Writing for the pro-Nader Nation magazine, author and Green advocate Micah L. Sifry says no. In his article Greens at the Crossroads, Sifry credits Nader and his 2000 campaign, claiming they 'buoyed' the Greens, but he laments 'the party has a dysfunctional relationship with its de facto standard-bearer, Ralph Nader.' This because, 'While Nader says 'People Have the Power,' he doesn't share any power with the party that put him on the ballot in thirty-five states.'
Importantly, Nader never joined the Green Party, and still refuses to share resources with them. It almost seems that Nader is using the Greens to advance his goals, some of which look more like a personal crusade if not a vendetta against Democrats. More and more, Nader's allies and supporters wonder how this promotes the interests of Greens and progressives.
Stung by these criticisms, Nader is trying to blunt them without really addressing them. Nader is helping the Republicans retake the Senate. His stalking horse candidate Ed 'Eagle Man' McGaa is splitting the liberal vote, so Bush's hand picked candidate Norman Coleman could well beat Sen. Wellstone in Minnesota.
People think Nader endorsed Sen. Wellstone. Not exactly. He predicted McGaa won't get many votes, and said he can't see how Wellstone could lose. He didn't say 'I support Wellstone' nor did he say 'People who support me should vote for Wellstone.' That's not an endorsement, but it is vintage Nader. [continued]
(-) Perma-link (-)
...If strong situational forces cast Nader's candidacy adrift, it was ultimately swamped by the visible cracks in his persona. Nader, a private, solitary man, is dutiful, diligent, conscientious, and uncompromising.
In public life, introverts like Nader come across as cold, aloof, and uninspiring, no matter how admirable the substance of their message.
They seemingly lack empathy, which makes it difficult for them to resonate with voters. And despite their merits, highly conscientious politicians seem pedantic, stiff, and prudish. Nader's notion of "ideas over emotion" both reflects and reinforces these personal tendencies, making him a "self-styled ascetic workaholic," as an associate once described him.
That is the optimistic perspective.
Nader's dominant, controlling orientation and distrusting nature, in conjunction with his aloofness and extreme conscientiousness, make him a close match for the profile of a personality type that personality expert Theodore Millon labeled "the puritanical compulsive."
Millon describes these personalities as "austere, self-righteous, highly controlled" individuals whose "intense anger and resentment ... is given sanction, at least as they see it, by virtue of their being on the side of righteousness and morality."
For them, the world is divided into saints and sinners, and they arrogate for themselves the role of savior. Their mission is to root out vice, evil, and iniquity, their wrath becoming, as Millon puts it, "the vengeful sword of righteousness."
There is heroism in the epic struggle of Tennyson's Ulysses, "To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." But in politics, the problem with puritanical pursuit of principle is that it moves inexorably toward ever-greater degrees of fundamentalism.
In 2002, the Green Party will no doubt strive to field a candidate with Ralph Nader's sense of purpose, commitment, and principle. But to be competitive, the party would be well advised to pick someone with a personal style very different from Nader's.
Politics is the art of the possible. In politics, fundamentalism - to strive, to seek, to find, and then to smite - is not the American way.
Dale Fredrickson, Peter Habenczius, Krystle Klema, Richard Martinson, Susan Schulzetenberg, and Julian Tasev contributed to this article. Aubrey Immelman, a political psychologist, is an associate professor of psychology at the College of St. Benedict and St. John's University. You may write to him in care of the St. Cloud Times, P.O. Box 768, St. Cloud, MN 56302
(-) Perma-link (-)
Childhood Denied: The Roots of Ralph Nader's Righteousness
Peter Habenczius and Aubrey Immelman, Saint John's University, Minn.
Reprinted from the March 2001 issue of Clio's Psyche, journal of the Psychohistory Forum
Ralph Nader failed to accomplish the ostensive goals of his presidential bid in the 2000 election - to stop the shift to the right in American politics that began with Ronald Reagan in 1980 and to gain the five percent of the national popular vote required to qualify the Green Party for Federal matching funds in 2004.
Still, his campaign could be considered the most consequential crusade of his public life; in retrospect, Nader may well have played a "spoiler" role that handed the presidency to Republican nominee George W. Bush. That is the opinion of many political commentators, and of several political scientists in a forthcoming issue of the journal American Politics Research, who cite "the Nader factor" for the failure of their statistical election-outcome forecasting models, which predicted a convincing win for Democratic nominee Al Gore.
Ralph Nader must have been aware that his candidacy had the potential to determine the election outcome, given that the margin separating the two major-party candidates on the eve of the election was within the five percentage points that he hoped to garner on Election Day. Indeed, significant numbers of Nader's own supporters implored him to drop out of the race when it became clear that the nation was headed for one of its closest presidential contests in decades.
Why did Nader persist in his crusade when it should have been clear to him that his personal political values, goals, and ideals stood to suffer most under a President Bush? Nader knew that a Bush administration might move to privatize Social Security and Medicare, making seniors more dependent on HMOs and insurance companies; drag its feet in the fight against global warming and other environmental concerns near and dear to Nader; introduce sweeping tax cuts that would benefit the rich and reward corporate America; jeopardize constitutional protections for women's reproductive rights; and back away from affirmative action programs.
In spite of that, Nader chose to remain in a race in which undeniably he would siphon a significant segment of his support from voters who would otherwise back Gore, the only viable candidate with realistic prospects to make a difference in these matters.
Prior to the 2000 election, Nader clearly had strong feelings against both the vice president and President Clinton. On August 6, 2000, on NBC's "Meet the Press," he acknowledged that he would have voted to impeach and convict Bill Clinton. When asked why, he told moderator Tim Russert, "Well, first, he disgraced the office, dragged the country through it for a year. He could have owned up to it. He stole a year of journalism from the American people. Think of all the stories about things going on in this country that never made it on the news. And then he lied about it!"
There also is little love lost between Ralph Nader and Al Gore, of whom Nader has said, "Gore changes his clothes three times a day. He has absolutely no idea who he is" (Ruth Conniff, "On the road with Ralph Nader," The Nation, July 17, 2000). Most revealingly, on November 12, 2000, on the CNN program "Late Edition," Nader sardonically denied that he had stolen the election from Gore, countering that Gore was the one who stole the election from him.
In choosing to run against his own core values, undermining principles he had pursued throughout his career, Nader, in effect, chose to run against his own self - thus turning on its head the ancient Chinese proverb he so often quotes in his speeches: "To be and not to do is not to be at all." In his campaign, beyond not doing, Nader in a fanatic denial of political reality chose to undo. [continued]
(-) Perma-link (-)
By Mike Hersh (c) 2002
Rights to publication as op-ed or letter
to the editor granted with attribution.
who helps another candidate by dividing the opposition.
Ralph Nader offers silent assent as a Green stalking horse aims to help Republicans defeat arch-progressive Sen. Paul Wellstone. Only Sen. Jim Jeffords' decision to leave the extreme right wing GOP prevented Bush Republicans from giving Enron hundreds of $millions of our tax dollars, installing extremist judges to our federal courts, drilling oil in pristine wilderness, and countless other abuses.
If the Greens get their way, the Senate will shift back to Trent Lott's leadership and the right wing will run amok. Yes, the stakes are that high this election year. The Progressive magazine asks: "Who would have guessed that the hopes of both major parties in the midterm elections would hinge on one man: Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota?"
Noting that Wellstone is "The most liberal member of the Senate [and] is in the race of his life for reelection this fall [against] President Bush's hand-picked candidate," Progressive Editor Ruth Conniff observes, "in Minnesota, the Greens might determine the outcome." See: Greens Go After Wellstone.
By now, many people are wondering "What gives?" They remember Ralph Nader as the champion for important issues like clean air and water, and consumer rights and safety. Most people assume Nader is still a true blue liberal, a straight-talking guy who stands up to the powerful, and fights for the weak and speaks for the voiceless.
Those who remember Ralph Nader the activist may not understand he has new agenda. Nader is not the person he was. Today's "New Nader" is standing up for the Republicans and indirectly helping big corporations export jobs, harm the environment, exploit consumers, and loot employee pension funds. Nader keeps betraying people who trust him. This is tragic.
From discussions with hundreds of politically active people, I've learned that relatively few understand that Nader favored Bush in the 2000 election. Even fewer understand how much Nader hurt Al Gore, but facts don't lie.
If Nader ran an honorable campaign, we'd never have needed a recount and the US Supreme Court would never have selected Bush. Al Gore would have won Florida easily - as well as New Hampshire and other states - and would be serving as President today. If Nader honored his pledge not to campaign in "swing states," Al Gore would have won by a landslide in the Electoral College. Unfortunately, Nader didn't run honorably.
While Nader has every right to criticize anyone and to run for any office any way he chooses, I have the same right to criticize Nader for what he did and does. Some people want to consign this whole mess to political trivial pursuit, but not Nader. He and his Greens are working to help the Republicans hold the House and retake the Senate.
During 2000, Nader's commercials appraised his ability to tell the truth as "priceless." On Sunday morning pundit-papfests, Nader spoke out on the Enrongate scandal. Did he tell the truth about the Republican ideology of deregulation against which Democrats fight? Did he expose or condemn the long, deep and intimate relationships between Enron and George Walker Bush, his father George Herbert Walker Bush, many of their high ranking appointees, and other top Republicans? Not exactly.
Nader was on national television, with a chance to inform America about the incestuous Bush-Enron affair. He could have mocked Bush's dishonest denials that he knew "Kenny Boy" Lay as "I did not have financial relations with that company, Enron." He could have said anything he wanted. So what did he say?
Providing cover for the Bush Republicans, Nader absurdly equated two phone calls from former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin to the two-generation, decade-long, Texas-sized, Bush-Enron love affair. The former activist Nader waxed servile to the corporate right wing. Clearly helping Bush Republicans extricate from Enrongate is Nader's latest "common cause."
In the complex Enrongate scandal, we should keep one fact in mind: the Republicans caused the mess. Nader is trying to keep us from focusing on this. Does that mean Democrats are above criticism? Of course not. We all know Enron spread its money around both sides of the partisan aisle. But Democrats are giving back the Enron money they received - 25% or so of the total - but even that is far from the complete picture.
To paraphrase, "Ask not what Enron did for politicians, ask what politicians did for Enron." The Democrats sought to contain and prevent Enron abuses. The GOP let Enron run amok. Democratic consultant Paul Begala listed Democrats' efforts including:
Stopping Auditor-Consulting Conflicts by Accountants, Greater Disclosure of Derivatives, Oversight of Energy Traders, Cracking Down on Tax Havens, and Protecting [retirement funds], Investors and Shareholders. See How the Clinton Administration and the Democrats Tried to Prevent the Enron Disaster from Happening.
Nader ignored the facts as he sang in harmony with the Republican damage control team. Apparently reading from an RNC script, Nader helped the Republicans dissemble the Enron political scandal as a "business" scandal with equal ties to both parties. See The Daily Howler, 22 February 2002.
Nader calls telling the truth "priceless" but he didn't tell the truth about how Enron demonstrates profound differences between the major parties. Democrats sought to prevent the meltdown and now they want to punish Enron and its accomplices.
The Republicans opened the door for Enron's abuses. They don't want to punish Enron, they want to reward Enron. The GOP-led House passed a "stimulus package" containing hundred of $millions in giveaways to Enron. Democratic Senators killed that bill, enduring harsh criticism from the Republicans.
Democrats are still fighting against bankrupt Republican "Eronomics" policies: corporate welfare for criminal corporations, deregulation, no-bid contracts for campaign contributors. That's the big picture. Too bad Nader is too embittered to see it or tell the truth about it if he does. Either way, he's helping Bush and Enron's other friends in high places escape blame for what they did.
Specific Republican policies on behalf of Enron caused the disaster. Specific Democratic policies sought to prevent it. Ignoring this, Nader impugned Rubin with a typically glib and reckless remark. What exactly did Rubin do? As an effect of the disaster, Secretary Rubin sought to help people hoping to recover money Enron squandered. He did this in his professional capacity representing a company that loaned money to Enron. He did this by making a few phone calls to Bush officials over whom he had no influence - due or undue.
Rubin determined there wasn't much of Enron left to save. He agreed with the Bush officials that there wasn't anything they could do to help Enron's investors, creditors, and employees by reviving Enron. He told them that, in his opinion, there was no sense throwing money at the corpse of a corporation. The Bush Republicans ignored this, and are still hoping to pump money into Enron and other corporations with tax "rebates."
In direct contrast to Rubin's efforts to salvage Enron for his company and others, Dick Cheney misused a diplomatic meeting to pressure Indian officials on behalf of Enron. Considering the nuclear charged tensions between Pakistan and India which threaten to explode at any minute, perhaps Cheney should have left the collection agency tactics for another time?
So why did Nader criticize Rubin rather than Cheney? If the Asian subcontinent suffers an atomic exchange, that would kill millions of people and harm the global environment. Either Nader isn't up to speed on the issues, or he's so deep in the tank to the Republicans he might as well wear an elephant suit and dance around at Bush rallies.
Nader might have used his time to criticize Bush for trying to ram the House Republican "stimulus" plan down the throat of the Senate against Democratic opposition. That corporate "porkage" sought to end the alternative minimum tax, and "rebate" $billions of our tax dollars to huge corporations.
If Nader were any kind of progressive leader, he would have thanked if not helped Tom Daschle and the Senate Democrats who blocked this latest Republican multibillion dollar corporate welfare rip-off. Instead, Nader lied to the American people denying there are any important differences between the Democrats and Republicans. This is indefensible and inexcusable.
Senate Democrats also protected the Alaskan wilderness from oil-drilling. In 2000, Nader claimed Bush would never push such an unpopular policy. Still Nader did nothing to help Democrats or honor their efforts. This proves Nader isn't any better as a fortune teller than he is as a truth teller.
Nader still contends "the similarities tower over the dwindling real differences between the two parties that they're willing to fight over." Nader call Democrats "pathetic," a "D plus" vs. the Republicans' "D minus," but says "they both flunk." See: An Unrepentant Nader Sees a Positive Side of Bush Policy.
Nader is entitled to his opinion, but it's clear he hurts all of us - not just the Democrats - when he helps Republicans impose their D- policies on America. Nader's misdirection on Enron and other issues reveal his complicity in GOP efforts to retake the Senate. His twisted goals and duplicitous tactics strike me as "pathetic."
As Joe Conason and others observed, Nader attacks most those who disagree with him least. During the election, Nader made clear then denied his hopes Bush would prevail: "Just how much a Republican victory would trouble Nader and his acolytes has never been clear. The consumer advocate, like many of his prominent backers, has talked out of both sides of his mouth about this disturbing prospect.
"Several months ago, Nader indignantly denied a quote attributed to him by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the environmental advocate and Gore supporter, to the effect that the Green maverick would actually prefer a Bush victory. But the editors of Outside magazine cited a transcript of an interview with Nader showing he had said just that in an unguarded moment." See: Nader's hollow promise.
Every time Nader lies about Democrats he helps the Bush Republicans and he reminds me that he wanted Bush in the White House. Nader did everything he could to during Election 2000 to make that happen. Also, Nader said and did nothing to help defend our citizens' rights as Republicans threw out our votes and tore up our democracy in Florida. The only valid, fair, constitutional solution was to count the votes. Nader's suggestion? "Flip a coin."
Maybe we should have seen this betrayal coming when Nader joined the right wing jackal attack against President Clinton. As recently as his 2000 campaign which Nader claimed was about fixing the system, Nader went on the CNN Crossfire show screaming that Bob Barr and Ken Starr were right: Clinton deserved to be thrown out of office. So much for cleaning up politics, moving the country to the left, and all the little people who elected Clinton President twice!
Maybe Nader transferred his pathological hate for Bill Clinton to Al Gore when Gore loyally defended our elected President from the GOP dirty trick, lame duck impeachment. I don't pretend to know. I do know Nader is still helping the right wing divide and conquer the rest of us. He attacks Democrats while Republicans attack progress. This is a tragedy which I cannot explain.
Nader gives the Republicans aid and comfort as they undermine the economy, attack the environment, rob the poor and working people, turn back the clock on civil, human, and women's rights, and on and on. Time and again, Nader's actions - as opposed to his often beguiling rhetoric - serve the rich and the powerful, corporations and Republicans. Why? Only he can say.
Without basis, on faith alone, Naderites claim their idol is the most important force for progressive or liberal causes. Always tending toward authoritarianism and prickly about dissent, Nader and his cultish followers attack anyone who dares to question them. Nader attacked the integrity of environmentalists, unions, feminists, civil rights and gay groups and other progressive leaders. He called them "frightened liberals" and mocked them as "servile."
As Sierra Club Executive director Carl Pope wrote in: Ralph Nader Attack On Environmentalists Who Are Supporting Vice-President Gore:
"Yesterday you sent me (and many other environmentalists) a long letter defending your candidacy and attacking 'the servile mentality' of those of us in the environmental community who are supporting Vice-President Gore. I've worked alongside you as a colleague for thirty years. Neither the letter nor the tactics you are increasingly adopting in your candidacy are worthy of the Ralph Nader I knew."
Pope went on to decry Nader's deceptive, divisive and counter productive tactics. Pope upbraided Nader saying, "You have referred to the likely results of a Bush election as being a 'cold shower' for the Democratic Party. You have made clear that you will consider it a victory if the net result of your campaign is a Bush presidency." Other Nader supporters shared this assessment, and Nader himself freely admitted he preferred Bush over Gore.
Summing up Nader's campaign, Pope refers to Nader's letter as: "[S]o divorced from the real world consequences of your candidacy, and the real world choices that face Americans, it is difficult to respond to all of its selective misrepresentations and inaccuracies. A few samples, however, may show you why I am so disappointed in the turn your candidacy has taken."
Mr. Pope worked closely with Nader and respected Nader. To Nader, respect is a one way street. So is honesty. As Pope explains, "You have also broken your word to your followers who signed the petitions that got you on the ballot in many states. You pledged you would not campaign as a spoiler and would avoid the swing states. Your recent campaign rhetoric and campaign schedule make it clear that you have broken this pledge. Your response: you are a political candidate, and a political candidate wants to take every vote he can."
But even that was a lie. Analysis proves that Nader hurt the Green Party by focusing on swing states. Nader didn't seek "every vote." He sought to maximize help for Bush and damage to Gore. If this were an isolated instance, discussing Nader's shameful actions in 2000 would be beating a dead horse. The problem is, Nader is not a dead horse. He's a stalking horse, and people have the right to know.
People have the right to know that Nader lied in 2000 when he swore not to play the spoiler role, and that he is embracing that role in 2002. This is hardly lost on Republicans, as an analyst explained in the arch conservative National Review:
"The awkward position that Nader has put Gore in [2000] has been great for Republicans." ... "Republicans have been able to sit back and watch Gore dance back and forth, trying to mollify the hard Left while at the same time attempting to convince moderates that he is a New Democrat." ... "Meanwhile, George W. Bush, like Clinton in 1992 and 1996, has moved to the political center, but has not had to move so far as to alienate his ideological base."
"What would be better for Republicans than to have this scenario repeated in 2004, but this time with the federal government kicking in several million dollars to help Nader?" ... "I start fantasizing about how a viable Nader candidacy could force the 2004 Democratic candidate to move left to compete for the endorsements of unions and other left-leaning groups. As a conservative, it ain't easy being Green, but it sure is tempting." See: The Nader Position: Why the GOP should boost Ralph.
Nader's supporters trumpet his attacks on progressive leaders who don't agree with their tactics. In a Boston Globe article so positive that the Mass Greens posted it on their website, Nader is quoted attacking:
"[F]rightened liberals out there like Gloria Steinem or Jesse Jackson," whom Nader claimed "abhor" Al Gore and Bill Clinton, and really supported him. Nader attacked their sincerity, but then lied, claiming President Clinton and VP Gore had a worse record on "Civil rights enforcement, housing discrimination, affirmative action [than] Reagan and Bush." See: On The Run.
Since the election debacle and during the aftermath, Nader has done nothing to halt Bush Republican efforts: "In fact, not much at all has been heard from the Nader crusaders during the past few months, except for an occasional bleat pleading their innocence in the Election Day debacle. Considering how fervently they proclaimed their democratic idealism during the campaign, they had remarkably little to say about the travesties inflicted on their fellow citizens by the authorities in Florida last November. Mostly they responded with butt-covering rhetoric about how it was all Al Gore's fault." See: Attention, All Naderites: Are You Sleeping Well?
For all I know Nader isn't just pretending to be totally ignorant about Enron and so many other issues. Maybe he really can't tell the difference between the two parties on Enron, equal rights, the environment, the economy, campaign finance reform, choice, civil rights, and more.
I do know Nader never credits Democrats for their courage and successes. Also, Nader has been MIA and AWOL on several important liberal and progressive issues, although he pretends otherwise. As Rep. Barney Frank challenged a Letter to Ralph Nader:
"[Y]our assertion that there are no important issue differences between Bush and Gore is either flatly inaccurate or reflects your view that the issues I have just cited [choice, civil rights, equal rights, gay rights, women's rights, affirmative action, hate crimes, etc.] are not important. And I have further argued, based on my own experience in Congress in dealing with these issues, and my recollection of your advocacy, that since you have generally ignored these issues in your career, it is reasonable to assume that the answer is that you do not believe that they are important."
Nader is entitled to consider any issues unimportant. As a white, male millionaire, the above issues do not affect him, so why should he care about them? He doesn't, and that's his choice. In my opinion, his neglect and even mockery of these concerns, and his active support for the Republican efforts, confirm Nader is just pretending support the left. He's really serving the right wing.
Nader has offered various rationales for running in 2000 and running candidates in 2002. All of them involve punishing and helping Republicans defeat even the most liberal Democrats. No wonder right wingers gleefully support Nader. Why is the support mutual? Nader is often joined by avowed racist Pat Buchanan on television. That should alert progressives this isn't the Nader we used to know.
Nader still speaks out on issues. Unfortunately that's just a glimmer of the old Ralph. Regarding his sometimes valid if exaggerated and overheated analyses, he renders his diagnosis worthless because his cure is worse than the disease. This is Nader's cure: to defeat as many Democrats as possible - even the most liberal members of the House and Senate, like Paul Wellstone.
Voters have the right to know that Naderites help the right wing dominate our politics and economics with divide and conquer tactics. They do this by deceiving themselves and others, running stalking horse campaigns, and sabotaging cooperation on the center and the left. In all of this, Nader resembles Lyndon LaRouche more every day. For a good overview of LaRouche see: Ideological Odyssey: From Old Left to Far Right.
Nearly everything Nader does in the public sphere undermines the progressive cause. Naderites are helping the Bush Republicans turn back the clock on decades of progress. Naderites cannot accomplish what they claim they seek by sabotaging progressives like Wellstone and helping Republicans retake the Senate. People may deny this, but Nader admits these objectives, and his actions speak even louder than his words. Nader's actions tell us he's a stalking horse - unsafe at any speed.
(-) Perma-link (-)
Dear Ralph:
Because the debate between us concerns some of the most important public policy issues facing this country, I thought it best to write directly to you in the interest of better clarifying issues for the voters.
In your comments at the National Press Club, you noted that you had been concerned about civil rights and civil liberties for some time, and specifically mentioned your opposition to the exclusion of women from juries during the 1950s. (Since you apparently think it relevant as to where I was in school at that time, and what I was doing there, I should note that I left elementary school in 1953 and graduated from high school in 1957. As a further cultural note, I am not aware that any elementary or high school students were playing soccer in Bayonne during that time. My elementary school sports were baseball and football when we could get to a park, and stickball when we couldn't.)
I admire your opposition to blatant sexism in jury service, but that does not seem to be of great relevance to the specific issues I have been discussing concerning your view that there are no important differences between Governor Bush and Vice President Gore. My explicit points are that Gore and Bush differ sharply on whether or not a woman should be allowed to decide to have an abortion; whether or not the federal government should act against discrimination based on sexual orientation; whether or not the federal government should seek to regulate gun ownership further; and on important aspects of how to deal with racial prejudice, including the subject of affirmative action.
What I have said and am saying is that your assertion that there are no important issue differences between Bush and Gore is either flatly inaccurate or reflects your view that the issues I have just cited are not important. And I have further argued, based on my own experience in Congress in dealing with these issues, and my recollection of your advocacy, that since you have generally ignored these issues in your career, it is reasonable to assume that the answer is that you do not believe that they are important. Obviously, as a citizen advocate you are free to choose for yourself which issues to become involved with and which ones to ignore. But, now that you have become a candidate for President, your dismissal of the relevance of these issues to the Presidential election undermines the efforts of those of us who are working on them.
Apparently, you are beginning to recognize that this posture is an obstacle to your gaining votes among many liberals and others to whom these are very significant concerns. And I take it that is why you asserted at the Press Club that you are a "superior" candidate to Gore on gay and lesbian concerns. On this point, the record flatly contradicts you. Vice President Gore has been an active advocate for the rights of gays, lesbians and bisexuals for many years. On the one issue where he falls short — the question of marriage — I remember when we were fighting this battle in 1996, you refused to take a position against the Defense of Marriage Act on the dismissive ground that you did not wish to get involved in "gonadal politics."
Your desire to avoid what you deride as "gonadal politics," and I think of as the fight for gay and lesbian rights, has been consistent. Having been actively involved in the fight against gay and lesbian bias in Congress since 1981, I cannot remember ever hearing from you on this subject. And the record shows that you have similarly avoided the subject of abortion. To the extent that you have now decided that in your search for votes you should take a position on at least some of these issues, I welcome that. But, it is inconsistent with recognition of the importance of these issues to continue to claim that there are no major differences between the Democratic and Republican Presidential candidates.
The leading organizations fighting for the right of women to choose regarding abortion, and for the ability of gay, lesbian and bisexual people to be free from discrimination, endorsed Vice President Gore during the primary season, reflecting their understanding of his strong commitment to these issues. Your decision to join him in this advocacy is encouraging and reflects the progress we have made in helping create a strong constituency for them. But your support will be incomplete as long as you continue to maintain that these issues are irrelevant to the choice of a President.
I should add that I am prepared to apologize for describing you as indifferent to these issues during your career as an advocate if you can provide me with evidence that I am wrong. In your discussion at the Press Club, you mentioned discrimination against women on juries four or five decades ago as an example of your concern. If there are more recent examples — say, from the 80s or 90s — of your working to protect a women's right to choose, oppose discrimination based on sexual orientation, or support affirmative action for racial minorities, I would be glad to learn of them. No one I have spoken to in Congress or in the relevant advocacy groups can recall your playing such a role.
BARNEY FRANK
http://www.hrc.org/campaigns/2000/barney.asp [link may not work]
(-) Perma-link (-)
My friend Martin wrote: "The Greens' god-image Ralph Nader has long been an anti-union despot. It's not surprising now that the Greens are fielding anti-union candidates to knock off pro-union Democrats in California and elsewhere. The information below is from www.realchange.org (see NaderWatch - Bookmarks), and shows Nader's long history of union-busting and worker abuse."
Another friend replied: "Excellent points, Martin. Nader pays salaries "from $13,000 down" while amassing $millions which he then invests in Occidental, Monsanto, and Raytheon -- weapons makers, monopolists who overcharge the poor for needed medications, Frankenfoods...."
David Sanford writes:
Ralph talks big about democracy and even unions. But when his own workers at one of his magazines, Multinational Monitor, got fed up with cruel working conditions and started agitating for a union of their own, Nader busted the union with all of the hardball techniques used by corporate owners across America. Workers at Public Citizen, another Nader group, also tried to form a union because of 60 to 80 hour work weeks, salaries that ranged from $13,000 down, and other difficult working conditions and were blocked by Nader, who remains unapologetic to this day. Nader says "I don't think there is a role for unions in small nonprofit 'cause' organizations any more than ... within a monastery or within a union."
When ringleader Tim Shorrock filed the union recognition papers, Nader immediately transferred ownership in the Multinational Monitor to close friends who ran an organization ("Essential Information") that Nader had set up. When Shorrock showed up for work the next day, he had been fired, the locks were changed, and management called the police to charge him with theft (of his own work papers.) That charge was thrown out of court, but management fired the two supportive editors and sued the three of them for $1.2 million, agreeing to drop the intimidation suit only when they dropped their NLRB complaint. All of these action are straight from the hardball anti-union playbook, and Nader makes no apology.
According to Nader, "Public interest groups are like crusades--you can't have work rules, or 9 to 5." Shorrock, with his "union ploy," became an "adversary" according to Nader. "Anything that is commercial, is unionizable," but small public interest organizations "would go broke in a month," Nader says, if they paid union wages, offered union benefits and operated according to standard work rules, such as the eight-hour day. Remember that Nader's well-funded organizations were amassing tons of extra money that Ralph has been playing the stock market with during all these events.
Like many Washington politicians, Ralph Nader's groups have long taken advantage of earnest young ambitious workers, with two differences; Nader was more controlling and paid far less. In 1976, many were paid $5,000 per year and only a few at the top made as much as $20,000. (Nader's organizations refuse to release information on what they pay workers.) Meanwhile, Nader required daily logs of everything the workers did from 7am to 9pm, plus monthly summaries of these logs. If you didn't turn in your logs, you didn't get paid.
Nader often called workers after midnight or on sunny weekend days, with instructions, or just to test their willingness to work hard. When a revolt over working conditions broke out in the Congress Project and students demanded a group session with Nader, he contemptuously scheduled a meeting at 7:00 am, believing that few would show up.
9 marriages of staffers broke up under the pressure, including John and Nancy Esposito's, Mark Green's, Sid Wolfe's, and Davitt McAteer's.
What makes this meanness worse is that Nader claims to be defending workers -- for example in opposing the GATT treaty -- and that his organizations have a huge surplus of money, accumulating millions of dollar with which Ralph has played the stock market.
"How can we go out and try to save the world from people when we're grinding people to death all the time?"
-- John Esposito, original staffer at Nader's Center for the Study of Responsive Law
"Nader strikes me as conforming to the stereotype people have of sociologists and politicians: they bleed for the poor and downtrodden but mistreat their maids." -- David Sanford
To my friends in the labor movement:
I read the reports about the UAW and Teamsters considering a vote for Ralph Nader and think - I must be living in never-never land.
Ralph Nader fired me and two other editors from Multinational Monitor in 1984 for trying to organize a union in our shop. You can look it up in the Washington Post, Columbia Journalism Review and Labor Notes.
I was fired the day after we filed our union recognition papers with the NLRB. In the hours that followed, Nader 'transferred' ownership of MM to Essential Information run by John Richard (who would become his H.R. Haldeman if by some stretch Nader was ever elected prez) and let them do the dirty work, which included trying to get the cops to arrest me for allegedly 'stealing' my own files.
Myself, my two fired colleagues and John Cavanagh of the Institute for Policy Studies, our closest supporter, were then sued by Essential Information for trying to 'destroy their business,' a pure harassment tactic designed to make us shut up about what happened.
And now the guy has the balls to say his key campaign theme will be reforming US labor laws so its easier for workers to form unions? Simply amazing for a man who has used those laws to prevent his own workers from organizing - and MM is not the only place he's done it.
To Doug Henwood's credit, Left Business Observer is the only publication on the left to raise this issue; The Nation, Mother Jones and other 'leftie' pubs have refused to run a word about Nader's anti-union tactics - not even a letter to the editor (I still cherish a note I received from The Nation's Victor Navasky after I sent in a letter about my Nader experience - 'Why don't you write something about multinationals instead?' the courageous Vic asked me when I sought to add some truth to an Alexander Cockburn column in fulsome praise of Ralph.).
Anyone wanting further information feel free to e-mail me.
Tim Shorrock - trox51@aol.com
(-) Perma-link (-)
"[H]ow many of his 2000 voters are out there now, demonstrating against Bush's plan for a pre-emptive military strike -- a policy that almost certainly would not have been a Gore administration's reaction to Sept. 11."
Sally Kalson Wednesday, March 19, 2003
...I came across an essay by Ralph Nader, urging President Bush to stop his march to war with Iraq and pay some attention to the opposition.
Apparently, the man fails to grasp his own irrelevancy.
This is the same Ralph Nader who, in his quixotic third-party candidacy for president, insisted that there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush. His followers in the Green Party believed him, and the rest, as they say, is history.
One can't help wondering how many of his 2000 voters are out there now, demonstrating against Bush's plan for a pre-emptive military strike -- a policy that almost certainly would not have been a Gore administration's reaction to Sept. 11.
Of course, nobody could have foreseen that day's attacks or the wild ride we've been on ever since. But the electorate never has a crystal ball in the voting booth. Whoever winds up assuming the office will shape events as much as events will shape him. That's one of the things voters think about when they pull the lever -- or not -- sometimes to their later regret.
Whether Naderites have any regrets, I wouldn't presume to know. But it's still kind of stunning that he would now think anyone else cares what he has to say about the Bush administration's Iraq policy.
Given his history of casting himself as the lone incorruptible in a sea of sellouts, it's perfectly in character for Nader to chastise the president he helped create without ever acknowledging his own part in the drama. During that race, he heaped scorn on the Democrat for being just as guilty of pandering to special interests as the Republican. He denied playing the spoiler, repeatedly quipping that only Al Gore could beat Al Gore, which, while partially true, conveniently overlooked his role in propelling Bush II into office.
And he scoffed at concerns over what would happen to the federal judiciary or abortion rights -- something that bears noting yet again in light of the recent gains by anti-abortion forces who continue chiseling away at Roe vs. Wade.
It's not that I think Nader should shut up, exactly. I'm all in favor of Americans voicing their opinions on all sides of the war. Political analysts, actors, military strategists, poets, war veterans, comedians, families of soldiers, waitresses, students, Iraqi émigrés and refugees, priests, rabbis, mullahs -- I say bring 'em all on and let the listeners sort 'em out.
But for many listeners who ultimately come down against the war, Nader's comments are bound to be especially irritating.
The past two years have shown how wrong he was about the two major party candidates being political twins separated at birth. Before he releases any more essays scolding Bush on the war -- or anything else for that matter -- he first ought to take the Emily Latella route:
Go on TV, look into the camera and say, "Er, about that whole Tweedledee- Tweedledum thing? Never mind."
- Sally Kalson can be reached at skalson@post-gazette.com
(-) Perma-link (-)
Reprises His "Rosie Ruiz" Act
Subject: Ralph Nader calls for Wild Bill Janklow's resignation
Courtesy of the Rapid City Journal
Ralph Nader calls for congressman's resignation
Rep. Bill Janklow's expected absence from Congress next week as he recovers from a car crash will deprive South Dakota of a vote in the House of Representatives, although he is not likely to miss a busy period.
Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader and other auto-safety advocates called on Janklow to resign his seat in Congress, saying his speeding history made it "only a matter of time" before he was involved in a fatal crash.
This is too little, too late. Republican Rep. WIlliam Janklow - Bush's hand-picked choice to run for Congress - already was "involved in a fatal crash." He's up on charges for manslaughter. This is after several years of reckless speeding, and even bragging about it in a "state of the state" address he made as governor! All without a peep from Bush's pal Nader.
More shameless grandstanding - calling for a no-brainer - shows Nader as opportunistic and superfluous. Of course Janklow should resign. Of course Nader won't connect the dots between Janklow's reckless driving and Bush's and Cheney's several DUIs. Nader won't address anything else this debacle says about the reckless right wing. Of course not. He can't.
Nader can't make a strong case against the Republicans without revealing the critically important differences between Democrats and Republicans. Nader needs to obscure and deny that in order to maintain the myth he uses to justify empowering the extreme right wing, and to reassure voters there's no risk in further empowering the Bush Republicans. Nader intends to keep deceiving people about this, as he helps Bush win in '04 what Nader helped Bush steal in '00.
Speaking of auto safety, how is it that Nader is not getting the Ford Exploder or those Fire(and brim)stone tires off the road? They're a much bigger threat to life and limb than Janklow. Maybe Nader has 1000s of shares of stock in those companies? Nader shouldn't run for office. For reasons mentioned and more he's "unsafe in any race."
(-) Perma-link (-)
A Naderite writes: I understand your concerns, however, you are wrong. Nader help Bush win? Come on. Nader was the only Dem in the last election. Gore lost because he was so far to the right many faithfull [sic] Dems saw him as a Republican. I voted Nader in 2000, and if Dean or Dennis win the bid and slid to the right, I'll vote Green again. When the liberal party becomes conservative, what else can I do?
We proved our comments with facts. Before you can convince anyone of anything, you must offer facts as well, rather than trite clichés and rehashed Naderite doubletalk. You didn't even try to support this comment with anything but unfounded opinion: "Gore lost because he was so far to the right many faithfull [sic] Dems saw him as a Republican."
Saying so doesn't make it so, and the facts show you're simply wrong. Not only because Gore won. You're wrong because Gore won more Democratic (and more liberal) votes than anyone else in history. Perhaps you didn't realize that? Consider the evidence:
The facts do not support your claims that "Gore lost because he was so far to the right many faithfull [sic] Dems saw him as a Republican." Gore lost few votes for the reason you claim was decisive.
According to exit polling data, when asked "Do you think Al Gore's positions on the issues are...?" only 9% said Gore's stance was "Too conservative" - and 45% of them voted for Gore anyway. Of the less than a tenth who thought Gore was too far to the right, only 10% of those voted for Nader while 42% - more than four times as many - voted for Bush!
Most voters - 87% - considered Gore "too liberal" or "about right." Gore won a large majority of the 44% who said his positions were "About right." 89% of those voted for Gore while 9% supported Bush. However, Gore lost badly among the 43% who considered him "Too Liberal" as 7% of those voted for Gore, but 91% voted for Bush.
More than four times as many voters who rejected Gore did so because they considered him too liberal, rather than too conservative as Nader claims. Al Gore lost nine times as many votes from people who thought him too far left rather than too far right. Al Gore lost votes on the right, not on the left.
The data shows Gore won because liberals and Democrats didn't stay home. They supported Gore in record numbers. Liberals recognized the real liberal in the race, as Al Gore won in the inner cities and the other liberal areas. Gore didn't win by enough to prevent the Supreme Court election theft, only because so many more conservatives than liberals voted.
Al Gore won the most total liberal votes ever and the highest percentage of liberal voters in decades, carrying 80% vs. only 6% who supported Nader. Twice as many liberals 13% voted for Bush rather than Nader, making your choice the third choice among liberals. Gore also won among moderate voters 52% to 44% for Bush. Gore only lost only among conservatives who supported Bush 81% to 17%. See Data from Presidential Exit Polls, MSNBC, Nov. 7, 2000.
Investigative reporter Sam Parry confirms and adds analysis to these facts, asking, "Is Nader Right?" Perry also challenges Nader to "offer a plausible road map for how his political strategy will achieve anything beyond a consolidation of conservative power." See: "Is Nader Right?" Consortium News, Sept. 5, 2001.
The facts prove Nader isn't right and Nader hasn't offered any explanation for how his actions on behalf of the right will help anyone. Nor has Nader shown any sense of responsibility for helping the right wing claim control of the federal government. Continued....
(-) Perma-link (-)
Someone recently asked me why did Nader help Bush, and why wasn't Nader allowed in the debates? Apparently the decision to exclude an also-ran means more to some people than "Why did Nader run to maximize help for Bush (and harm to the progressive cause)" and "Why didn't Nader stand up for democracy in Florida?"
We're all free to decide what we consider important. Some put the whims of one person over the life-and-death needs of the entire nation and the entire planet. So be it. For example, Nader declared civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, workers' rights, choice, hate crimes, education, the environment, wages, health care, campaign finance reform, Social Security, Medicare, and much more didn't matter to him when he urged voters to dismiss Gore's superior positions vs. Bush on all of the above in 2000.
Nader - as a straight, white male millionaire - has every right to dismiss the life-and-death needs of others as unimportant to him. I prefer to support candidates who - no matter their race, means, gender or sexual orientation - uphold the rights of all Americans and support the Constitution. Nader supporters clearly don't.
There's no question Nader intentionally helped Bush. Nader's focus on Florida in the final days and his strategy to campaign almost exclusively in the closest states were calculated to hurt Al Gore and benefit Bush. Nader worked hard to that end: http://www.mikehersh.com/Did_Nader_Help_or_Hurt_Al_Gore.shtml
There's no way Nader could have been unaware. Progressives - including many who worked with Nader - were screaming non-stop about how Nader was helping Bush and betraying everything Nader claimed he worked for. No one can deny Nader intentionally helped Bush, unless they want to wallow in ... denial. So why did he do it?
Nader intentionally divided the center / left hoping Bush would gain the White House. Nader expects Bush's awful policies will make things so bad people will turn to Nader. Don't take my word for it. Take Nader's word for it. Or better yet, watch what Nader does and doesn't do.
As Joe Conasan wrote: "Americans have their own tiny movement whose left-wing rhetoric promotes right-wing ascendancy. It's called Naderism."
As Jacob Weisberg wrote: "It's not just that Nader is willing to take a chance of being personally responsible for electing Bush. It's that he's actively trying to elect Bush because he thinks that social conditions in American need to get worse before they can [get] better."
"Nader often makes this 'the worse, the better' point on the stump in relation to Republicans and the environment. He says that the Reagan-era interior secretary James Watt was useful because he was a 'provocateur' for change, noting that Watt spurred a massive boost in the Sierra Club's membership."
"Nader applied the same logic to Bush himself. Here's the Los Angeles Times' account of a speech Nader gave at Chapman University in Orange, California, last week:
"After lambasting Gore as part of a do-nothing Clinton administration, Nader said, 'If it were a choice between a provocateur and an anaesthetiser, I'd rather have a provocateur. It would mobilize us.' "
Nader helped the "party that he thinks will inflict maximum damage on the environment, civil rights, labor rights, and so on. By assisting his class enemy, Nader thinks he can help pull the wool from the eyes of a sheep-like public."
Complete article
The Village Voice's Lenora Todaro gave Nader an opportunity to refute this, asking: "Jacob Weisberg wrote in Slate that you had a 'Leninist strategy of heightening the contradictions' and that you adopted a it-has-to-get-worse-to-get-better policy. Anything to that?"
Nader couldn't answer truthfully without owning up to his strategy. So Nader attacked Bill Clinton, Al Gore and other Democrats, apparently hoping no one would notice he dodged the question:
"We were adopting a policy that says American people deserve significant choices between two major parties and third parties. As far as Leninist strategy, Tony Coehlo and the corporate Democratic National Committee--which spawned Clinton, Gore, and Lieberman...."
Complete Article
As Jacob Weisberg wrote: "It's clear that the people [Nader] really despises are those who half agree with him."
Here are key excerpts from the article in question
Jacob Weisberg Tuesday November 7, 2000
For some time now, Nader has made it perfectly clear that his campaign isn't about trying to pull the Democrats back to the left. Rather, his strategy is the Leninist one of "heightening the contradictions."
It's not just that Nader is willing to take a chance of being personally responsible for electing Bush. It's that he's actively trying to elect Bush because he thinks that social conditions in American need to get worse before they can [get] better.
Nader often makes this "the worse, the better" point on the stump in relation to Republicans and the environment. He says that the Reagan-era interior secretary James Watt was useful because he was a "provocateur" for change, noting that Watt spurred a massive boost in the Sierra Club's membership.
More recently, Nader applied the same logic to Bush himself. Here's the Los Angeles Times' account of a speech Nader gave at Chapman University in Orange, California, last week: "After lambasting Gore as part of a do-nothing Clinton administration, Nader said, 'If it were a choice between a provocateur and an anaesthetiser, I'd rather have a provocateur. It would mobilize us.'"
Lest this remark be considered an aberration, Nader has said similar things before. "When [the Democrats] lose, they say it's because they are not appealing to the Republican voters," Nader told an audience in Madison, Wisconsin, a few months ago, according to a story in the Nation. "We want them to say they lost because a progressive movement took away votes."
That might make it sound like Nader's goal is to defeat Gore in order to shift the Democratic party to the left. But in a more recent interview with David Moberg in the socialist paper In These Times, Nader made it clear that his real mission is to destroy and then replace the Democratic party altogether.
According to Moberg, Nader talked "about leading the Greens into a 'death struggle' with the Democratic party to determine which will be the majority party." Nader further and shockingly explained that he hopes in the future to run Green party candidates around the country, including against such progressive Democrats as Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, and Representative Henry Waxman of California.
"I hate to use military analogies," Nader said, "but this is war on the two parties."
Nader and his supporters are emulating a disturbing, familiar pattern of sectarian idiocy.
Nader criticizes Bush half-heartedly, then becomes enthusiastic and animated blasting the Green version of the "social fascists" - Bill Clinton, Gore, and moderate environmentalists. It's clear that the people he really despises are those who half agree with him.
To Nader, it is liberal meliorists, not rightwing conservatives, who are the true enemies of his effort to build a "genuine" progressive movement. He does have a preference between Republicans and Democrats, and it's for the party that he thinks will inflict maximum damage on the environment, civil rights, labor rights, and so on. By assisting his class enemy, Nader thinks he can help pull the wool from the eyes of a sheep-like public.
Complete article
Again, Joe Conason explains why so many people find Nader and Naderites naive and negative -- a threat to progressive and liberal causes:
"[Nader] attracted a substantial group of his followers to a rally where he explained again that there was no significant difference between the two major parties. Even while Ralph Nader was delivering his rote witticisms, the public-interest groups he founded were lobbying feverishly in Washington to defeat the energy proposals of George W. Bush, the President who owes his victory to Mr. Nader.
"At issue was the desire of Mr. Bush and his oil-industry backers to open the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. A victory for the White House would have dealt a terrible symbolic blow to the environmental values proclaimed by Mr. Nader and his supporters. Fortunately for the country and the caribou, the Naderites were proved wrong again."
Complete Article
(-) Perma-link (-)
The Washington Post reported on July 21, 2003: 'The Green Party emerged from a national meeting over the weekend increasingly certain that it will run a presidential candidate in next year's election, all but settling a debate within the group over how it should approach the 2004 contest.' See: Greens Want Candidate in 2004 - Most Rule Out Supporting a Democrat.
Are the Greens determined to run their own candidate for President no matter what? We fear this is so divisive, even discussing this controversy will divide other groups. We started Greens vs. Democrats to hash out Green vs. Democrats conflicts. We expect the debate will become heated. Please try to behave respectfully. The moderators will not get involved except trying to avoid / prevent unlawful activities and law suits. No libel please! Comments are the opinions and views of the message writers, not this group's.
(-) Perma-link (-)
By Norman Solomon
"Hayden added cogently, 'Nader and the Greens need a reality check. The notion that the two major parties are somehow identical may be a rationale for building a third party, but it insults the intelligence of millions of blacks, Latinos, women, gays, environmentalists and trade unionists who can't afford the indulgence of Republican rule.'"
"By now it's an open secret that Ralph Nader is almost certain to run for president again next year. Nader has been a brilliant and inspirational progressive for several decades. I supported his presidential campaigns in 1996 and 2000. I won't in 2004. The reasons are not about the past but about the future."
Activists have plenty of good reasons to challenge the liberal Democratic Party operatives who focus on election strategy while routinely betraying progressive ideals. Unfortunately, the national Green Party now shows appreciable signs of the flip side -- focusing on admirable ideals without plausible strategy. Running Ralph Nader for president is on the verge of becoming a kind of habitual crutch -- used even when the effect is more damaging than helpful.
It's impossible to know whether the vote margin between Bush and his Democratic challenger will be narrow or wide in November 2004. I've never heard a credible argument that a Nader campaign might help to defeat Bush next year. A Nader campaign might have no significant effect on Bush's chances -- or it could turn out to help Bush win. With so much at stake, do we really want to roll the dice this way?
We're told that another Nader campaign will help to build the Green Party. But Nader's prospects of coming near his nationwide 2000 vote total of 2.8 million are very slim; much more probable is that a 2004 campaign would win far fewer votes -- hardly an indicator of, or contributor to, a growing national party.
It appears to me that the entire project of running a Green presidential candidate in 2004 is counter- productive. Some faithful will be energized, with a number of predictably uplifting 'super rallies' along the way, but many past and potential Green voters are likely to consciously drift away. Such a campaign will generate much alienation and bitterness from natural constituencies. Ironically, the current Green party- building agenda looks like a scenario for actually damaging the party.
Green organizers often insist that another presidential run is necessary so that the party can energize itself and stay on the ballot in various states. But it would be much better to find other ways to retain ballot access while running stronger Green campaigns in selected local races. Overall, I don't believe that a Green Party presidential campaign in 2004 will help build a viable political alternative from below.
Some activists contend that the Greens will maintain leverage over the Democratic Party by conveying a firm intention to run a presidential candidate. I think that's basically an illusion. The prospect of a Green presidential campaign is having very little effect on the Democratic nomination contest, and there's no reason to expect that to change. The Democrats are almost certain to nominate a 'moderate' corporate flack (in which category Howard Dean should be included).
A few years ago, Nader and some others articulated the theory that throwing a scare into the Democrats would move them in a more progressive direction. That theory was disproved after November 2000. As a whole, congressional Democrats have not become more progressive since then.
There has been a disturbing tendency among some Greens to conflate the Democratic and Republican parties. Yes, the agendas of the two major parties overlap. But they also diverge. And in some important respects, any of the Democratic presidential contenders would be clearly better than Bush (with the exception of Joseph Lieberman, whose nomination appears to be quite unlikely). For the left to be 'above the fray' would be a big mistake. It should be a matter of great concern -- not indifference or mild interest -- as to whether the Bush gang returns to power for four more years.
I'm not suggesting that progressives mute their voices about issues. The imperative remains to keep speaking out and organizing. As Martin Luther King Jr. said on April 30, 1967: 'When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, militarism and economic exploitation are incapable of being conquered.' The left should continue to denounce all destructive policies and proposals, whether being promoted by Republicans or Democrats. Link
At the same time, we should not gloss over the reality that the Bush team has neared some elements of fascism in its day-to-day operations -- and forces inside the Bush administration would be well-positioned to move it even farther to the right after 2004. We don't want to find out how fascistic a second term of George W. Bush's presidency could become. The current dire circumstances should bring us up short and cause us to re-evaluate approaches to '04. The left has a responsibility to contribute toward a broad coalition to defeat Bush next year.
There are some Green Party proposals for a 'safe states' strategy, with the party's presidential nominee concentrating on states that seem sure to go for either Bush or the Democrat. But it's not always clear whether a state is 'safe' (for instance, how about California?). And the very act of a Green campaign focusing on some 'safe states' might render a few of those states more susceptible to a Bush upset win. An additional factor is that presidential campaigns are largely nationwide.
In 2000, despite unfair exclusion from the debates and the vast majority of campaign news coverage, Nader did appear on national radio and TV to a significant extent. And of course, more than ever, the Internet is teeming with progressive websites, listservs and e-mail forwarding. It doesn't seem very practical to run as a national candidate while effectively urging people in some states not to vote for you when they see your name on the ballot -- even if the candidate is inclined toward such a strategy. And that's a big 'if.'
For all its talk of democratic accountability, the Green Party is hooked into the old-fashioned notion that a candidate, once nominated, decides how and where to campaign. It's ironic that the party is likely to end up with a presidential candidate who will conduct the campaign exactly as he chooses, with no built-in post- nomination accountability to any constituency or group decision-making. Kind of sounds like the major parties in that respect; choose the candidate and the candidate does whatever he wants from that point forward.
No doubt, too many Democratic Party officials have been arrogant toward Green Party supporters. 'Democrats have to face reality and understand that if they move too far to the right, millions of voters will defect or vote for third-party candidates,' Tom Hayden pointed out in a recent article . 'Democrats have to swallow hard and accept the right of the Green Party and Ralph Nader to exist and compete.' At the same time, Hayden added cogently, 'Nader and the Greens need a reality check. The notion that the two major parties are somehow identical may be a rationale for building a third party, but it insults the intelligence of millions of blacks, Latinos, women, gays, environmentalists and trade unionists who can't afford the indulgence of Republican rule.'
The presidency of George W. Bush is not a garden-variety Republican administration. By unleashing its policies in this country and elsewhere in the world, the Bush gang has greatly raised the stakes of the next election. The incumbent regime's blend of extreme militarism and repressive domestic policy should cause the left to take responsibility for helping to oust this far-right administration -- rather than deferring to dubious scenarios for Green party-building.
In an August essay, Michael Albert of Z Magazine wrote: 'One post election result we want is Bush retired. However bad his replacement may turn out, replacing Bush will improve the subsequent mood of the world and its prospects of survival. Bush represents not the whole ruling class and political elite, but a pretty small sector of it. That sector, however, is trying to reorder events so that the world is run as a U.S. empire, and so that social programs and relations that have been won over the past century in the U.S. are rolled back as well. What these parallel international and domestic aims have in common is to further enrich and empower the already super rich and super powerful.'
Albert pointed out some of the foreseeable consequences of another Bush term: 'Seeking international Empire means war and more war -- or at least violent coercion. Seeking domestic redistribution upward of wealth and power, most likely means assaulting the economy via cutbacks and deficits, and then entreating the public that the only way to restore functionality is to terminate government programs that serve sectors other than the rich, cutting health care, social services, education, etc.' And Albert added: 'These twin scenarios will not be pursued so violently or aggressively by Democrats due to their historic constituency. More, the mere removal of Bush will mark a step toward their reversal.'
Looking past the election, Albert is also on target: 'We want to have whatever administration is in power after Election Day saddled by a fired up movement of opposition that is not content with merely slowing Armageddon, but that instead seeks innovative and aggressive social gains. We want a post election movement to have more awareness, more hope, more infrastructure, and better organization by virtue of the approach it takes to the election process.'
I'm skeptical that the Green Party's leadership is open to rigorously pursue a thoroughgoing safe-states approach along the lines that Albert has suggested in his essay. Few of the prominent Green organizers seem sufficiently flexible. For instance, one Green Party leader who advocates 'a Strategic States Plan' for 2004 has gone only so far as to say that 'most' of the party's resources should be focused on states 'where the Electoral College votes are not 'in play." Generally the proposals coming from inside the Green Party seem equivocal, indicating that most party leaders are unwilling to really let go of traditional notions of running a national presidential campaign.
I'm a green. But these days, in the battle for the presidency, I'm not a Green. Here in the United States, the Green Party is dealing with an electoral structure that's very different from the parliamentary systems that have provided fertile ground for Green parties in Europe. We're up against the winner-take-all U.S. electoral system. Yes, there are efforts to implement 'instant runoff voting,' but those efforts will not transform the electoral landscape in this decade. And we should focus on this decade precisely because it will lead the way to the next ones.
By now it's an open secret that Ralph Nader is almost certain to run for president again next year. Nader has been a brilliant and inspirational progressive for several decades. I supported his presidential campaigns in 1996 and 2000. I won't in 2004. The reasons are not about the past but about the future.
Norman Solomon's latest book, co-authored with Reese Erlich, is 'Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn't Tell You.'
Norman Solomon
(-) Perma-link (-)
Nader's wrecking-ball campaign betrays
liberal, humane and progressive values
CONCERNED SCHOLARS, WRITERS, ARTISTS AND ACTIVISTS 2000
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, are deeply disturbed by the continuing national campaign by Ralph Nader, which is growing ever more harmful as Election Day approaches.
It is now plain that Mr. Nader is willing to make incredible statements and take unbelievable positions in order to gain the 5% of the vote he seeks.
Instead of a liberal or progressive force, his campaign now seriously threatens to elect the dangerous George W. Bush to the presidency. Despite Mr. Nader's past great achievements, and despite the good faith of his rank-and-file supporters, his has now become a wrecking-ball campaign -- one that betrays the very liberal, humane and progressive values it claims to uphold.
Recently, Mr. Nader has said that:
-- IF GIVEN A CHOICE BETWEEN BUSH AND GORE, HE WOULD VOTE FOR BUSH.
Mr. Nader would happily throw the country to the Right, placing the Supreme Court, the rest of the federal judiciary, and the entire executive regulatory system including the Food and Drug Administration in the hands of the most retrograde elements in our political life. (see Outside Magazine, August 2000)
-- ENVIRONMENTAL REACTIONARIES SERVE A POSITIVE FUNCTION.
Mr. Nader has argued that past appointments like Reagan's Secretary of the Interior James Watt usefully serve as "provocateurs" for change. He has also denounced the Sierra Club and other long-standing allies for their "servile mentality" in not supporting him. (New York Times, October 29, 2000)
-- THE REPEAL OF ROE V. WADE WOULD BE OF LITTLE CONSEQUENCE.
Never a champion of women's rights, Mr. Nader claims that abortion rights might just as well be left up to the states. ("This Week with Sam Donaldson," October 29, 2000)
-- ALL U.S. AID TO ISRAEL SHOULD BE CUT.
No matter what one thinks of the current situation in the Middle East, such rhetoric is not only irresponsible, it is inflammatory. (Common Dreams News Center, October 24, 2000.)
But these are only the latest thoughtless utterances from Mr. Nader. From the start, he said his effort would help the Democrats gain votes in the House of Representatives -- while at the same time he has vilified the Democrats as no different than the Republicans.
His supporters in various states talk about a "risk-free" Nader vote in places where Gore or Bush are "strong," even as Mr. Nader himself aggressively looks for votes in liberal cities and on college campuses in vital toss-up states. (These toss-ups now may well include California.)
Should Governor Bush be elected President, and the Republicans hold the Congress, conservative Republicans will have virtually captured firm control of all three branches of the Federal Government for the first time since 1930.
Mr. Nader, who is also supporting Green congressional candidates who have no chance of winning in some tight races, apparently does not care about this -- or worse, seeks it, under the naive impression that it will heighten social contradictions and lead to what he has called "a progressive convulsion"-- that is, the worse, the better.
This is sectarianism of a familiar sort in the century just past -- a sectarianism that had reaped nothing but political catastrophe. We implore all liberal and progressive voters to reject the Nader campaign on November 7 and to vote for Gore and Lieberman.
Signatories (partial list; list in formation)
Benjamin Barber, Rutgers University
Paul Berman, writer and critic
Michael Berube, University of Illinois
Marco Calavita, film critic
Ellen Chesler, writer and critic
Mitchell Cohen, City University of New York, Dissent
Bogdan Denitch, City University of New York
Ronald Dworkin, New York University
Dagoberto Gilb, writer
Todd Gitlin, New York University
Francisco Goldman, writer
Mary Gordon, novelist and critic
Hendrik Hertzberg, The New Yorker
Bianca Jagger, activist
John B. Judis, The New Republic
David Kusnet, writer and critic
Jeremy Larner, writer and critic
Wendy Lesser, The Threepenny Review
Harold Meyerson, Los Angeles Weekly
Toni Morrison, Nobel laureate, novelist and critic
Jo-Ann Mort, Open Society Fund
Brian Morton, novelist and critic
David Osborne, writer
George Packer, novelist and critic
Jayne Anne Phillips, novelist
James Shapiro, Columbia University
Christine Stansell, Princeton University
Gloria Steinem, writer and activist
Ruy Teixeira, Century Foundation
Siva Vaidhyanathan, New York University
Judith B. Walzer, formerly New School University
Michael Walzer, Institute for Advanced Study, Dissent
Jim Weinstein, In These Times
Sean Wilentz, Princeton University
Link
(-) Perma-link (-)
...because Bush is so bad.
Open Letter to Ralph Nader
Dear Ralph:
When George W. Bush squeaked into Office, you were unrepentant about your decision to run for President in 2000. You have remained unrepentant ever since, and even today you are considering making another presidential bid next year.
Initially, your unrepentant stance was admirable. It was ridiculous for Gore Democrats to try to shift the blame for Gore's loss from Gore himself to you!
And even after Bush was selected, the logic of your presidential campaign was more convincing than ever: the Republican and the Democratic parties appeared to be essentially indistinguishable.
But as time has passed, it is clear to us--as people who voted for you--that your campaign was a mistake, and it's time for us to switch from being "unrepentant" Nader voters to being "repentant" ones.
Why? Tweedle dee is still tweedle dee, but tweedle dum has turned into a global tyrant.
Since entering office, George W. Bush has surprised even those who feared him most. He has neglected the poor and the uninsured--while piling tax breaks on those who don't need them. He has undermined the ability of the United Nations to uphold the international rule of law. He has waged an illegal war, killing and wounding thousands of civilians and soldiers. He has weakened the Bill of Rights. And more.
His presidency has been so destructive that the premise of your campaign--that the two parties are controlled by the same special interests and are therefore identical--has been proven wrong. If Al Gore were our President, we can be sure that significant disasters would have been avoided, including the tax cuts for the rich, the near destruction of the United Nations, the Iraq War, and more.
And even worse are the initiatives that the Bush Administration will likely roll out in the future. His advisors assert that tax breaks for the wealthy will be an annual Bush feature, slowly disassembling the federal government as we know it. With this Bush in office there is a greater potential for more war. The Patriot Act II is already drafted. The Supreme Court is still vulnerable. Healthcare, education, international aid, and other unmet needs are being ignored. The list goes on and on.
The Bush nightmare might have been avoided if over 2.5 million of us had not voted for you in the last election. While we do not blame you or ourselves for the Gore loss, it is irrefutable that Bush might not be in office if you had not been a candidate.
It is for this reason that we repent and pledge to support the presidential candidate who's got the best chance of defeating George W. Bush in 2004.
We ask that you join us in repenting and make the same pledge. By doing so, you would join a growing number of citizens who voted for you but now believe that your campaign in 2000 was a mistake.
Once Bush is out of office and tweedle dee or tweedle dum runs Washington again, we may write another open letter to you, pleading that you again run for President. You are a great candidate and passionate activist. It seemed to make great sense for you to run for President in 2000 and to try to attract 5% of the national vote, securing federal matching funds for the next election. This cash would have allowed you to air the important issues that the major parties are ignoring.
But faced with the surreal reality that we confront in Washington today, we beseech you not to run next year and to call on all those who voted for you to join together in support of a candidate that has a real chance to defeat Bush.
It's time to repent...because Bush is so bad.
Yours,
RepentantNaderVoter.com
(-) Perma-link (-)
This seems an odd question, but one with increased importance as Nader ponders entering the 2004 Presidential campaign. Everyone involved in the 2000 election - candidates, voters and the media - concluded Nader took most of his support from Al Gore. Are they all mistaken?
Although some Nader supporters minimize this, Nader and his top supporters like Michael Moore brag that Nader's campaign denied Democrats the White House. Still, Al From of the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) contends:
"The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race. " See: "How Democrats Can Learn From The Failed 2000 Campaign, Failed Populism" by Al From
That makes no sense, but maybe it's true? Even setting aside that his analysis ignores Buchanan voters and others who didn't vote for Gore, Bush or Nader, the exit polling data shows From is 100% wrong to dismiss Nader as a factor in the final outcome. Nader hurt Gore badly in the 2000 race. Why would a Democrat blame Gore's "Failed populism" and absolve Nader? Who knows? We do know he's wrong implying Nader's campaign helped Gore. The obvious opposite is true.
Scroll way down to look at the actual answers to the question: "If these were the only two presidential candidates, who would you vote for?" Al From assumes this data - Gore 48% Bush 49% and 2% not voting at all - means Bush would have done better in a race without Nader. The actual data defies the DLC's facile and self-serving conclusions. As noted, From ignores other minor party candidates, notably Pat Buchanan who took most of his votes from Bush. Also the total of 101% indicates a typo and/or a rounding error.
A closer look shows if Nader wasn't a choice, the 2.7% who supported Nader would have split so Gore would have picked up about 2% more support and Bush would have picked up an additional 1%. In a non-Nader race, Gore would have prevailed over Bush 50% to 49%. That result fits the data showing twice as many 2000 Nader voters would have supported Gore rather than Bush. Correcting for rounding errors, exit polls indicate that if only Gore and Bush were running, Nader's votes would have broken down as follows:
1,326,159 (46%) would have picked Gore
893,716 (31%) would have sat out the election.
663,080 (23%) would have favored Bush.
2,882,955 (100%) total
Here are the actual results:
Gore 50,999,897 48.38%
Bush 50,456,002 47.87%
Nader 2,882,955 2.74%
Total 105,405,100 100.00%*
* Includes all candidates
Allocating the 2,882,955 Nader votes along established patterns- 46% / 1,326,159 to Gore and 23% / 663,080 to Bush (leaving out the 31% of Nader voters who said they wouldn't have voted at all) - shows Gore more than doubling his popular vote margin.
Taking Nader out of the picture would add 663,079 to Gore's actual 543,895 margin for a total of 1,206,974. Adding 0.63% to Gore's 0.51% margin increases it to 1.14%. Even this calculation understates Gore's margin by as much as 300,000 if the 893,716 Nader voters who said they wouldn't vote at all changed their minds and followed the pattern.
Vote Totals in Non-Nader race
Gore 52,326,056 49.64%
Bush 51,122,397 48.50%
Neither 893,716 00.84%+
Total 105,405,100 100.00%*
+ Among Nader Voters
* For all candidates
The "Nader Factor" was larger than the margin by which Gore beat Bush nation-wide, even controlling for the Nader voters who say they wouldn't have voted or who would have voted for Bush. This isn't even considering the disproportionate attention and impact Nader had in the closest states - states Nader swore he would avoid "spoiling" to get onto the ballot. It's not possible Nader was unaware that his focus on these states would help Bush vs. Gore.
Gore won Florida by all fair, full vote counts. However, Nader's "spoiler" efforts there - culminating in his last-ditch, last minute campaign swings - handed Bush the White House by drawing away enough votes to cost Gore a clear victory. Nader pulled away a net estimated 22,422 votes from Gore. That turned a Gore 21,885 vote win into the "official" 537 vote "loss." Gore lost New Hampshire (by 7,211 votes, 1.3%). Nader took triple that margin.
Gore would have won Florida's 25 electoral votes - and probably New Hampshire's 4 - if Nader hadn't run, or if he hadn't run intentionally helping Bush. Either state's electoral votes added to Gore's 266 "official" total would have given Gore enough to win the White House - 270 (with New Hampshire's) 291 (with Florida's) or 295 with both. Nader kept the election close enough for Bush to steal by splitting the anti-Bush vote in these and other key states.
Nader intentionally helped Bush by forcing Gore's campaign to expend scarce resources defending several states carried by Dukakis / Benson and Clinton / Gore from 1988-1996 - including New Mexico, Wisconsin, Iowa, Oregon, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Maine, Michigan, and Washington. Nader's campaign turned these solid Gore states into swing states. Gore won hard-fought races in all of them - and in Florida - but defending them cost Gore decisively elsewhere.
Nader's actual vote totals weren't decisive in several other states, but absent Nader's efforts to help Bush, Gore could have fully contested states like West Virginia, Arizona, Arkansas, Tennessee, Nevada, Missouri and Ohio. Gore had to pull out of some completely, and couldn't afford to shore up support in others as he ran out of time and money. Bush won all of these states in large part because Nader ran a "stalking horse" campaign to maximize damage to Gore.
Nader's total support was small but decisive in such a close race. Nader's efforts cost Gore a clear win in Florida, a likely win in New Hampshire and possibly tipped as many as seven other states to Bush. A Gore victory in any of these states would have prevented the "recount" controversy and denied Bush his 5-4 Supreme Court selection.
At the very least, Nader cost Gore Florida's 25 electoral votes. At worst, he cost Gore the 95 electoral votes of as many as nine states. If not for Nader, Gore might have won a mandate for the center / left - a crushing electoral landslide: Gore 361 vs. Bush 176.
Instead, Bush claimed a stained 271 to 266 "victory" as a mandate for the extreme right wing. By any measure, Bush would not be in the White House today but for Nader's intentional help. Something to consider as Nader gears up for another campaign.
(-) Perma-link (-)
Bianca Jagger Says Vote NO on Nader
The Nader letters, Compiled by Salon Staff :: Page 1:
International Activist, Bianca Jagger writes [excerpts - see full text]
Dear Mr. Nader:
Over the years, you have accomplished a great deal for the American people. Your candidacy in this election has been important. You have raised serious issues that need to be addressed.
However, the time has come to forego ideology and self-interest and step aside. You need to reconsider the consequences of your campaign. If you do not, you will ensure that George W. Bush is the next United States president.
You are focusing your campaign in crucial states such as Michigan, Minnesota and Oregon, where, if converted to you, Al Gore supporters will give the state to Bush with disastrous consequences for the future of this nation.
If Bush is elected with a Republican majority in Congress, the American people stand to lose most of the social, economic and environmental progress we have made in the last 30 years. If there is any question in your mind of this, consider the following:
[for details on these issues click: here]
THE SUPREME COURT....
THE ENVIRONMENT
As governor of Texas, Bush has put the polluters in charge of the state's environmental program with the result that Texas is now an environmental disaster. Although he doesn't dare articulate it during the campaign....
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM....
SOCIAL SECURITY....
If you help Bush win, you will have single-handedly done more damage to this nation than any right wing candidate. Please do not let this happen.
Sincerely,
Bianca Jagger
[see full text]
(-) Perma-link (-)
Actor / Activist and Nader friend Tom
"Billy Jack" Laughlin Says NO to Nader:
Activist and Nader friend, Tom Laughlin writes:
Last night Ralph, you broke my heart. I honestly felt like crying.
Last Sunday when you were being interviewed by Sam Donaldson on ABC's This Week I felt so bad for you, and what you are becoming now that you have the power to determine the outcome of this election, and then last night, on Larry King, you were even worse. Instead of the incredibly honest straight talking human being who I have always idolized, you had turned into one of 'them', just another evasive, deceptive, distorting and -- yes -- lying politician.
In addition, instead of speaking with the quiet strength and brilliant intelligence that has always been your trademark, you were emotionally out of control, shouting out every answer like a crazed evangelist, or like those irritating shouting heads like Hannity or Chris Matthews.
Dody, my wife Delores Taylor as you know, had been watching it in another room and came in and said sadly 'Oh my God! Ralph has lost it! He's gone over the edge!'" Continued.....
(-) Perma-link (-)
In our democracy, everyone has the right to express their ideas and to run for public office, including third-party candidates. We respect Nader's right to say anything he wants and run for any office he wants. We also revere the right to support any candidate anyone wants to support. However, while we defend Nader's right to run, we question the ways he chose to run. Nader was not simply "expressing his ideas". He lied about Gore's record and misrepresented his positions for crass political gain.
We and many other Americans are still furious about how the Republicans conspired to steal the Presidential Election of 2000. The Republicans pulled out all stops to stack the election in Florida - even preventing the full, fair vote being counted. Gore won Florida by all fair, full vote counts.
However, Nader's efforts there - culminating in his last-ditch, last minute campaign swings - handed Bush the White House by drawing away enough votes to cost Gore a clear victory. Nader pulled away a net estimated 22,422 votes from Gore. That turned a Gore 21,885 vote win into the "official" 537 vote "loss."
There would have been no problem in Florida if not for Nader's last-minute efforts to hurt Al Gore and intentionally help Bush in that dead-heat state. The 9,000 uncounted votes in Dade County. Dimped and hanging chads. The 100,000 supressed votes state-wide. The "Brooks Brothers Riot" to stop the vote counting. Other Republican election crimes and dirty tricks. None of that would have mattered but for the votes Ralph Nader got in Florida through low-road campaigning.
Now Nader and his surrogates threaten to saddle us with right wing rule for the foreseeable future by making speeches, raising money for 2004, and encouraging Greens to run against Democratic candidates in races all over the country (like the stalking horse they ran against Paul Wellstone, which kept the race close and kept Wellstone in the air).
We demand that Nader and his supporters stop making dishonest attacks on good liberal and progressive candidates. We will never stop exposing Nader's hypocrisy, lies and betrayals of progressive / liberal causes until Nader stops helping the right wing.
We call for a progressive takeover of the Green Party itself against the Nader cult - "Naderites" - who are poisoining the Greens. We are writing letters, speaking out, and boycotting businesses and groups which support Nader and his front organizations
(-) Perma-link (-)
