Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- This Is Cardboard. Also Entirely Recycled, Water and Fireproof, and Dirt Cheap.
- Obamacare Architect Leaves White House for Pharmaceutical Industry Job
- A Time-Lapse Map of Every Nuclear Explosion Between 1945-1998
- The GOP's Big Budget Mumble
- Five Facts About America's Pathological Wealth Distribution
Popular content
Today's Top News
Ralph Nader: ‘The Left Has Nowhere to Go’
Ralph Nader in a CNN poll a few days before the 2008 presidential election had an estimated 3 percent of the electorate, or about 4 million people, behind his candidacy. But once the votes were counted, his support dwindled to a little over 700,000. Nader believes that many of his supporters entered the polling booth and could not bring themselves to challenge the Democrats and Barack Obama. I suspect Nader is right. And this retreat is another example of the lack of nerve we must overcome if we are going to battle back against the corporate state. A vote for Nader or Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney in 2008 was an act of defiance. A vote for Obama and the Democrats was an act of submission. We cannot afford to be submissive anymore.
"The more outrageous the Republicans become, the weaker the left becomes," Nader said when I reached him at his home in Connecticut on Sunday. "The more outrageous they become, the more the left has to accept the slightly less outrageous corporate Democrats."
Nader fears a repeat of the left's cowardice in the next election, a cowardice that has further empowered the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party, maintained the role of the Democratic Party as a lackey for corporations, and accelerated the reconfiguration of the country into a neo-feudalist state. Either we begin to practice a fierce moral autonomy and rise up in multiple acts of physical defiance that have no discernable short-term benefit, or we accept the inevitability of corporate slavery. The choice is that grim. The age of the practical is over. It is the impractical, those who stand fast around core moral imperatives, figures like Nader or groups such as Veterans for Peace, which organized the recent anti-war rally in Lafayette Park in Washington, which give us hope. If you were one of the millions who backed down in the voting booth in 2008, don't do it again. If you were one of those who thought about joining the Washington protests against the war where 131 of us were arrested and did not, don't fail us next time. The closure of the mechanisms within the power system that once made democratic reform possible means we stand together as the last thin line of defense between a civil society and its disintegration. If we do not engage in open acts of defiance, we will empower a radical right-wing opposition that will replicate the violence and paranoia of the state. To refuse to defy in every way possible the corporate state is to be complicit in our strangulation.
"The left has nowhere to go," Nader said. "Obama knows it. The corporate Democrats know it. There will be criticism by the left of Obama this year and then next year they will all close ranks and say ‘Do you want Mitt Romney? Do you want Sarah Palin? Do you want Newt Gingrich?' It's very predictable. There will be a year of criticism and then it will all be muted. They don't understand that even if they do not have any place to go, they ought to fake it. They should fake going somewhere else or staying home to increase the receptivity to their demands. But because they do not make any demands, they are complicit with corporate power.
"Corporate power makes demands all the time," Nader went on. "It pulls on the Democrats and the Republicans in one direction. By having this nowhere-to-go mentality and without insisting on demands as the price of your vote, or energy to get out the vote, they have reduced themselves to a cipher. They vote. The vote totals up. But it means nothing."
There is no major difference between a McCain administration, a Bush and an Obama administration. Obama, in fact, is in many ways worse. McCain, like Bush, exposes the naked face of corporate power. Obama, who professes to support core liberal values while carrying out policies that mock these values, mutes and disempowers liberals, progressives and leftists. Environmental and anti-war groups, who plead with Obama to address their issues, are little more than ineffectual supplicants.
Obama, like Bush and McCain, funds and backs our unending and unwinnable wars. He does nothing to halt the accumulation of the largest deficits in human history. The drones murder thousands of civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as they did under Bush and would have done under McCain. The private military contractors, along with the predatory banks and investment houses, suck trillions out of the U.S. Treasury as efficiently under Obama. Civil liberties, including habeas corpus, have not been restored. The public option is dead. The continuation of the Bush tax cuts, adding some $900 billion to the deficit, along with the reduction of individual contributions to Social Security, furthers a debt peonage that will be the excuse to privatize Social Security, slash social services and break the back of public service unions. Obama does not intercede as tens of millions of impoverished Americans face foreclosures and bankruptcies. The Democrats provide better cover. But the corporate assault is the same.
"Obama has the formula now," Nader said. "You give the Republicans a lot of what they want. Many of them vote for you. You get your Democrat percentage. You weave a hybrid victory. That is what he learned in the lame-duck session. He gets praised as being a statesman and a leader and getting things done. Think of all the rewards he can contemplate while he is in Hawaii compared to what they were saying about him on Nov. 5. All the columnists and pundits say that now he can work with John Boehner. But once you take a broader view, it is the difference in the mph of corporatism. McCain is 50 miles per hour and Obama is 40 miles per hour.
"The left has disemboweled itself," Nader said. "It doesn't even have a strategy every four years like a good poker player. The best example is Richard Trumka and the AFL-CIO. Obama has given them nothing. Therefore, they are demanding nothing. They huff and puff. They make tough speeches. But Trumka hasn't even made Obama's campaign pledge of a $9.50 minimum wage by this year an issue. If you want to increase consumer demand, what better way to do it than to unleash $300 billion in wages? The card check for unionization, which Obama pledged as his No. 1 sop to the labor unions, is dead. The unions do not even demand a hearing. And now wait till you see what they will do to the public employee unions. Part of it is their own fault. They are going to be crushed. Everybody is ganging up on them. You have new class warfare. It is non-unionized lower income and middle class taking it out on the unionized middle-income public employees. It is a classic example of oligarchic manipulation. It will start playing out big time in New York State with Andrew Cuomo and others. They will start saying, ‘Why are you getting this? Most workers who pay the taxes, who pay your salaries, are not getting this.' This plays."
The banishment from the corporate media, Nader argues, has been one of the major contributors to the demoralization and weakening of the left. Protests by the left, which get little national or local coverage, have steadily dwindled in strength across the country. The first protest gets little or no coverage and this leads to movements, as well as the voices of activists, being diminished and finally suffocated.
"The so-called liberal media, along with Fox, is touting the tea party and publicizing Palin," Nader said. "There was an editorial on Dec. 27 in The New York Times on the Repeal Amendment, the right-wing constitutional amendment to allow states to overturn federal law. The editorial writer at the end had the nerve to say there is no progressive champion. The editorial said that the liberals and progressives have faded out to let the tea party make history. And yet, for months, all The New York Times has done is promote Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. They promote Newt Gingrich and the neocons on the Op-Ed pages. The book pages of the newspaper ignore progressive authors and pump all the right-wing authors.
"If we don't raise hell, we won't get any media," Nader said. "If we don't get any media, the perception will be that the tea party is the big deal.
"On one notorious Sunday, Oct. 10, two of The New York Times' segments led with a big story about Ann Coulter and how she will change her strategy because she is being outflanked by others," Nader said. "There was also a huge article on this anti-Semite against Arabs, this Islamaphobe, Pam Geller. Do you know how many pictures they had of Geller? Twenty on this front-page segment. The number of anti-war Op-Eds in The Washington Post over nine months in 2009 was 6-to-1 pro-war. We don't raise hell. We don't say Terry Gross is a censor. We don't say that Charlie Rose is a censor. We have got to blast publicly. We have got to hammer them, because they are the tribune of right-wing fascist forces.
"Three thousand people rallied to protest the invasion and massacre in Gaza two years ago," Nader said. "It was held four blocks from The Washington Post. It did not get a single paragraph. People should march over to the Post and say ‘Fuck you! What are you doing here? You cover every little blip by the right-wing and you don't cover us?'
"They are afraid of the right-wing because the right-wing bellows, and they have become right-wing," Nader said of the commercial press. "They have become fascinated by the bias of Fox. And they publicize what Fox is biased on. The coverage of O'Reilly and Beck and their fights is insane. In the heyday of coverage in the 1960s of what we were doing, it was always less than it should have been, but now it is almost zero. Why do we take this? Why do we accept this? Why isn't Chris Hedges three times a year in the Op-Ed? Why is it always Paul Wolfowitz and Elliott Abrams and all these homicidal maniacs? Why are they there? Why is John Bolton constantly published in The Washington Post and The New York Times? Where is Andrew Bacevich? Bacevich told me he has had five straight Op-Eds rejected by the Post and the Times in the last two years. And he said he is not inclined to send anymore. How many times do you hear Hoover Institution? American Enterprise Institute? Manhattan Institute. These goddamned newspapers should be picketed."
The timidity and silencing of the left fuels the steady impoverishment of a dispossessed working class and a beleaguered middle class. It solidifies a corporate oligarchy that is dismantling the anemic regulatory agencies that once protected citizens from predatory corporations. The economic system is designed to bail out Wall Street rather than replace the trillions of dollars and millions of jobs lost by workers. And the only hope left, Nader argues, is if the conservatives in the right-wing movement break from the corporatists. If the big banks again start going to the cliff and calling for new bailouts, Nader says, this may provoke a schism between conservative groups embodied by figures such as Ron Paul, and corporate lackeys.
"Every major movement starts with field organizers, the farmers, unions, and the civil rights movement," Nader said. "But there is nothing out there. We need to start learning from what was done in the past. All over the country people are pissed off. They hate Wall Street. They know they are being gouged. They know they are slipping behind. They know their kids will not be as well off as they were, and they were not that well off. But no one is putting it together. Who could put a thousand organizers in the field, besides George Soros? The labor unions. They have the money. They have a lot of cash. These idiots are going down. The UAW is a paradigm of a suicidal, supplicant labor union. It is disgusting. They are a puppy dog of GM, Ford and Chrysler. They have huge reserves. The labor unions could organize the country, but they are into their own emoluments and high salaries. The union leadership has so distanced itself from the rank and file that it is ashamed to do anything controversial. These union leaders will not go on TV on Labor Day because they do not want someone saying ‘Why are you making $500,000 a year with a pension that is six times your rank and file?' There is corruption at the top. The only way the union leaders can continue is to be in the shadows. And you don't build a strong movement in the shadows.
"The black swan question is whether something will erupt that is rare, extreme and unpredictable," Nader said. "It is amazing that it hasn't happened in any pockets of the country. How much more can the oppressed take before they revolt? And can they revolt without organizers? These are the two important questions. You have got to have organizers, and as of now we don't."
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...


331 Comments so far
Show AllQuit talking and organize.
Those of us who have been Green Party members/activists might very well be the "last thin line of defense between a civil society and its disintegration."
What's missing?
Only you can answer that.
"The left has nowhere to go," Nader said."
Not true Ralph. They can return to their Liberal roots and abandon the radical agenda that has been so forcefully rejected by the American people.
Return to Liberal causes of worker security and fairness, protection of the weak and helpless, keeping us out of foreign wars and adventures in Nation building, securing real health care for all American citizens, reconstructing fair and equitable economy and providing real education reform.
Ritual protesting is not liberal, progressive or anything but an exercise in self gratification. Exactly what Nader and Hedges among others have been saying outright for the past few years.
He certainly defines the Union problem for what it really is and what they have become.
In effect they are calling for a "Tea Party" of the left.
It is confusing as to what "radical agenda" liberals have embraced. The point which mightmmite seems to have missed in this article is that this is exactly what liberals such as the unions and others are not doing and that is to to have the courage to do something radical by acting against the ruling class in this country.
Erroll
I was pointing to the agenda that the left has embraced and the actions of those self same unions...unions that are led by anything but liberals.
Unions cannot lead in any case, nor will any "formalized" organizing work. That was my point in speaking to that. His point about Soros is well taken also.
The Left has no direction at this point that any laqrge amount of people would rally around that I can see.
Could you give me 4 points that the left should pursue? I am very interested in what you think about thisd. I spent my free time during the holidays rethinking and looking at where we have been and are going and what went wrong.
The protest in front of the White House a couple a weeks ago attracted, in terms of media coverage, a "YouTube" reporter. And a few dozen people. Appalling. The next time you get an opportunity to participate in a gathering with people such as Mr Hedges, Dr Ellsberg, Dr Flowers and the Veterans for Peace, do it.
Interesting points; however, I think Chris Hedges misses the point of the 2010 election. The entire liberal progessive left does not abandon all their values and vote for a guy like OBama. Look, when it was becoming VERY obvious O'Bama was a fraud, and our so-called "democratic-controlled" congress would continue their corporatist sell out, it revealed itself in oddly tea-party like election of Scott Brown. What happens is that the smart left are tuned-in, turned-on, and dropped-out when it comes to the electoral process of this country. This is why the republiCONs won in 2010. Obama got some of their 2008 vote only because he has the oratory of Pan playing his flute, and the rest were scared to death of Palin. I don't advocate not-voing; however, it's pretty obvious that the corporate control of government has rendered it meaningless. The REAL message of the 2010 election is that liberals just don't give a damn anymore about who runs, who rules, who is the star of the day. Frankly, it's just boring.
I myself am at the point where I want, not to see some massive display of stupidity of the masses that are doped with religion, sex and TV, but to see the whole damn thing just collapse and the the same stupid masses scurrrying around, desparate, like the useless corporate tools they have become. You can call it a black swan event, or just a good old-fashiomed environmental catastrophie. Roll the dice and we will see the the sterile reflection of the monkey-boys who thought they were god's special creatures dissolve into the souless beauty of nothingness they truly are!
I saw the original remake of the "The Time Machine" the other day. Though numerous with flaws, our obvious destiny is well foretold, of Eloi and Morlock interlocked and mated in an environment suited to the godless perils of a natural system where everything is one and the only stars are once-again, the monkey-boys and their invisible friend!
"A vote for Nader or Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney in 2008 was an act of defiance."
No -- I voted for McKinney because she was the candidate I wanted. I do the same sort of thing when I shop: it doesn't matter what the store is pushing or what most other people buy: I buy the product I want -- no 'defiance' involved at all.
Just vote for the candidate you want, and if there is no one on the ballot you want, write someone in or leave that part of the ballot blank. This is not complicated. It's what voting is supposed to be: voting by your own preference. If you want tangerines, don't buy bananas...
Rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater, we should push for a serious primary challenge to Obama. There are good Dems out there - it's just Obama isn't one of them. But trying to start a viable 3rd party just isn't feasible in the short term unless there are changes to our electoral system which would allow a 3rd party candidate to actually make a challenge. The best I know of is the first choice and a second choice system as described nicely below:
http://www.karlsims.com/second-choice-voting.html
But until that happens, voting for 3rd party candidates just helps the republicans. Look at 2000 - Nader pulled votes from Gore and subsequently we got 8 years of Bush - along with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc... Perhaps Gore wasn't as progressive as we'd like, but Nader's conclusion that the Dems and Repubs are essentially the same was ludicrous and began a serious downward spiral of our country.
No. The system itself must go. It is a corporate electoral system, a government "of the corporate, by the corporate, for the corporate", regardless of which wing of the Corporatist-Militarist Ruling Class is in a majority and in the White House.
The SCOTUS Citizens United decision was the final nail in democracy's coffin here.
It's much too late for "reform".
The U.S. Empire is collapsing, and the next 30 years will bring tremendous upheavals to this nation. Which direction those upheavals ultimately take is very much up to us now.
>>The U.S. Empire is collapsing, and the next 30 years will bring tremendous upheavals to this nation. Which direction those upheavals ultimately take is very much up to us now.
Corporate fascist empire is growing and expanding. I'll cite the inroads made into China and India as evidence. Unending wars of aggression waged with drone aircraft as proof.
Gore didn't lose because of Nader, he lost because his campaign was so pathetic that many Democrats voted for Bush. (And did you know that Gore actually WON the election? And then didn't fight for it? And prevented even ONE senator from standing with Rep. Maxine Waters and the handful of others who BEGGED for one senator to join them in order to challenge Florida's rigged vote?) And we have seen since that the Dems and Repubs ARE essentially the same.
Except that the Dems, under Obama, are WORSE, because Obama's lies and betrayals have not only destroyed the lives of millions of people, at home and abroad, which the Republicans would have done, too, though not as effectively, but Obama also has disillusioned and disempowered a whole generation of young people.
Nader was right in 2000. In fact, Nader has always been right, up to this very minute. I wish I had voted for him, and not wasted my vote on Obama.
Petrkrop
Very well said.
Actually, he did lose because of Nader took about 5% of the vote. That would have been enough to make the voter fraud in Florida a moot point. Yes, Gore should have run a better campaign - e.g. not get Clinton's help with the campaign because Clinton was so 'tarnished' by the impeachment... stain.
(sorry couldn't help that one! :)
And no, the Repugs and the Dems are not the same. Do you honestly think Gore would have invaded Iraq? Are you kidding? Do you think Gore would have stayed in Texas 'cuttin' down brush' to give cred to his cowboy image at the ol' ranch when someone presented him with a PDB entitled,
"Bin Laden determined to strike in the US"?
Realism, folks. The Roman empire didn't collapse overnight. It took hundreds of years. We still have hope to change things (ah, but real change, not the 'obama change'). Supporting a 3rd party is just a waste of time. (Can you say President Palin and wouldn't that be worse than a 2nd term for Obama???). Big Media and the Citizens United are the source of our current debacle (Oh and spineless Democrats). Those are what took out Russ Feingold and Alan Grayson.
The Socialist candidate in Florida also got more votes than the margin between the two major candidates.
There is every reason to believe that Gore would have invaded Iraq. After all, all of the Democrats were onboard with that program. Why would Gore have been any different?
Gore's style would have been more appealing to academics and intellectuals, yes. He would not have been cutting brush in Texas, and as we all know now it was that brush cutting that caused all of the problems in the country.
No one claims that the Repugs and the Dems are the same. They claim that they may as well be, that the differences are not significant enough to matter.
The main differences between the two parties are to be found between their respective marketing campaigns. The Democrats are good at appealing to and bamboozling people such as yourself. The Republicans are good at appealing to and bamboozling another group of people.
"No one claims that the Repugs and the Dems are the same."
Actually, on this site, they routinely do. All the time. Which site have you been reading?
Planetary and civic health over time with:
Repubs:
--------x
----------x
------------x
--------------x
----------------x
Dems:
-------x
------------x
------------------x
-----------------------x
----------------------------x
Why would a sane person pick either of these "solutions"?
I remember in 2008 when even the supposedly "disappointed" Obama supporters would give lame arguments such as "Obama just might do the opposite of what he's supposed to promise and we could jump for joy over progressive victories !". Jump for joy "my ass" !
No, Gore was not on the 'invade Iraq' bandwagon. Here's a link to a speech Gore gave that details why invading Iraq was a stupid idea on many fronts:
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html
In fact, 42% of the Dems in the Senate and 61% in the House voted against the Iraq invasion. Let's compare that to Repubs - 98% voted for it in the Senate and 97% in the House. That's a significant difference, no? Yes, it should be been 100% opposed but to say there's no significant difference between the two is demonstrably wrong. Final note, please cut the sarcasm when someone is honestly and sincerely trying to make a point. Did I ever say Brush clearing caused 9/11? No, but Bush's inaction did.
Obama made a speech against the war once, and his campaign made sure that millions were made aware of it.
No, votes, or speeches in Congress do not indicate "significant differences." They do indicate that politicians want us to think there are "significant differences." If we have seen anything over the last few years we have seen that all of the liberal heroes make pretty speeches, and vote the "right" way when their votes do not affect the outcome (that is all pre-arranged by the leadership before votes are taken in Congress - you did know, that, yes?) but when push comes to shove, they all "cave." Except I don't think they are caving. There is a fantasy that many people have that their "hearts are in the right place" but that they are pressured to go along with the other side, or lack "backbone" or something. Doesn't it ever occur to anyone that the Democrats basically agree with the Republicans on all things of substance, and that it is the various things they do to convince you that their hearts are in the right place that are phony?
jbr
Can you please enlighten the unwashed masses here where it says in the United States Constitution that a third party candidate such as Ralph Nader does not have the right to run for president if he so chooses? I have checked the four copies of the U.S. Constitution that I have and and was unable to locate any place where it said that only Democrats and Republicans are allowed to run for office in this country. It does not matter if Nader took 5 percent of the vote or if he took 1 percent of the vote. The fact remains that Nader, whether you like it or not, had a right to run for president in order to offer Americans an opportunity to vote for someone who did not belong to either of the two major parties.
You would like to have us believe that Nader somehow cost Gore [whose running mate, I feel compelled to remind you, was the Zionist Joseph Lieberman] the election while I and many others prefer to believe that those who foolishly voted for Gore ended up preventing Nader from winning that election.
To paraphrase from your words, voting for a Democrat, who is basically not that much different than a Republican [as evidenced by the fact that the Democrats, when they had control of Congress, continually voted to fund the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq as well as taking universal health care off the table], is just a waste of time.
Institute instant-runoff voting (IRV), and this whole "third-party spoiler" controversy goes away.
IRV and public financing of elections. And a reversal of the horrendous 'Citizens United' decision.
Until we get those changes, elections will continue to be an exercise in futility, and we'll continue to get caught up in the endless argument cycles while corporate America laughs all the way to the bank ...
I totally agree that we should do something like IRV. I like the Condorcet solution more (some French mathematician) who came up with a 1st and 2nd choice voting system. In that case, people could have voted for Nader without being a spoiler. See:
http://www.karlsims.com/second-choice-voting.html
With regards to Citizens United - it will be the death nell of democracy in America if it isn't reined in.
Condorcet was a mathematician, philosopher and prominant figure in the French Revolution. He sided with the moderate revolutionaries known as the Girondin (as did Thomas Paine) who were overcome by the more extreme Jacobins. Condorcet died during the reign of terror but wrote a significant work extolling progress and social perfectability which was long the object of hatred by conservatives. His daughter married Arthur O'Connor, leader of the remnant of the United Irishmen in France following the failure of the rebellions of 1798 and 1803 in Ireland.
The idea of 1st and 2d choice voting was his and was an inspired anticipation of one of the things wrong with our voting system.
Who will be doing the "instituting" and how? If we had the power to institute IRV, we would have power to do just about anything and would not need IRV.
Voting with the hope that elections will magically produce social and political change will always be an exercise in futility, no matter how many choices there are.
IRV already exists in New Zealand, Ireland, Berkeley, Oakland, San Francisco, Burlington Vermont, Aspen Colorado and Minneapolis Minnesota.
Why not in your community?
Donny, your posts come off as saying that we need IRV and public financing of elections just to prove that the duopoly is corrupt to the core. Yes, we need IRV, public financing of elections, reversal of CU decision, etc... but please do not use lack of any of those as an "excuse" to trash us for correctly pointing out the flaws of the two party duopoly.
Huh? You're reading more into my posts than I read into sheep entrails.
There are plenty of flaws in the two-party duopoly. Plenty.
When have I ever said otherwise????
Where I differ from other posters on this site is that I still believe that local and federal government in the U.S. occasionally does good things for regular people. That's what makes me a pariah on this site, because few here seem to believe that.
I base that on watching what my own city mayor and Congressional representative have done, sometimes against long odds. It's not all good, but it's not all bad either. (As opposed to the Repubs in my state, who really do personify "all bad". I despise the bastards with a passion. They're not even rational creatures.)
If you DO believe happen to agree with me -- i.e., that local and federal government in the U.S. occasionally DOES do good things for regular people -- my argument is that 95% of the time those positive actions happen to be associated with progressive/liberal Democrats.
I could cite many specific examples, but I've already learned that would be a waste of time, because most people on this blog would prefer me castrated for wanting to try to work within the electoral system. They love humanity in the ABSTRACT, but they seem to hate specific people like ME who don't agree with them 100% of the time.
Discuss amongst yourselves.
Donny, I can only know you by your posts. You are not a pariah simply because you believe that local and federal government occasionally does good things but your justifying bad policies with the "something better than nothing" thinking angers us. I don't judge government by party labels and have even given up ideological labels. I think on principle. I cannot say who hates you but I don't hate anyone on this site. However, asking us to just "be happy" and deny the reality that this nation is sinking in quicksand is like rubbing salt on a wound and telling him or her to be "happy" that something got done. Yes, I know that the Republicans are horrible and I get them too in my state. However, being given small scraps by the Democrats and magnifying it as if it were a big difference is disingenuous. The reason why other nations continue to get ahead of the USA is that people think outside the box and not just inside the box while it is mainly the opposite in the USA.
Why the tiresome straw dog argument? Of course Nader has the right to run for President. Who said otherwise? Nader gave it a run, but at his best, was only polling about 6% on average (which dropped significantly as the election grew near). How could Nader have won the election with 6%? Yet Nader stayed in the race - out of either egotism or petulance. And in Florida where the number of votes between Bush and Gore was 537, Nader had over 97,000. Then we had 8 years of a Hee Haw Cowboy Whitehouse. Nader could have made his point and made a deal with Gore for some cabinet position and then told his followers to vote for Gore. But oh no. He had painted himself into a corner by saying that there was no difference between the two parties. While I'm pissed at Obama and would like to see a primary run against him, voting 3rd party is only going to help the Republicans, whose party has taken a turn to the crazy...
JBR
JBR demands, "Who said otherwise?" Basically he did by his complaints that Nader supposedly "stole" the election form Gore. Nader could not have possibly stolen the election from Gore because, as I had attempted to point out earlier, apparently to no avail, Nader had just as much of a right to run for president as did Gore and Bush.
That being the case, it makes absolutely no sense at all to claim that Nader somehow "stole" the election from Gore given the fact that Nader, like Gore and Bush, was simply exercising his right to run for president and by doing that was then offering to the American populace a candidate who, unlike the Democrats and the Republicans, was beholden to the corporate interests.
As I and others have said, one could also say that Gore voters then cost the election for Ralph Nader. According to your specious if not bizarre logic a third party candidate should never be allowed to run for president in this country because that independent candidate would then have the temerity to "steal" the election from a Democrat. I think not.
One also has to believe that Gore was at least dimly aware that Nader was in the race. But apparently Gore did not do a very good job of convincing enough voters to vote for him instead of that upstart Nader. But then, of course, not only did Gore not carry Florida he also could not carry Clinton's home state of Arkansas. Not only that, Gore also had the ignominious distinction of being unable to convince the voters of his own state of Tennessee to vote for him. Is the inability of Gore to have done that also the fault of Nader?
Since you actually agree that Nader does have right to run for president if he so wishes then I suggest that you pass on that obvious fact to the Democrats and the Republicans because, as was evidenced in the documentary An Unreasonable Man, both major parties colluded with the television executives to make sure that Ralph Nader was not going to participate in a televised debate between Gore and Bush as the police barred Nader from entering that building in Boston in 2000 despite the fact that Nader had a valid ticket in his hand which should have enabled to participate in that debate. That was very much reminiscent of the classic novel Animal Farm: two legs good, four legs bad. In the example of that debate in 2000 what the TV executives and the GOP and the Savage Mules were saying is that the American people could choose from any candidate they wished as long as that candidate was either a Democrat or a Republican.
As Phil Donahue observed in the documentary, perhaps an independent candidates should go on his or her knees in order to ask the Democratic party when it might actually be all right for an independent candidate to dare to run against the Democrats and the Republicans. Undoubtedly the answer from them would be never.
>>Erroll wrote: "Nader had just as much of a right to run for president as did Gore and Bush.
That being the case, it makes absolutely no sense at all to claim that Nader somehow "stole" the election from Gore given the fact that Nader, like Gore and Bush, was simply exercising his right to run for president and by doing that was then offering to the American populace a candidate who, unlike the Democrats and the Republicans, was not beholden to the corporate interests.
As I and others have said, one could also say that Gore voters then cost the election for Ralph Nader."<<
As tiresome as it gets, this point needs repeating. It's unfortunate that it **still** needs repeating. (I added the "not" before beholden)
I've said elsewhere that going by the events that happened and decisions that were made in the 1990's and with Joe Lieberman as his VP, there is absolutely no guarantee that Gore would have acted significantly differently post 9/11. Unless it's accepted that 9/11 was an inside job that Gore would not have gone along with.
The systematic weakening and eventual neutralization of Iraqi air force and air defense took place **before** 2001, but post-1992, in the name of enforcing the UN resolution, no-fly zone, etc., by the USA and Britain (Bill Clinton and Tony Blair). This was what enabled the neocons to go ahead with their insane planning for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. And I have not seen Al Gore speaking out against the inhumane sanctions against Iraq or the systematic targeting of Iraqi defense during the 1990's. And, once again, with Lieberman as his VP, one can only speculate on how things would have turned out if Gore had won.
Alcyon
Very well said. I must also thank you for graciously placing the word not before the word beholden as I stupidly omitted that quite important and most relevant word when I wrote my comments. Just another reason why people should be more careful in proofreading their work before hitting the post button.
Thanks again for catching my foolish error.
That was nothing, Erroll - because, read in context, it was clear what you had meant.
"Dems and Reppubs ARE all the same."
I rest my case (see my comment above).
"Actually, he did lose because of Nader took about 5% of the vote. That would have been enough to make the voter fraud in Florida a moot point."
This is incorrect. I'm surprised anyone still says this. The National Opinion Research Center, in the most thorough investigation done of uncounted ballots, concluded that Gore won.
You are also making a personal judgment and presenting it as fact. Some 250,000 Democrats in Florida voted for Bush. This puts Nader's numbers (97,000) in the shade. You could, with more justification, say that Democrats lost Gore the election (not considering that Gore would have won if the ballots had been counted.)
I disagree with you about the Democrats being salvageable and vote third party, but here I'm only trying to put this "Nader lost us the election" corpse to rest.
The *nerve*! Running for president against the Corporate Party! Why it's...it's...unAmerican!
"He put George W. Bush in the White House." Maybe rebooting will help get that kink out of your circuits.
jbr your argument got us OilyBomber
When your car has gone over a cliff into the ocean and exploded do you fix it?
The Dims are war criminals, for funded criminal wars for 10 years.
Look how they have voted on Palestine.
Honest people do not work with criminals.
I think that Gore did in fact cost Nader the election. I for one will never forgive him for that.
Voting Democratic just helps the Republicans.
In America half the people eligible to vote don't vote. The half that does vote are fooled all the time — every time — and the half that doesn't vote isn't ever fooled anytime. Democrats are Republicans and Republicans are Democrats. They are all cells within one corporate person... cancer cells.
For many decades now, America has been in decaying decline. Every election results in more Americans becoming rabble, yet the growing rabble in America gets less and less rousable. Isn't that a curious thing?
The reason for the rabble being unrousable certainly can't be because Americans are nonviolent. America's past and present is all about the routine use of both individual and systemic violence to take everything from anyone less violent. Structural violence is the only thing that holds America together. It's an objective reality that violence is considered a virtue in American culture; its highest virtue.
The rabble are not rousable in America because natural persons in America have become as wholly dependent upon corporate persons as a fetus is upon its mother. The corporate persons decide, and the natural persons obey... because the corporate persons provide everything that the natural persons consume.
Corporate states eventually leave no natural left in natural persons. The consumers become what is consumed.
The "progressive" liberals have ensured that elections cannot possibly serve any good purpose, and nonviolent protest can't work without a violent partner.
The young Nader might possibly have radically changed history, if he had become famous back then for being The People's Advocate, instead of his becoming America's Consumer Advocate.
Joni Mitchell's advice was clearly better than Nader's. Ralph helped us become greater consumers, and he now claims that only the super-rich can save us. Joni sang that we should all get ourselves back to the garden.
Quit talking and organize.
Quit typing "Quit talking and organize.", and organize... ;-)
Proud to be one of the 700,000 who didn't compromise.
Money attracts fools, but it's clearly not the case that all fools have money.
However, it's been amply proven, by what results from American elections, that all voters here are definitely fools... and that a liberal is someone who is either consummately evil or dumber than a cow.
Most of those who support the corporate party's (R)s and (D)s are not wealthy.
In financial terms, most voters are either impoverished or indentured. Banks own the things that the Indentured Class (formerly known as the Middle Class) possess. A person with a modest but honest income, who happily lives within their means, is far wealthier than a high salaried dishonest person, who's miserable if they don't spend much more money than they have.
More importantly, whenever a natural person supports any corporate (R) & (D) party candidate they lose some of their natural wealth... their human beingness. They become less of a natural person, while becoming more a part of the corporate person.
2010 Comparison Average Household Net Worth:
http://chenangogreens.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=484&Itemid=70
Hedges' new book has some great new arguments concerning the WWI period (repression/Red raids) to the present, and about liberals vs. the arts. Here's to liberal courtiers being politically destroyed; they're already 90% there.
Nader's heroic as usual, but he's missing something about his salad days: the huge numbers of twentysomething Baby Boomers were his footsoldiers. Yes, corporate frontal assault has crushed many rights, but Boomers first splintered into self-destructive single issue causes and now have become political deadwood. This isn't the only factor, but it's enormous inertia to overcome.
In the 2000 election I learned I was wrong to vote for my best choice regardless of party. I learned to grind my teeth and vote party line just to push back against Republicans, who otherwise would be in charge. This "learning" was in large measure to the small but pivotal role that Ralph Nader played in the election direction (despite the Supreme Court).
Then in 2008 I learned that was wrong anyway. I learned that I should have gone ahead and voted for my best choice, Cynthia McKinney, regardless of her chances to win. Obama didn't just waste my vote, he betrayed my vote, as did almost the entire Democratic party. McKinney is the one who put herself on the line, literally.
Now, I am back to a version of my original way of voting. Vote for my choice, regardless of how hopeless their chance of winning. May as well. Forget strategy. It gets gamed away anyway.
Stop voting. What happens when they get 20% turn out? Laws which require voting? Massive cover-up? Both? Expose this sham democracy for what it really is: corporate fascist tyranny.
Anyone who thinks Hedges is a leftist or a socialist should read his review of the new translation of Dr. Zhivago in the Philadelphia Inquirer this past Sunday. How he can condemn the most significant revolution of the 20th century and still pass himself off as a spokesperson for the oppressed and an opponent of the corporate state is incredible and should give pause to any inclined to listen to his harebrained advice as to what needs be done currently.
Hear hear.
We are seeing a desperate rear guard action, as commentators such as Hedges realize that there is a very real danger of a powerful and militant Left emerging from its long slumber. That represents a threat to liberals and progressives - their status and positions are threatened by that. Hedges is a master at disguising his opposition to the Left and his contempt for the working class in an elaborate smokescreen of fake radicalism.
Where the hell do you get this? What must a person say, write or do to make you believe they are champions of the Left, the working class, and are not "fake radicals"? What does it take? Perhaps Hedges was critical of the Russian Revolution in his review of Dr. Zhivago--I haven't read it--but is the Russian Revolution really beyond criticism? It quickly devolved into a bloodbath, especially after the death of Lenin in 1923 and Stalin's bloody rise to power, which didn't end until Stalin's death in 1953. Lenin himself contributed heavily to the corruption of his own revolutionary visions.
Does applying critique of this brutally repressive regime, as it ultimately emerged (if that's what Hedges did, and I suspect there is something of this in his review), mean the critic is a "fake" and all the other slurs you sling at Hedges? Are you the only Real Leftist alive these days? Just you and the mythical working class you never tire of linking to your own pristine analysis? Please explain how Hedges is leading all us dupes down the garden path. How do we get on board with the Real Truth only Two Americas seems to grasp?