Feb 27, 2008
I had mixed feelings when some friends of mine pointed out that Ralph Nader had mentioned me as an "independent military analyst" in his Sunday appearance on NBC's Meet the Press. In responding to a question from Tim Russert about why he was running yet again, he cited a recent article of mine about how Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have not only ignored the Pentagon's record spending spree, but have adopted policies that may well involve increasing the military budget.
My point was that we need to get the Democratic frontrunners to address this issue in some fashion before they take office in 2009 (assuming a Democrat wins, which is not guaranteed by any means). It was NOT meant to suggest that we need a third party candidate in the race -- although obviously Ralph Nader is free to use the information as he sees fit.
A Democratic president would be so superior to John McCain in so many ways (most notably on Iraq, Iran, health care, and economic stimulus) that anything that risks helping McCain win the November election is irresponsible in the extreme. The only good news is that now that he is a perennial candidate (the Harold Stassen of the late 20th and early 21st century), he may draw relatively few votes. But given our winner take all system, even if the Nader vote were to tip one close state Republican it could make a difference for the worse.
He's obviously his own person, and he certainly has the right to run. But towards what end? There are other ways to get progressive views across that don't involve risking a Republican victory in November.
The most important way forward is to build a movement that will press home issues like cutting military spending and seriously addressing climate change on whoever is in Congress and the White House (but as I've suggested, I think a Democratic president would be far more responsive to these demands). Building a movement doesn't mean one guy coming out to run for president every four years (this time around, he can't even argue that he's trying to build the Green Party, as they already have a candidate). It means electing progressives to Congress, to governorships, and to state and local office; reinvigorating the trade union movement; and making environmentalism and peace imperatives for all Americans, not just issues they can choose to address or discard as if they were deciding what to wear to work in the morning. Another Nader run for president will not forward any of these objectives, and it may well do them great harm.
William D. Hartung is the director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation and a member of the Advisory Board of Foreign Policy In Focus.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
William Hartung
William D. Hartung is a Senior Research Fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, and the author most recently of "Pathways to Pentagon Spending Reductions: Removing the Obstacles."
I had mixed feelings when some friends of mine pointed out that Ralph Nader had mentioned me as an "independent military analyst" in his Sunday appearance on NBC's Meet the Press. In responding to a question from Tim Russert about why he was running yet again, he cited a recent article of mine about how Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have not only ignored the Pentagon's record spending spree, but have adopted policies that may well involve increasing the military budget.
My point was that we need to get the Democratic frontrunners to address this issue in some fashion before they take office in 2009 (assuming a Democrat wins, which is not guaranteed by any means). It was NOT meant to suggest that we need a third party candidate in the race -- although obviously Ralph Nader is free to use the information as he sees fit.
A Democratic president would be so superior to John McCain in so many ways (most notably on Iraq, Iran, health care, and economic stimulus) that anything that risks helping McCain win the November election is irresponsible in the extreme. The only good news is that now that he is a perennial candidate (the Harold Stassen of the late 20th and early 21st century), he may draw relatively few votes. But given our winner take all system, even if the Nader vote were to tip one close state Republican it could make a difference for the worse.
He's obviously his own person, and he certainly has the right to run. But towards what end? There are other ways to get progressive views across that don't involve risking a Republican victory in November.
The most important way forward is to build a movement that will press home issues like cutting military spending and seriously addressing climate change on whoever is in Congress and the White House (but as I've suggested, I think a Democratic president would be far more responsive to these demands). Building a movement doesn't mean one guy coming out to run for president every four years (this time around, he can't even argue that he's trying to build the Green Party, as they already have a candidate). It means electing progressives to Congress, to governorships, and to state and local office; reinvigorating the trade union movement; and making environmentalism and peace imperatives for all Americans, not just issues they can choose to address or discard as if they were deciding what to wear to work in the morning. Another Nader run for president will not forward any of these objectives, and it may well do them great harm.
William D. Hartung is the director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation and a member of the Advisory Board of Foreign Policy In Focus.
William Hartung
William D. Hartung is a Senior Research Fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, and the author most recently of "Pathways to Pentagon Spending Reductions: Removing the Obstacles."
I had mixed feelings when some friends of mine pointed out that Ralph Nader had mentioned me as an "independent military analyst" in his Sunday appearance on NBC's Meet the Press. In responding to a question from Tim Russert about why he was running yet again, he cited a recent article of mine about how Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have not only ignored the Pentagon's record spending spree, but have adopted policies that may well involve increasing the military budget.
My point was that we need to get the Democratic frontrunners to address this issue in some fashion before they take office in 2009 (assuming a Democrat wins, which is not guaranteed by any means). It was NOT meant to suggest that we need a third party candidate in the race -- although obviously Ralph Nader is free to use the information as he sees fit.
A Democratic president would be so superior to John McCain in so many ways (most notably on Iraq, Iran, health care, and economic stimulus) that anything that risks helping McCain win the November election is irresponsible in the extreme. The only good news is that now that he is a perennial candidate (the Harold Stassen of the late 20th and early 21st century), he may draw relatively few votes. But given our winner take all system, even if the Nader vote were to tip one close state Republican it could make a difference for the worse.
He's obviously his own person, and he certainly has the right to run. But towards what end? There are other ways to get progressive views across that don't involve risking a Republican victory in November.
The most important way forward is to build a movement that will press home issues like cutting military spending and seriously addressing climate change on whoever is in Congress and the White House (but as I've suggested, I think a Democratic president would be far more responsive to these demands). Building a movement doesn't mean one guy coming out to run for president every four years (this time around, he can't even argue that he's trying to build the Green Party, as they already have a candidate). It means electing progressives to Congress, to governorships, and to state and local office; reinvigorating the trade union movement; and making environmentalism and peace imperatives for all Americans, not just issues they can choose to address or discard as if they were deciding what to wear to work in the morning. Another Nader run for president will not forward any of these objectives, and it may well do them great harm.
William D. Hartung is the director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation and a member of the Advisory Board of Foreign Policy In Focus.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.