they can see it is a best way to bring democracy back to the people and keep it there.
Look it pal, let's get something straight okay? Learn the freakin History of the Democrats who sold out its liberal ideas afer the defeat of Michael Dukakis.
People like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, Vernon Jordan, etc made the decision to forego the FDR-LBJ Liberal ideas as the main ideas for the party. In doing so, it moved away from social justice and civil liberties issues and emphasized a more pro-defense and pro-military stance. It was the Democratic Party which moved to the center-right and started to distance itself from liberal candidates. From the Monthly Review: "...It was the DLC that pushed the Democrats to adopt neoliberal policies like industry deregulation, budget balancing at all costs, privatization of public services, lower business taxes, and support for global corporate trade deals like the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and NAFTA. For its traditional constituencies of women, minorities, environmentalists, and labor it offered a far smaller feast of lukewarm support for civil rights, affirmative action, abortion rights, and the oft-repeated argument that “hey, we are nowhere near as bad as the Republicans.”
Who pushed and signed welfare reform into law? Bill Clinton who ended the "era of big government." Without "big government" America would never have passed the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Social Security, the Civil Rights Act, Medicaid for the poor and disabled. Yes, Bill Clinton and the Demopcrats adopted right-wing policies and its language to boot to "end big government as we know it."
Again from the MR: "...genuine progressive policies like single-payer health insurance, equalization of school spending, demilitarization of the political economy, quality public transportation, increasing the ability of workers to form trade unions, reducing economic inequality, rehabilitation rather than retribution for those convicted of violent crimes, opposition to drug prohibition, and guaranteed employment at a living wage—most of which had a viable basis of support within Democratic circles in the 1970s—were fully purged from the party platforms with the DLC’s inspiration and guidance."
Even the liberal lion of the U.S. Senate, whom I admire greatly by the way, Ted Kennedy had a role in helping to deregulate the airline industry in the 1990s.
MR adds that "....A critical development in the rightward turn of the US electoral culture has been the demise of progressive forces having any meaningful influence in the higher reaches of the Democratic Party. Business has always been important in the Democratic Party and the campaign to increase corporate influence grew after progressive George McGovern won the nomination in 1972 and wrote the most anticorporate platform since Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 1936 campaign. But the main institutional development in this regard was the rise and operation of the business-funded Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) under Bill Clinton and Al Gore, among others, starting in 1985. The explicit purpose of the DLC was to make the Democrats as decidedly probusiness and promilitary as the Republicans...."
MR a;so stated that: "The transformation of the Democrats was fully accomplished over the past eight years. A turning point came when Clinton selected Gore as his vice-presidential candidate in 1992. Prior to that date, conservative or centrist Democrats like Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter had “balanced” the ticket with liberals like Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale."
About those awful and slimy DLCers:
"With Clinton’s selection of Gore, it was a formal recognition that the liberal wing of the party was losing serious clout. Any short list of the major legislative accomplishments of the Clinton-Gore administration would include: passage of a Draconian crime law; the approval of NAFTA and GATT and the creation of the WTO; the Telecommunications Act of 1996; the elimination of federal welfare guarantees to poor children and single mothers; and maintenance and expansion of military spending. These are all issues traditionally championed by the right wing of the Republican Party. There are hardly any progressive measures anywhere to be found on the Clinton-Gore report card and not one major issue where they squared off with the needs of the wealthy and put all their influence on the line to go to bat for their voting base....Moreover, reports by administration insiders like former Labor Secretary Robert Reich indicate that in cabinet debates over nearly all of these issues, it was Vice-President Al Gore who generally pushed for the most conservative, probusiness position. The dominance of the “New Democrats” within the party emerged in full force in 2000, when they cornered the entire market on presidential aspirants, for a number of reasons but notably because the exorbitant cost of campaigning scared off all but those who could comfortably nuzzle up to the money trough. Hence, the “liberal” primary challenger to Al Gore was Bill Bradley, another DLC poster child, described approvingly by one conservative as second only to Robert Rubin as “Wall Street’s favorite Democrat.” His liberalism was based, apparently, on a more sincere and higher grade of rhetoric for the dispossessed. Then, as the icing on the “New Democrat” cake, when Gore won the nomination, he selected Joseph Lieberman, the current DLC chair, as his running mate. Gore, the most conservative Democratic nominee since 1924, managed to locate one of the only Democratic Senators whose record was even more cravenly probusiness than his own. The Republican Wall Street Journal was left fumbling, as it had to acknowledge that Lieberman was as devoted to the interests of the capitalist class as nearly any other member of Congress, party notwithstanding."