Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- 37 Percent of People Completely Lost
- An Open Challenge to Michelle Rhee and the Corporate Education Zombies
- If Corporations Don’t Pay Taxes, Why Should You?
- Introduced Constitutional Amendment says: 'Democracy for People, Not Corporations'
- Which Members of Congress Are Standing Up for Economic Decency – And Which “Progressives” Aren’t
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.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
197 Comments so far
Show AllThank you. So are your mum and dad for having brought a moron like you into the world.
EXACTLY!!!
it's like what I called "america is really conservative" with just different degrees.
nader merely is "farther to the left" ONLY because he would or should be what a "centrist" is.
and for THAT ALONE - americans and parties are SO FRIGHTENED...
that tells you how deeply ingrained in american culture is the fear of REAL left or socialists!!!
it's not even laughable how limited this 300 million strong "political body" is in terms of political, economic intellect despite all the claims about being so "savvy" about
"making a BUCK"!
The author sort of contradicts himself when he voices his opposition to personality contests but on the other hand tries to make a celebrity candidate out of Ralph Nader. Ralph Nader's problem isn't his personality. The problem is the system he has been running against. This may anger a lot of people but the most valuable lesson anyone who read George Orwell's "1984" should have learned is that you cannot change a bad government by changing just the leader. Change must be built from the bottom on up. That said, we who fell for the change rhetoric from both Obama and Mccain are suckers who should have realized that one president alone cannot be the change we believe in. Most of the comments on this site are also pure fantasy if any of these posters are expecting that people will magically vote third party all of a sudden next year and in 2012. For third parties to win, they would have to not only be able to take away votes from both of the two parties but also be able to reach out to the non-voters. The Republican and Democratic parties are known for viciously stealing ideas from third parties. The question all third party advocates must answer is how this is to be minimized as much as possible. Third parties must also focus on long term plans for growth, success, and sustainability. Instead of just waiting for Nader to run, why not spend more time bringing forth local third party greens who will have a better chance at winning a Congress seat in Washington a few years later. We should not limit this to states like California and New York but spread out and try to help greens win in stark red states such as Texas and Idaho. A party that runs on hollow stands no chance of winning compared to a long term well prepared party. This is how people such as Ralph Nader will be able to attain more credit.
More credit with the likes of you?
Perish the thought.
Marco -- I agree with some of what you are saying here (although from your other posts it appears we have “issues”.) I respect Nader. He has integrity and honesty. It is in those qualities that he particularly deserves respect. They are not around much and the political/crime system embodied in the Corporate Party rewards *lack* of integrity. Lack of integrity (mainly hypocrisy and dishonesty) is the grease in the gears of the corporate/capitalist system. The contrast is one of the reasons Nader shines so brightly (not to vitiate his true sterling qualities.)
But building a party involves work, not just basking in the words of a star no matter how attractive and persuasive. We want heroes? Make ourselves heroes. Build a party from the ground up that addresses real issues, not those that simply mirror the interest of the corporatocracy.
That's what the Greens have tried to do, but it's been a tough go. One of the problems is that people go into all kinds of diversions when the focus should be on the party. The party has to be built in order to accomplish its objectives. It's a structure that has to work in a political environment. Isn't that evident? You would never know it from a huge swath of progressives who scratch their heads and look confused when the subject is broached. We've lost years and could have been much further ahead at this point.
It's strikes me a very strange that a large number of folks who should know better and who seem to be sincerely progressive don't know that Cynthia McKinney was the Green presidential candidate on 2008. I kid you not. I'd say close to half that I speak to think Nader was the candidate. What does that remarkable fact say about the state of practical politics on a party level and the interest necessary to sustain a vital project? I find it very discouraging. Preferring Nader over McKinney is one thing. People not even being informed enough about the party that best represents their interests to know who is the presidential candidate is another.
And then there are the nitpickers. They'll argue and fight about anything. (It's about themselves, really.) They have no ability to discern what is important and what is not in any kind of dispassionate manner. Trying to seriously develop an alternative to the Corporate Party (I think Nader's "duopoly" is too kind) is like herding cats or trying to bring order into a nursery of ADD/hyperactive tykes.
Best of luck if you decide to try. Just be sure to build up your stamina and get lots of Vitamin C.
For the “jump the gun” folks, let me make it clear that I think the Democratic Party (and Republican) is a money funnel and protector of the power elite. “Progressive” is (or should be) about real issues. A progressive takeover of the Democratic Party would essentially be about creating a new party. A ”new” party exists – the Greens. It’s only adamant blindness to that fact (and to the purpose of the Corporate Party) that has kept progressives from staking out territory of influence in the nation.
I like that analysis. It sure is tough to decide which route to go when nobody's standing for anyone. I'm open to voting Green Party myself. My vote would not alter NY in any way. We could focus on turning out Green Party support in deep red and blue states such as Texas and New York and build it from there. I feel awkward for voting for a party that has no regards for the lives of Afghans as if the other ones having no regards for Iraqis wasn't bad enough. I haven't decided which direction to take though but I wouldn't be surprised if I had firmly made up my mind by January.
Ralph Nader is one of the few people I respect. You can call him anything you wish, such as 'spoiler' or 'humorless' or Quixotic. He is honest and intelligent and articulate. He has refused to compromise his principles for decades. There is a long list of 'progressives' who have betrayed their cause, ending with Obama. Ralph Nader is not on that list.
I agree with the author Ralph Nader deserves better. He has saved a lot of lives, stood up when and where it counted, looked out for those around him and has always been let down by the press.
Like an American Tommy Douglas.
Sophie Scholl-The Final Days
Yes, Nader deserves more respect than he gets.
If a decade ago one of our major parties sought common cause with him instead of engaging in a program of defamation, he would have more respect than he gets.
I have seen nothing so wonderful about "bipartisanship" that has gotten said major party anywhere good. That is and was the alternative to reaching out to Nader or the Greens or anyone on the left, and it still has yet to be tried.
I believe we call that "a clue."
My wife voted for Nader but I fell for Obama and feel dumb. The state went Mccain/Palin anyway. I hope I can vote for him in 2012 to redeem myself.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
You didn't listen to your own heart let alone your wife but so too did the rest of us 130 million who chose Mccain or Obama so don't feel too bad about it. Instead, learn from your mistakes and try not to repeat them. I don't what it will take to win over those votes but like my niece would always say "Vote with your heart and mind".
The modern Democrats chose expedience over struggle because many Democrats, much less Republicans, feared the McGovern campaign's ideas and constituents. They resolved to never allow this happen again.
The result? We now have a party that's corrupt and pliant only to corporate interests. (Analogous processes occurred in England to the Labour party, in South Africa to the ANC, in Poland to Solidarity, in China after Mao's death.) They no longer represent us. Either we re-attempt what McGovern did (and take over the party leadership) or we form a powerful US Progressive Party; regardless, the existing Democratic Party will suffer the same split as in 1972 because the same basic problem (societal fairness) lies unresolved. Regardless of our choice, activism and interest is needed; passive voting is close to useless.
This is why although I support Nader, I see little reason to argue with others of us on this issue of which party to support. We have far greater problems to tackle.
One must accept that politics reflects the moral character of society. There is such thing as right and wrong, as Jesus has shown us. Most people are embarrassed by the display of ethics, by someone like Nader taking the odd man out position. Most people loose their ability to distinguish between good and bad when functioning in a group. Those who can get marginalized quickly.
You're right in saying that this artificial partisan groupthink is a major factor in preventing real solutions, but:
"One must accept that politics reflects the moral character of society."
There's an issue here. The people do not know, nor truly control what their leaders do. Thus, the leaders are not a reflection of the people.
Most people are embarrassed by the display of ethics, but that embarrassment can only be the result of knowing it's the truth. That's why in private and often in response to crisis (like the bank bailout or Hurricane Katrina) that partisanship was slow to respond to, "liberals" and "conservatives" amongst the citizenry often call for the same thing (which is not what our leaders give us).
I'm sorry. When he said that environmentally there wasn't a dime's difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore, I can't go along with your change of heart toward the man.
Remember back in November of last year on election night, he said that Obama was an Uncle Tom for corporations. Why inject a racist comment as part of his commentary on election night when most of the country was celebrating? At one point during that campaign he accused Obama of trying to talk white to distance himself from Jesse Jackson.
There are many other reasons whyI cannot ever give him respect outside of a book he wrote forty some odd years ago.
The man is a mean-spirited, self-aggrandizing curmudgeon.
Can you please give me an assessment of how Obama's economic policy favors the public more than it does the big banks and industries?
Oh please ! Ralph Nader was right and the Democrats since 2000 have rolled over and played kissyface with Dubya and the Repugs. Algore even supports "clean coal", Big Nuclear, T Boone Pickens, and has said nothing about the solutions to solving our environmental woes.
Ralph Nader was also right about Obama and he correctly predicted what a dumb dog Obama would be for the big corporations. So tell us again what he's doing for Main Street vs Wall $treet? Nader is not a "racist" or a meanie. What has Barry or Mcsame done that's any better?
And speaking of racism, why isn't Barry supporting repealing the "Patriot" Act which has opened the doors to more racial profiling? Why is he cooperating with Newt Gingrich to gut public education in the inner cities? Why is he bailing out Big Banks and not the homeowners who are affected by this especially minorities? Obama is SOILING his own race and the Repugs are laughing behind their backs.
P.S.: A friend of mine from Alternet, himself a minority is who I can thank for exposing Obama's connection with Newt and Sharpton on further ruining the lives of young African Americans. Here's what he had to say. Read it and WEEP !
Under http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/142074, here's the comment:
Get something new please
[Report this comment]
Posted by: james108 on Aug 20, 2009 6:23 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just because some white people may be angry with Obama, his "blackness" is irrelevant to me. The only thing that bugs me is the sicko powers that be are using a black man to undermine democracy, and further the Bush/Neocon globalist agenda. He convinces way more people than another angry white guy could have. He's smooth. Also, the way he's supporting the mass murder in Gaza as we pay for mercenaries, the way him and Israel sabotaged the Durban II conference on racism (how's that for racist?), and the way he is dismantling the inner city black public school system replacing qualified, experienced teachers with corporate drone interns, he's kind of a disgrace to MLK Jr.'s legacy.
What's worse than some racists on the right is what he's doing to the left. The white guilt and reverse racism seems to manifest as people thinking his blackness is some virtue in itself, and represents progress regardless of his nature or actions. That's also racism, and it's paralyzing the left. Why do we care so much about the right right now when the left is in shambles?
What do Al Sharpton and Newt Gingrich have in common? They're pushing Obama's corporate privatization and dismantling of the public school system, something all the right wing, racist think tanks weren't able to fully sell us. No joke, though I wish it was.
Sure, let's set up military charter schools and private corporate testing standards, taking input away from school boards and the community. Only a racist would be against that. I mean, look, it's Al Sharpton.
Other than that, he's just another lying, talking head, or heads. The left is gonna have a heyday keeping up with his tricks, if we care about the things we say they do, that is. The devil is in the details now, whereas before, it was on the surface. Now the challenge is if we care more about appearances or substance.
http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/
obamas-america-joins-white-walkout-un-conference-racism
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009
/08/al_sharpton_newt_gingrich_help.html
http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content
/send-clowns-3-stooges-gingrich-sharpton-
duncan-hit-road-corporate-%E2%80%9Cschool-reform%E2%80%9D
School reform, Chicago style
[Report this comment]
Posted by: james108 on Aug 20, 2009 6:29 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do we want to expand this model on the country? It's a little racist, don't you think, firing qualified, experienced black teachers to replace them with proportionally white corporate drone interns?
http://www.substancenews.net/articles.php?page=167
Great Points there:
I must add that:
"Senator Obama has some questions to answer about his dealings with one of his largest contributors, Exelon, a big nuclear power company. Apparently he cut some deals behind closed doors to protect them from full disclosure in the nuclear industry."
--Hillary Clinton, ABC-Politico Forum, Feb. 11, 2008.
"...During the ABC-Politico forum earlier this week, she (Hillary Clinton) suggested that Obama "cut some deals" on nuclear regulatory legislation with the Exelon company of Illinois, a major nuclear power operator. She implied that the backroom "deal" was somehow connected to contributions to the Obama campaign from Exelon....Obama has exaggerated his legislative accomplishments on the campaign trail. He misspoke last December when he told Iowa voters that he had "passed" a nuclear notification bill. There are certainly legitimate questions to be asked about his dealings with senior Exelon executives, who have poured large sums of money into his campaign...."
Under President Obama’s administration, Exelon expects to see a broad range of obligations and opportunities arising from energy, environmental and economic mandates, Exelon President and Chief Operating Officer Chris Crane said.
Cozy Little Group: Obama, Exelon, and their consultant, Obama's main man David Axelrod-partnership made in heaven for this nuclear giant Exelon, which has given "at least $227,000" to Obama's campaign and also got it legislation from the senator, while, written with their best interests in mind. The rewritten bill also contained the new wording sought by Exelon making it clear that state and local authorities would have no regulatory oversight of nuclear power plants...In addition, Mr. Obama's chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon. A spokeswoman for Exelon said Mr. Axelrod's company had helped an Exelon subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, with communications strategy periodically since 2002, but had no involvement in the leak controversy or other nuclear issues. The report in the New York Times revolves around nuclear leaks and helping provide cover for Exelon, a big business corporate contributor for Obama, against the best interest of a community, is not a small issue.
Obama was trying to distance himself from Jesse Jackson.....
Obama was courting the white vote and let me say...Obama literally threw his preacher the Rev Jeremiah Wright under the bus for the sake of winning votes and not offending the "white population" too much....
After all, God forbid a black preacher like Wright speak the truth about American Imperialism and U.S. Military Empire or that "chickens came home to roost" on September 11, 2001.
As we have seen with the Birthers and the other right wing jackoffs, Wright again was correct to say those words about the USA of the Ku Klux Klan....I am sure Wright remembers well the lynchings of his fellow Black brothers and sisters at the hand of whitey not too long in the USA of the KKK....
Wright quoted a CIA Officer about the "Blowback" effect on 9-11-2001. How many morons actually listened to Wright's entire sermon or read the transcript before saying anything about it? Very FEW!!!!
Obama is the MEAN ONE!!!!!!
Obama thinks nothing for image sake of throwing the following under the Bus for political reasons:
1. Rev Wright
2. Van Jones
3. Samantha Power
4. Jena Six (During the campaign for president, Obama refused to meet with them)
5. Continually criticizes black fathers
6. Absolved White Police officers who killed a black man saying they "were only doing their jobs."
7. Obama's campaign contributors, the Pritzker Family which owns the Hyatt Hotels lays off workers only to hire less paid workers with no health benefits, in Massachusetts. Not told they were being fired or let go these hotel workers trained their replacements. Obama still wants people to think he is out for the laborers just because he gave a fancy speech at the AFL-CIO in Cincinnati on Labor Day!!!!
8. Obama supports spying on innocent Americans
9. Obama extended the Patriot Act
10. Obama continues the outsourcing of jobs to India and China and other third world nations at the expense of the American working class.
11. Obama says the economy is getting better!!! BUNK!!! There has been a JOBLESS RECOVERY IN Obama's America...Obama lies like a rug....
Thank you for displaying so well, so clearly, so directly, and irrefutably just a few examples of what's been at stake.
Thank you for your time to type all this, Obama has always betrayed the black race FIRST, just to stick to the issue of Obama and blacks.
Everything Rev. Wright said about America is 100% correct and historically precise. But a corrupt shark like Obama would never side with the truth, and in this case chose to humiliate the reverend instead.
Yet just yesterday on the subway in NYC I heard for a black woman the tired, robotic excuse that Obama can't undo 8 years of Bush in just a year. When I told her that Obama and Democrats were and still are Bush aiders, abettors, co-conspirators and just as responsible for the mess we're in as Republicans, her brain couldn't handle the truth and she walked away.
Nader is perfectly right about Al Gore on the environment.
Gore is the compleat phony windbag on environmental issues--nice talk, but in practice just another supporter of antienvironmental policies who has already made tens of millions from environmental investment consultancies and stands to make tens of millions more from cap and trade.
Check this out for starters:
http://www.counterpunch.org/cohen02022007.html
Oh, gee--and the Democrats who slop up hundreds of millions of dollars from the major corporations to compete for the privilege of screwing the American people are self-effacint ANGELS.
Time for you to make a slight reality check.
Nader was right and you are wrong, indeed there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore environmentally. Don't let Gore's beautiful words and movies fool you. When action's necessary, Democrats always side with polluters. The problem with this nation is that we have millions of fools like you falling for beautiful rhetoric and Hollywood blockbuster documentaries and at the end voting against their own interest. By the way I hope you're enjoying the Back Bush Administration.
whether or not Mister Nader was "responsible for fracturing the democratic party vote" in any election - the larger issue , beyond what "either democrat or republican" voters concerns, is that as far as american political discourse goes - which is very narrowly limited to a range between "liberal/progressive and conservative" which is really a range WITHIN a generally politically and economically conservative country - Mister nader serves as the person that holds the mirror up to america....
but america is too COWARDLY to look at itself properly.
this si the real reason that the supposed "liberals" and "democrats" invariably , generally, stay WITHIN the "two party" system of corporatism...because the large majority of american voters are , given all the information and experience in their own lives, all the lessons that should have been learned long ago , simply too cowardly to give up what they THINK are their PRECIOUS little "securities" and "certainties" .
they are so FRIGHTENED of losing what they THINK they possess :
chance to get ahead, chance to have a better YEAR than BEFORE, chance to KEEP what "i earned and deserve", chance to be "secure for my future"...chance to be "safe",...etc....
that they miss the LARGER context of their own lives, and the future:
that STAYING within the very limited, narrow range of "americanISM" - they are actually LOSING those very things they try to "preserve" or hang on to...by AVOIDING something - such as what mister nader or other "more radical" LEFT leaning thinkers who don't represent the mainstream - that actually is where their best future lies.
this is a reflection of one thing:
america HAS plenty of extremely FINE individuals that can be great leaders...and guides, and teachers of how to better society...
it is AMERICANS in general who do NOT deserve THEM.
and they show it by their CHOICE -- the
COnservatives and the "less conservative"...which they erroneously think is "liberal ENOUGH"
or goodness "TOO LIBERAL" or "too LEFT" or "too SOCIALIST!!!"
and they are getting - almost one dares to say _
EXACTLY what they deserve because of their OWN COWARDICE, as individual members of Polity and as a nation of supposedly "free choice" voters, and supposedly "intelligent" people of a supposedly "advanced" political and economic system.
Mister nader is simply one among others that , each in their own way , try to show america:
we can be BETTER than THIS...we can be better than acting and behvaing and thinking like intellectual, moral, ethical , political , economic MORONS and MIDGETS.
Mister Nader and people like him and their much more advanced and progressive or "left" or "social" ideas and suggestions and reminders - appealing to the better nature of people - are therefore treated like Cassandras who should be ignored - or even IF they are PERSUASIVE - STILL be avoided because -
bottom line - americans are NOT a very courageous people - EVEN when it is for their own good in the long run.
this lack of courage - does NOT pertain to "physical courage" or things of that nature...
it is more a lack of intellectual, moral, ethical courage and a character, a NATIONAL character , even if the the only thing they really have to fear, is indeed, "fear itself":
Fear of being INCONVENIENCED from what they THINK are their "hardwon" advantages over their neighbor..and they end up COLLECTIVELY being
TRAPPED into the SAME NET of being exploited and fooled, election after election after election...with each phase making their lives and futures worse and worse and worse.
americans say - and preach - and boast - that
"we have choice, we have freedom, we are a democracy, we are the most advanced, we have the constitution, we have respect for laws, we have this , we have that".....
but when it comes to EXCERCISING those things -- they LACK the COURAGE of their own
DECLARED "convictions" .
they talk abotu being the "greatest democracy and free country" because of so many CAPITALIST "choices" and what to BUY as they break their backs to enable them to do SO , even at the cost of living a DREAM WORLD and MAKE BELIEVE wealth....
and YET GIVE UP those very freedoms...
they talk about "justice" and YET don't even bat an eyelash if justice is misapplied to SOMEONE ELSE...
they talk about having a political system that is so advanced - and YET they limit their OWN choices to something that is the equivalent of a baby just learning how to CRAWL and has NO choice BUT to crawl.
they talk abotu being a "peaceloving country" and sing about it -- and YET the songs and anthems are FULL of "bombs in the air"..and conquest and WAR.
so -- why should mister nader - regardless of what the MEDIA does TO him by marginalizing him -
be that "well known" or persuasive and commital for americans towards a better idea of social order -
when AMERICANS THEMSELVES are SO UNWILLING
to STEP outside their OWN overly glorified LIMITED imaginations or courage FOR a better life and future for everyone?
where it comes to politics and economics as two parts of social coherence...
americans are philosophically DISABLED -- and , imo, a LOT of it DESPITE what their CONSCIENCE really tells them rather than just being "manipulated" (adults , REAL adults, and GROWNUP political societies OUGHT to know !!!) -
from knowing , recognizing or admitting AND acting UPON , the fact that their politcal thinking is
as limited as that of a person who is "penny-wise and Dollar Foolish" - who is CLEVER in counting the tiny little "self advancements" (tax cuts, MY neighborhood, MY IRA, MY pension, MY CAR, MY apartment, MY career, MY children, MY church, MY this , MY that) -
but can't count the far larger consequences of their own SELFISHNESS and parochialisms.
To me, Mr. Nader is a god.
But back in 2004, he was a "nobody" as far as I was concerned.
What happened during the past few years? I became informed.
Regarding Al Gore in the 2004 election, the facts show that he won, in Florida and overall, regardless of how the "hanging chad" type ballots were counted in Florida.
Ralph Nader did not cost Gore the election, in reality. Crooked officials did.
Lastly, if MOST Americans had two characteristics, then Ralph Nader would have become President of the United States in 2004.
Those two characteristics are:
1) Decency. The more decent a person is, the more liberal a person is.
2) Being well informed, politically & economically. If Americans were very well informed in these areas, then they would be much more liberal.
Therefore, they would have voted for Ralph Nader in 2004. Al Gore, by comparison is more Right Wing than Ralph Nader.
In conclusion, Ralph Nader is a hero of mine.
It's hard for me to believe that up until 3 months ago when I was introduced to this and other progress sites, I had known so little about Ralph Nader. The more I read this site and CounterPunch and Truthdig, the more I question what my vote for Obama really is. I cannot believe that I was so uninformed all these years about Nader. I can now see why my niece loves him to death so much and would get very upset with me every time I told her that he just can't win.
It's time for the Nader detractors to grow up and learn. He's a hero in my book and it's a pity I never voted for him when I should have known better. Believe it or not, the Obama and Mccain voters are not really happy with their votes. I simply choose to admit while most of them choose to deny. It is time for voters of both major party camps to let it out and admit being disingenuous with themselves for voting for "lesser of evils" nonsense. It's ok. We won't bite. The sooner you let it out, the sooner you'll learn to seek better candidates who stand for you. I may not ever get to be a fierce independent progressive like my sweetheart niece but I'm ready to stop fooling myself and go for the real deal from now on.
I love most of the educated comments on this site to go along with the articles. To Jennifer and everyone here, thank you and once again, I completely apologize for foolishly voting for Obama.
You are right. Nader is a great man.
And you, sir, are obviously a man of integrity.
Thank you.
AGG, I owe you the most thanks for giving directions to Counterpunch. Thank you as well. I'm getting a better idea as to why the Democrats are slickers compared to the Republicans. For all the time and money this party goes through to keep Nader away, they could instead try working on conceding less. I don't even have any more hope in what they will pass for health care. They might as well just pass burnt cake and get it over with.
I miss Moondoggy by the way and lots of times, the forum isn't the same without SiouxRose. Over the past three months I've been reading, they would provide eye openers from their comments. I think Sioux did the best job of wriggling me out of my naive thinking with her spiritual touch. She's one unique lady nobody can match. I hope that jealous boy didn't drive her away. My niece actually had the most to gain from her. Whether you want to overcome unhappiness or just put a little spine in you, Sioux Rose had plenty to share for all to benefit. I hope she gets a chance to post her excellent thoughts. We're going to need it more than ever.
I can't help you with MoonDoggy but I know Sioux Rose will make it through. She won't allow a bad boy to get in her way. She's been through plenty of rough terrain in the past as she has discussed before. The trolls on this site generally don't last long. They'll usually disappear shortly. I'm glad you're learning a lot on this site. I know I have learned far more on this site than I have on Alternet or Huffpost.
Who, or what, is a Democrat? My definition of a Democrat is as follows: Any and all politicians who have an excessive fear of losing an election.
In other words, a Democrat is anyone who's willing to do and say anything to win an election for the sake of winning an election.
Anyone who's dying to be everything to everyone, regardless of the consequences.
What matters to them is to stay in power even if it means that by doing so they give up on the principles they've believed in their entire lives.
So the end result is a politician everyone will laugh at, ridiculed, and have little respect for.
The end result is a confused and cynical voting base who at best will reluctantly vote for a Democrat, but who will also learn to respect Republicans just because they stick to the principles they believe in.
And this is why I always voted for Nader. Because to him it doesn't matter if you lose an election, what matters most is the message.
Be true to the principles you believe in even if that means you'll lose a freaking political election, but at least have the pride that you have done your best to educate voters.
The Democrats have done a great deal of damage, in fact, the most damage to the poltical dialogue in the US by constantly changing their message.
Witness Barack H. Obama.
Nader is a GREAT man. There is no doubt about that fact. His work against the corporations is unsurpassed in the last 50 years.
That said, he has made a number of strategic mistakes over the last two decades. I suspect he holds many resentments towards the system that abused him. For this reason, he dropped out. Politically, he took his ball and went home. He's not playing the game anymore and he somehow thinks that he can magically spawn a third party movement to take on the status quo. I think he is sadly mistaken.
Reality is, he draws no interest from the right. He could have made more of an impact working within the Democratic party to force it to the left. Over the last 30 years, I have watched conservatives drive the Republican party to the right, it dragged everyone with them, including the Democratic party. We needed Nader to drag the Democratic party left and indirectly drag the political discourse to the left. He didn't.
On a platform of rising above it all, he finds himself taking money from the right. Mr. Nader can not rise above if he engages in the same practices he accuses the two major parties of engaging in. His cause is morally impure at this point in time and no amount of rehabilitation will rectify this reality.
At this point in time, he has become a cult of personality. I watch people on this board worship at his feet. I watch their anger and frustration as they are unable to grasp the reality that millions of people will not blindly join their cause. It has become unproductive at this point in time.
I compare and contrast his independent message with that of Moore's and there is a stark difference. Mr. Moore has encouraged us to work within the Democratic party and drive it to the left. Start at the grassroots and move upwards. I think this strategy is really the only good one we have at this point in time. If we are to truly combat corporate fascism and tyranny, we need to drive this country in a socialist direction.
I respect Mr. Nader for all that he has done for this country. It would be my hope that he joins the ranks of the left and helps unite us in a bid to fight the corporate fascist powers that now hold sway over the country. Splintering and dividing the left does not help our cause.
Growth in corporate power has created, in reality, a single business party that serves corporate interests. Ralph Nader has correctly understood this. If problems with American policy were simply a matter of Republicans vs. Democrats, conservatives vs. liberals, then perhaps the Democrats could be driven to the left with consistent pushing. What I think you and Michael Moore misunderestimate is the extent of corporate influence and control.
1. Ralph Nader makes no mistake by refusing to be a Democrat. He's realistically assessed that corporate influence has rendered both the Democratic and Republican parties incapable of significant movement, unless it serves corporate interests.
The Democratic party hasn't been pulled to the right because conservatives are unified and strategic. Truly, both progressive and conservative agendas have been ill-served by our corporate business party. The traditional conservative values of my parents pointed to a small federal government with a small federal budget. They're also displeased with excessive corporate power.
Ralph Nader has been effective in his lifetime. This is amazing and remarkable because the causes he champions usually conflict with corporate interests. Overwhelmingly, it is that conflict that's responsible for his marginalization, not his strategy. In a decadent and corrupt empire with vicious foreign policy, we have only small victories, but they are worthwhile nonetheless.
2. Ralph Nader is not morally impure because he's accepted money from people he disagrees with. As an artist, I take funds from anyone willing to give them. The key to my integrity hinges on whether I alter my path to receive the money or not. As long as the money comes without strings, then my integrity stays intact. Same for anyone else.
By the way, I'm confused. If you think Ralph Nader's cause is so morally impure, how can you continue to consider him a great man?
Here's to free-thinking people with eyes to see.
Here's to growth in awareness, not corporate profits.
The Democratic Party is not some amorphous amoeba that can be shaped by popular will.
It is a tightly controlled corporate subsidiary run by and for giant corporations.
Attempting to drive the Democrats to the left is like trying to drive Walmart or U.S. Steel to the left.
The proof is in the results--despite all the hooh-hah about Obama, he is faithfully discharging the same corporate/national security agenda as Bush II.
Strictly delusional to keep riding this "reform-the-Democrats" hobby horse.
"The Democratic Party is not some amorphous amoeba that can be shaped by popular will."
Then there's no point in dissenting eh?
Yes, there's plenty of point in dissenting.
There's no point in wasting your time in the Democratic Party.
See? Even a second-grader can get that one.
Where were you on the day God handed out brains?
Nader has been correct about everything that concerns this nation. Everything he ever said about Democrats is precisely true, despite the hatred that Dem Party Apologists, Dem Kool-aid Drinkers and Lesser Evilists have for him.
They see Nader as their real enemy, not the Republicans who are in fact their twins. And that's why they ridicule him.
Because we didn't pay attention to Nader once more, we're stuck for 8 years with the Black Bush. Enjoy, fools.
The elder Nader hit the nail on the head!
"Did you learn how to believe, or did you learn how to think?"
Nanoo
At least the Nader voter can look in the mirror the day after the polls close without feeling mad and embarassed. You've got that right Tony Norman, and I'd add everyday for the next 4 years.
What gets me, is before the election all my family and friends were going to vote for Nader, even my best girlfriend a registered green. I know the phony Palin bitch really got to them, nah that's no good excuse as I followed the election so carefully and told them all that our state will go for Obama. Now, it's like they really rather not hear about how Obama is further bringing the country down. A couple of them even admitted they wished they would have stuck with voting for Nader, like I did.
Yes, I noticed the same thing. It's part of the theater. When so many progressives were finally realizing Obama was just as sold out as any Democrat, that his campaign was paid for by corporate insurance, financial industry, etc.
Suddenly .... Stage Right: Sarah Palin and racist slurs! "Oh no! cried the left. We can't have that! She wears expensive clothing and hates wolves! We love wolves and thrift store clothing. We must support the black man! Down with racism! Down with designer clothing!"
Two party elections are pure theater, designed to take your eyes off the reality and instead focused on the show that they've written and produced.
it appears that what american politics is that it has come to be theatre, as many has pointed out.
it seems it works in some ways this way:
the democrats pose as the "liberal" . GOP as the conservatives.
the kuciniches - whatever their personal merits and that of their "far left" positions WITHIN the democrat party - serve as the means to give "liberals" and "Democrats" a smorgasboard of "choices" - thinking they have a WIDE range - reaching all the way to the ":left" ...
the Palins and mccains of course serve as the ones to be "feared" because they are so "rabid and overt" in their fascism...
so the democrats or any americans that are "independent" and "progressive" are DRIVEN like cattle - especially at the last minutes - out of
"fear of the far right" - to the "hope of openings" because "kucinich" is in the "left wing of the american election"...
which is the democrats
who then - with their Compromises and "caution": and "centralism"
turn out to be exactly what nader - or better even - the socialists would warn against:
a Fascism by increments - Fascism by "softee icecream" - Fascism by sweet chocolate...
its corporate fascism, police state fascism - by "other means".
and so -= the self-declared Fascist Huey Long - was right :
":the day shall come when america will be a Fascist Nation -- only they'll call it a Democracy".
The fact is that Ralph Nader has saved more lives than any American except Dr. Salk, maybe even more than Salk. The tremendous world-wide improvement in safety of automobiles is entirely due to his courageous whistle-blowing work.
And, the time I had dinner with him, I found that he is as witty as he is erudite. He's a long way from a curmudgeon.
By the way: why should we take seriously the opinions of those who do not sign their names to their posts? Once we accept anonymity, we are on our way to an informer society. I address this especially to those who anonymously have bad-mouthed Mr. Nader. That's cowardly behavior.
Sam Abrams, Rochester NY
mas.smarba@gmail.com
Dennis Kucinich 2012.
Only if he runs as an Independent. 2004 and 2008 didn't give him a chance as a Democrat. Any solid progressive wanting to run for president would do best to avoid running as a Democrat. I'm losing faith in that party already.
this is probably the only way anyone can get anything ...operate outside of the 2 parties. win or lose, i think it has to be shown repeatedly to americans that the 2 parties are no longer , or never were, "for the people". this way - any independent of whatever persuasion can at least run "uncompromised".
Problem is, they always find a way to get you to do otherwise. I'm well over 60. We have been fighting Democrats for 40 years. They only move to the right, never to the left, now matter how much we beg, give them the benefit of the doubt, support them at the polls. It's time we faced it: Democrats and Republicans are two heads of the same corporate monster. We need to do what any sane population would do. We need to bail and join the Greens.
Iceland recently booted from office all their crooks and elected Greens to run the country. Check it out. Yes, we're a larger more diverse country but we have to begin this process without allowing Democrats to steal the momentum. They will try. They have the media (theater!), the money, the entrenched politics. But we have the truth and our will.
Dennis Kucinich is part of the problem, not the solution.
During each of his presidential runs, he round up hundreds of thousands of credulous progressives into the foul pen of the Democratic Party for his doomed, quixotic bids for the party's nomination, knowing full well that only the corporate-financed shills will have any chance of getting the Democrats' nod. He thereby breeds illusions every four years about the redeemability of the Democratic Party, knowing full well that it is irredeemable.
Then, after his Democratic presidential follies crash and burn, as they inevitably must inside a corporate-financed and -controlled machine, he dutifully lines up behind the corporate-puppet, neoliberal, pro-Wall Street, prowar nominee: in 2004 he campaigned for Kerry, in 2008 for Obama--thereby annulling in practice all the progressive values he spouted in rhetoric on the campaign trail.
Kucinich is, in essence, another hack who places party loyalty above political principle, who urges people to vote for politicians who betray all the ideals he claims to espouse, and whose ultimate objective role is to keep people trapped in the dead end of the Democratic Party.
I voted for Kucinich in the primaries but in both cases, I found it hard to be able to judge Kucinich's sincerity from time to time when he would fall into the party loyalty trap. Nader called him out on that in 2004 and 2008 but in the end Kucinich conceded to the party nominee for president. I do take his good side of trying to fight it out where it counts but I agree that Kucinich would be a hell of a lot better off leaving the Democrat Party and empowering the Green Party for what it is worth. If Kucinich had won the nomination, I would still have chosen Nader or Mckinney over him.
But someone with Kucinich's professed views can never win the Democratic Party nomination--the corporate funding just won't be there to allow him to buy the needed ad time in the primaries.
I'm beginning to think that the Democratic Party either tolerates Kucinich, encourages him, or both because he is a useful tool. Kucinich is one man that keeps progressives hanging on, like abused children hang on to the co-dependent but non-abusive parent.
I now expect Kucinich to leave the party and join up with the Greens. If he doesn't he's part of the problem, not the solution.