Ralph Nader Throws His Hope in with Enlightened Billionaires
I saw Ralph Nader yesterday, indefatigable as ever.
He was on tour for his new book, and his first work of fiction, "Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us."
The plot is about how seventeen famous billionaires, like Warren
Buffett and Ted Turner, all of a sudden come to their conscience and
spend some of their money to bring about the anti-corporate and
pro-democracy changes that Ralph Nader has spent his life campaigning
for.
This is a Hail Mary pass for progressive change, and it is an
expression of Nader's frustration-even desperation-at our inability to
tackle what he rightly calls "the permanent corporate government" in
Washington.
His approach, in the book, is about as top-down as you can get,
though he says it's top-down, bottom-up-the billionaires spend the
money so that people at the grassroots can effectively organize.
He seems to have lost hope in the labor movement and the
environmental movement and the citizen's movement and the broad civil
rights movement getting together or a new progressive movement rising
up organically.
Throughout most of his career, Nader acted on a theory of social
change that centered around establishing citizen groups in Washington
and across the country that could act as a counterforce to the
corporate powers.
Then, when that didn't succeed, and when the Democratic Party became
increasingly corporatized, Nader ventured into third party presidential
politics.
In 2000, he ran as a Green, and talked of establishing that as a
durable third party that could act as centrifugal force against the
Democratic Party moving ever rightward. But Nader became disenchanted
with the Greens, and decided to go it alone the last two times.
And in a sense, he's going it alone this time in this book.
Rather than rely on the citizen's movement, rather than rely on the
labor movement, or a unified progressive movement, Nader is relying on
the George Soroses of this world to save us, as the title says.
"The progressive movement is good at documenting corporate power,"
he said in his talk in Madison, Wisconsin. "It's good at diagnosing.
It's good at coming up with proposals. But that's the end."
The problem, he says, is one of resources. "You cannot fight
trillions of dollars in big business money with a few millions and
expect to win."
The citizen movement, he said, is "totally amateurish" compared with
how well organized and funded the corporations are. "This mismatch is a
disaster," he said. "The progressive movement is going nowhere if it
does not address the problem of resources."
Nor does he have hope in a new youth movement.
Nader was addressing a couple of hundred people in a classroom at
the University of Wisconsin, but there weren't many students there.
Maybe that was a good thing, since he was harshing on them.
"If people are too busy updating their personal profiles on their facebook page," they won't engage in civic action, he said.
"The screen is the opium of the masses," he said. He added that we
have a whole generation living a virtual existence, and we haven't come
to grips with the negative consequences of that.
He also criticized today's students for their weak grasp of U.S.
history. For them, "The Vietnam War is like the Peloponnesian Wars."
Nader had some sharp criticism for Barack Obama, too. "It's very sad
to see the continuity between Obama and Bush," he said, rattling off
"Afghanistan, renditions, No Child Left Behind, and the faith-based
initiative." But he's not surprised that Obama is doing the bidding of
the corporate establishment. "In 100 ways, he signaled he was their
man" during the campaign, Nader said. "Did ever talk about corporate
crime, even when Wall Street was collapsing?"
Nader said Obama "learned too much from Bill Clinton" about the need
to compromise with corporate power. And he said that Obama's
personality is not right for the times. Unlike FDR, Obama "does not
like conflict," he said. Instead, he wants to please.
There is a poignance in listening to Ralph Nader these days. Here is
a man who, for the last 45 years, has hurled his body at the engine of
corporate power. He's dented it more than anyone else in America. But
he knows it's still chugging, even more strongly than ever.
Nader understands that he's losing. He understands that we're losing-we who believe in democracy, we who care about justice.
But if our only hope is with a handful of billionaires, we're in a lot worse shape than I thought.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
I saw Ralph Nader yesterday, indefatigable as ever.
He was on tour for his new book, and his first work of fiction, "Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us."
The plot is about how seventeen famous billionaires, like Warren
Buffett and Ted Turner, all of a sudden come to their conscience and
spend some of their money to bring about the anti-corporate and
pro-democracy changes that Ralph Nader has spent his life campaigning
for.
This is a Hail Mary pass for progressive change, and it is an
expression of Nader's frustration-even desperation-at our inability to
tackle what he rightly calls "the permanent corporate government" in
Washington.
His approach, in the book, is about as top-down as you can get,
though he says it's top-down, bottom-up-the billionaires spend the
money so that people at the grassroots can effectively organize.
He seems to have lost hope in the labor movement and the
environmental movement and the citizen's movement and the broad civil
rights movement getting together or a new progressive movement rising
up organically.
Throughout most of his career, Nader acted on a theory of social
change that centered around establishing citizen groups in Washington
and across the country that could act as a counterforce to the
corporate powers.
Then, when that didn't succeed, and when the Democratic Party became
increasingly corporatized, Nader ventured into third party presidential
politics.
In 2000, he ran as a Green, and talked of establishing that as a
durable third party that could act as centrifugal force against the
Democratic Party moving ever rightward. But Nader became disenchanted
with the Greens, and decided to go it alone the last two times.
And in a sense, he's going it alone this time in this book.
Rather than rely on the citizen's movement, rather than rely on the
labor movement, or a unified progressive movement, Nader is relying on
the George Soroses of this world to save us, as the title says.
"The progressive movement is good at documenting corporate power,"
he said in his talk in Madison, Wisconsin. "It's good at diagnosing.
It's good at coming up with proposals. But that's the end."
The problem, he says, is one of resources. "You cannot fight
trillions of dollars in big business money with a few millions and
expect to win."
The citizen movement, he said, is "totally amateurish" compared with
how well organized and funded the corporations are. "This mismatch is a
disaster," he said. "The progressive movement is going nowhere if it
does not address the problem of resources."
Nor does he have hope in a new youth movement.
Nader was addressing a couple of hundred people in a classroom at
the University of Wisconsin, but there weren't many students there.
Maybe that was a good thing, since he was harshing on them.
"If people are too busy updating their personal profiles on their facebook page," they won't engage in civic action, he said.
"The screen is the opium of the masses," he said. He added that we
have a whole generation living a virtual existence, and we haven't come
to grips with the negative consequences of that.
He also criticized today's students for their weak grasp of U.S.
history. For them, "The Vietnam War is like the Peloponnesian Wars."
Nader had some sharp criticism for Barack Obama, too. "It's very sad
to see the continuity between Obama and Bush," he said, rattling off
"Afghanistan, renditions, No Child Left Behind, and the faith-based
initiative." But he's not surprised that Obama is doing the bidding of
the corporate establishment. "In 100 ways, he signaled he was their
man" during the campaign, Nader said. "Did ever talk about corporate
crime, even when Wall Street was collapsing?"
Nader said Obama "learned too much from Bill Clinton" about the need
to compromise with corporate power. And he said that Obama's
personality is not right for the times. Unlike FDR, Obama "does not
like conflict," he said. Instead, he wants to please.
There is a poignance in listening to Ralph Nader these days. Here is
a man who, for the last 45 years, has hurled his body at the engine of
corporate power. He's dented it more than anyone else in America. But
he knows it's still chugging, even more strongly than ever.
Nader understands that he's losing. He understands that we're losing-we who believe in democracy, we who care about justice.
But if our only hope is with a handful of billionaires, we're in a lot worse shape than I thought.
I saw Ralph Nader yesterday, indefatigable as ever.
He was on tour for his new book, and his first work of fiction, "Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us."
The plot is about how seventeen famous billionaires, like Warren
Buffett and Ted Turner, all of a sudden come to their conscience and
spend some of their money to bring about the anti-corporate and
pro-democracy changes that Ralph Nader has spent his life campaigning
for.
This is a Hail Mary pass for progressive change, and it is an
expression of Nader's frustration-even desperation-at our inability to
tackle what he rightly calls "the permanent corporate government" in
Washington.
His approach, in the book, is about as top-down as you can get,
though he says it's top-down, bottom-up-the billionaires spend the
money so that people at the grassroots can effectively organize.
He seems to have lost hope in the labor movement and the
environmental movement and the citizen's movement and the broad civil
rights movement getting together or a new progressive movement rising
up organically.
Throughout most of his career, Nader acted on a theory of social
change that centered around establishing citizen groups in Washington
and across the country that could act as a counterforce to the
corporate powers.
Then, when that didn't succeed, and when the Democratic Party became
increasingly corporatized, Nader ventured into third party presidential
politics.
In 2000, he ran as a Green, and talked of establishing that as a
durable third party that could act as centrifugal force against the
Democratic Party moving ever rightward. But Nader became disenchanted
with the Greens, and decided to go it alone the last two times.
And in a sense, he's going it alone this time in this book.
Rather than rely on the citizen's movement, rather than rely on the
labor movement, or a unified progressive movement, Nader is relying on
the George Soroses of this world to save us, as the title says.
"The progressive movement is good at documenting corporate power,"
he said in his talk in Madison, Wisconsin. "It's good at diagnosing.
It's good at coming up with proposals. But that's the end."
The problem, he says, is one of resources. "You cannot fight
trillions of dollars in big business money with a few millions and
expect to win."
The citizen movement, he said, is "totally amateurish" compared with
how well organized and funded the corporations are. "This mismatch is a
disaster," he said. "The progressive movement is going nowhere if it
does not address the problem of resources."
Nor does he have hope in a new youth movement.
Nader was addressing a couple of hundred people in a classroom at
the University of Wisconsin, but there weren't many students there.
Maybe that was a good thing, since he was harshing on them.
"If people are too busy updating their personal profiles on their facebook page," they won't engage in civic action, he said.
"The screen is the opium of the masses," he said. He added that we
have a whole generation living a virtual existence, and we haven't come
to grips with the negative consequences of that.
He also criticized today's students for their weak grasp of U.S.
history. For them, "The Vietnam War is like the Peloponnesian Wars."
Nader had some sharp criticism for Barack Obama, too. "It's very sad
to see the continuity between Obama and Bush," he said, rattling off
"Afghanistan, renditions, No Child Left Behind, and the faith-based
initiative." But he's not surprised that Obama is doing the bidding of
the corporate establishment. "In 100 ways, he signaled he was their
man" during the campaign, Nader said. "Did ever talk about corporate
crime, even when Wall Street was collapsing?"
Nader said Obama "learned too much from Bill Clinton" about the need
to compromise with corporate power. And he said that Obama's
personality is not right for the times. Unlike FDR, Obama "does not
like conflict," he said. Instead, he wants to please.
There is a poignance in listening to Ralph Nader these days. Here is
a man who, for the last 45 years, has hurled his body at the engine of
corporate power. He's dented it more than anyone else in America. But
he knows it's still chugging, even more strongly than ever.
Nader understands that he's losing. He understands that we're losing-we who believe in democracy, we who care about justice.
But if our only hope is with a handful of billionaires, we're in a lot worse shape than I thought.