  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Pariah or Prophet?Posted on Feb 26, 2007
By Chris Hedges I can’t imagine why Ralph Nader would run again. He has been branded as an egomaniac, blacklisted by the media, plunged into debt by a Democratic Party machine that challenged his ballot access petitions and locked him out of the presidential debates. Most of his friends and supporters have abandoned him, and he is almost universally reviled for throwing the 2000 election to George W. Bush. I can’t imagine why he would want to go through this one more time. But when Nader hinted in San Francisco that he might run if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton became the Democratic Party nominee, I knew I would be working for his campaign if he indeed entered the race. He understands that American democracy has become a consumer fraud and that if we do not do battle with the corporations that, in the name of globalization, are cannibalizing the country for profit, our democratic state is doomed. I spent the last two years reporting and writing “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.” The rise of the Christian right—the most dangerous mass movement in American history—can be traced directly to the corporate rape of America. This movement, which calls for the eradication of real and imagined enemies, all branded as “satanic,” at home and abroad, is an expression of rage. This rage rises out of the deep distortions and dislocations that have beset tens of millions of Americans shunted aside in the new global marketplace. The massive flight of manufacturing and professional jobs overseas, the ruthless slashing of state and federal assistance and the rise of an unchecked American oligarchy have plunged many Americans into deep economic and personal despair. They have turned, because of this despair, to “Christian” demagogues who promise magic, miracles, angels, the gospel of prosperity and a fantastic Christian utopia. And the Republicans and the Democrats are equally culpable for this assault. There are only two solutions left. We must organize to fight the corporate state, to redirect our national wealth and resources to fund a massive antipoverty campaign and curb the cycle of perpetual war that enriches the military-industrial complex and by extension the two political parties that dominate Washington, or we must accept an inevitable Christo-fascism backed by these corporations. Don’t expect glib Democratic politicians such as John Edwards, Sen. Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama to address these issues. They are, as Nader understands, hostage to corporate money. Nader, perhaps better than anyone else, has grasped the long, disastrous rise of the corporate state. He and his small army of activists helped write citizen legislation in the 1960s and 1970s that gave us, among many bills, the Clean Air Act, the Mine and Health Safety Act and the Freedom of Information Act. He worked with and was courted by sympathetic Democrats. Presidential candidate George McGovern saw him as a potential running mate, but Nader refused to be enticed directly into the political arena. He was a skilled Washington insider, one of the greatest idealists within the democratic system. But the corporations grew tired of Nader’s activism. They mounted a well-oiled campaign to destroy him. These early attempts were clumsy and amateurish, such as General Motor’s use of private detectives to try to dig up dirt on his private life; they found none. The campaign was exposed and led to a public apology by GM. Nader was awarded $425,000 in damages, which he used to fund citizen action groups. Lewis Powell, who was the general counsel to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and would later be appointed to the Supreme Court, wrote a memo in August 1971 that expressed corporate concerns. “The single most effective antagonist of American business is Ralph Nader,” the memo read, “a legend in his own time and an idol to millions of Americans. ... There should be no hesitation to attack [Nader and others].” Corporations poured hundreds of millions into the assault. They set up pseudo-think tanks, such as the Heritage Foundation, which invented bogus disciplines including cost-benefit and risk-management analysis, all geared to change the debate from health, labor and safety issues to the rising cost of big government. They ran sophisticated ad campaigns to beguile voters. These corporations wrenched apart, through lavish campaign donations and intensive and shady lobbying, the ties between Nader’s public interest groups and his supporters in the Democratic Party. Washington, by the time they were done, was besieged with 25,000 corporate lobbyists and 9,000 corporate action committees. When Ronald Reagan, the corporate pitch man, swept into office he set out to dismantle some 30 governmental regulations, most put into place by Nader and his allies, all of which curbed the abuse of corporations. The Reagan White House worked to gut 20 years of Nader legislation. And, once a fixture on Capital Hill, Nader became a pariah. Nader, however, did not give up. He turned to local community organizing, assisting grass-roots campaigns around the country such the one to remove benzene, known to cause cancer, from paint in GM car plants. But by the time Bill Clinton and Al Gore took office the corporate state was ascendant. Nader and his citizen committees were frozen out by Democrats as well as Republicans. Clinton and Gore never met with him. “We tried every way to get the Democrats to pick up on issues that really commanded the felt concerns and daily life of millions of Americans,” Nader says in the new documentary about his life, “An Unreasonable Man,” “but these were issues that corporations didn’t want attention paid to, and so when people say why did you do this in 2000, I say I’m a 20-year veteran of pursuing the folly of the least worse between the two parties.” The Clinton administration pushed through NAFTA, gutted welfare, gave up on universal healthcare, deregulated the communications industry and abolished federal aid to families with dependent children. It further empowered the growing corporate state and exacerbated the despair that has fueled its allies in the Christian right. “For 20 years,” Nader says in the film, “we saw the doors closing on us in Washington, on our citizen groups and a lot of other citizen groups, and what are we here for? To improve the country. We couldn’t get congressional hearings, even with the Democrats in charge.” There is a fascinating rage—and rage is the right word—expressed by many on the left in this fine film about Nader. Todd Gitlin, Eric Alterman and Michael Moore, along with a host of former Nader’s Raiders, spit out venomous insults toward Nader, a man they profess to have once admired, the most common charge being that Nader is a victim of his oversized ego. This anger is the anger of the betrayed. But they were not betrayed by Nader. They betrayed themselves. They allowed themselves to buy into the facile argument of “the least worse” and ignore the deeper, subterranean assault on our democracy that Nader has always addressed. It was an incompetent, corporatized Democratic Party, along with the orchestrated fraud by the Republican Party, that threw the 2000 election to Bush, not Ralph Nader. Nader received only 2.7 percent of the vote in 2000 and got less than one-half of 1 percent in 2004. All of the third-party candidates who ran in 2000 in Florida—there were about half a dozen of them—got more votes than the 537-vote difference between Bush and Gore. Why not go after the other third-party candidates? And what about the 10 million Democrats who voted in 2000 for Bush? What about Gore, whose campaign was so timid and empty—he never mentioned global warming—that he could not carry his home state of Tennessee? And what about the 2004 cartoon-like candidate, John Kerry, who got up like a Boy Scout and told us he was reporting for duty and would bring us “victory” in Iraq?
Nader argues that there are few—he never said no—differences between the Democrats and the Republicans. And during the first four years of the Bush administration the Democrats proved him right. They authorized the war in Iraq. They stood by as Bush stacked the judiciary with “Christian” ideologues. They let Bush, in violation of the Constitution, pump hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars into faith-based organizations that discriminate based on belief and sexual orientation and openly proselytize. They stood by as American children got fleeced by No Child Left Behind. Democrats did not protest when federal agencies began to propagate “Christian” pseudo-science about creationism, reproductive rights and homosexuality. And the Democrats let Bush further dismantle regulatory agencies, strip American citizens of constitutional rights under the Patriot Act and other draconian legislation, and thrust impoverished Americans aside through the corporate-sponsored bankruptcy bill. It is a stunning record.
There are a few former associates in the film who argue that Nader is tarnishing his legacy, and by extension their own legacy. But Nader’s legacy is undiminished. He fights his wars against corporate greed with a remarkable consistency. He knows our democratic state is being hijacked by the same corporate interests that sold us unsafe automobiles and dangerous and shoddy products. This is a battle not for some unachievable ideal but to save our democracy. “I don’t care about my personal legacy,” Nader says in the film. “I care about how much justice is advanced in America and in our world day after day. I’m willing to sacrifice whatever ‘reputation’ in the cause of that effort. What is my legacy? Are they going to turn around and rip out seat belts out of cars, air bags out of cars?” These corporations, and their enraged and manipulated followers in the Christian right, tens of millions of them, if left unchecked will propel us into despotism. The corporate state has rigged our system, hollowed out our political process and steadily stripped citizens of constitutional rights, federal and state protection and assistance. This may be the twilight of American democracy. And it is better to stand up and fight, even in vain, than not to fight at all. Chris Hedges’ latest book is “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.” For more Truthdig columns by Chris Hedges, click here. Previous item: The Character Assassin Next item: Better Him Than Me Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
Comment Pages:
1
»
By JimD, February 26 at 11:42 am # “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” (Edmund Burke) GO, RALPH !!!
By JHill, February 25 at 4:54 pm # Shortsighted Deference to Conventional WisdomFingal writes: >>> This is precisely the attitude (or should I say “mindset") that has gotten us into this mess of deciding between 2 evils. The fact is that a majority of voters agree with Ralph Nader on every issue [Go ahead and do the research...you might EVEN want to check out Mr. Nader’s website, too!]; but they, like you, have bought into this DOOMSDAY tactic that the corporate Democrats have been using (to no apparent effect) for the past 30-odd years: “If you think OUR candidate is bad....look at the other candidate!” This is no way for a nominally free and democratic citizenry to pick a President. It’s not only cynical and disempowering....it’s shortsighted and, frankly, stupid! If you want to keep wasting your vote, go ahead...but it’s a damned shame that so many working-class and middle-class citizens have to pay for your faint-heartedness. I say, forget about how wicked the other candidate is. We CAN and we WILL survive another Republican administration. We’ve already survived 7+ years of the meanest and most incompetent Republican this country has ever seen; but it makes no sense to survive an evil Republican and then resign ourselves to voting for a “Lesser Evil” Democrat four years down the road. This is a rut that we will NEVER get out of as long as people keep voting their fears, rather than their consciences. I’ll accept the fact that some voters genuinely believe that Clinton or Obama is the best candidate imaginable; but it galls me no end when people vote for one of them because s/he is marginally better than whomever the Republicans put up. Why not the best? Does America not deserve a candidate who is his or her own person--"unbought and unbossed” by corporate interests whose furthest concern is what’s good for the American People. If you truly believe that what’s best for General Motors or Exxon or Prudential Insurance or Squib or Haliburton is what’s best for the American people, vote for a corporate Democrat who shares that view...or, better yet, vote for a Republican. But, if you have ANY hope of a better, healthier, more equitable and more just America in the future; stop settling for “Lesser Evils” in Washington, and stop settling for a “choice” between only 2 political parties. Stop enabling abusers...whether they call themselves Democrats or Republicans.
By David R. Wilbur, Esq., February 25 at 3:17 pm # Nader Did Not Change 2000 ElectionChris;
By cemmcs, February 25 at 7:13 am # Right on! I am sick and tired of people slamming Nadar.
By Shane, February 24 at 12:47 pm # 1 vote for Nader hereI have been a lifelong democrat, however I have voted for Nader in the last two elections and will be giving him my vote again this election. These democrats running are in bed with corporations just as much as the republicans, don’t listen to what they say, look at their record, it speaks for them! Thank you for running again Nader and keep up the good fight! Anyone who listens to the republican spin machine that is doing its best to destroy Nader, needs to do some reading or if your too lazy at least watch “an unreasonable man”. “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
By roger, July 14, 2007 at 8:49 pm # I voted for Nader in 96 and 2000. And after 2000, I became disgusted with him. It became evident that Nader had no interest in the Green party per se, or in using his prestige to help make it a movement. In 2002-2003, the Green party was the natural venue out of which a serious anti-war movement could have grown. Didn’t happen. Just narcissism and collapse. Really, Hedges doesn’t answer a basic question: what is running for president supposed to mean? Why is it better than, say, organizing non-violent resistance to the corporate state, as was being effected after Seattle in 99? The whole point, I thought, of the 2000 run was not to make a little point about Democrats or Republicans, but to kickstart a movement about power, the environment, and changing the treadmill of production in this country. I was wrong. It was about, uh, well, I’m not sure now. It certainly wasn’t about a movement. It wasn’t even about making the Greens a viable party - Nader treated the Green party like Conrad Black treated his media empire - with complete contempt. If you have seen the Green leadership doing anything at all about the war culture and the war profiteering and the, well, war during the last five to six years, definitely report it. It is like a rare bird citing. I could care less if Nader runs or not, but for those looking to change this country, Nader is a dead end for sure.
By Fingal, April 20, 2007 at 11:04 am # #64322 by Joe Hill: Rather than throw up our hands and accept the current election mechanisms, why not FIX what’s wrong? Instant Run-Off Voting and Proportional Representation would solve the problem of ‘lesser evilism’. Given that the USA is still considered to be a democratic republic, why should We The People put up with parties and candidates who offer us only a narrow choice between “Horrendous” and “Well--Not Quite So Bad”? ====================== You articulate the problem well, but what is your strategy? If you want to get something done, I agree it’s not sufficient to just go out and pull one lever or another every two or four years (or punch this or that chad, etc.). But there’s a logical link missing between that and the idea that we need to go out and vote for a candidate who can’t possibly win but who *can* siphon off enough votes to make the election close enough to be stolen by the Fear, War, and Jaysus party. The way I see it, that doesn’t get us a millimeter closer to any result that *I* want. If the Democratic Party is not doing what you want it to, start organizing in *your* town, at *your* school board, in *your* state house to *make* the party do what We The People want. With a handle like Joe Hill, you should be familiar with this. It’s boring and burdensome, and it’s not glamorous. You don’t get to be a Rock Star or a White Knight, or one of his/her groupies. But the approach has a track record of success, from early labor organizing to the more recent rise of the right wing in the last 30 years. Getting all mad at the Meanies in charge of the Democratic Party, throwing a tantrum and voting for Someone Else is ultimately like holding your breath until you turn blue. Except that unlike your real parents, the buttheads at the DLC don’t give a rat’s ass if you give yourself brain damage. -F
By Joe Hill, April 16, 2007 at 7:57 am # >>> Rather than throw up our hands and accept the current election mechanisms, why not FIX what’s wrong? Instant Run-Off Voting and Proportional Representation would solve the problem of ‘lesser evilism’. Given that the USA is still considered to be a democratic republic, why should We The People put up with parties and candidates who offer us only a narrow choice between “Horrendous” and “Well--Not Quite So Bad”? As long as we continue to ‘enable’ the Democratic Party’s pooh-bahs by voting loyally--albeit unenthusiastically--for whatever they serve up, we will continue to be dis-empowered...as much by our own fears as by sinister partisan forces. I’m alarmed by the numbers of people who have surrendered their dreams of electing candidates who are much more competent, more honest, more honorable, and more intelligent than the ‘lesser evil’ the schizophrenic ‘Democratic’ Party keeps offering up for our approval.
By Fingal, April 15, 2007 at 5:25 pm # Re: #64227 by Ernest Canning, I think Kucinich would make a good president. I think a number of the Dems would, actually (though I’m baffled by Hillary Clinton’s appeal). I think Edwards would be fine. I’m a little unsure about Obama, because while he is extremely articulate and agile, says things that make sense and actually *mean* something, and can utterly rivet an audience, I fear he might be subject to seduction by Centrist silliness. Maybe I’m wrong about that; I hope so. For a change, we have candidates. What we need is a complete transformation of the Democratic party by ideas like those expressed here, the way the Rethuglican party has been transformed by the Straussian damn-the-poor crowd and their led-by-the-nose religious zealots. Another thing I’d point out, also in response to Chris, is that the place to start this transformation isn’t at the top of the party. This has failed over and over, and will continue to fail. You can’t just come in from nowhere and try to take the top spot, because the party’s immune system will reject you. The Rethuglican party was transformed starting at the school board and dogcatcher level, and we’ll have to do the same. A third (I think) point is that while there are a number of reasons Gore lost in 2000, and I’m quite happy to rail against the idiocy of the Bob Schrum don’t-offend-anyone strategy, that doesn’t excuse someone who *intended* to hurt the Democratic effort, as Nader clearly did. It’s true that Democrats have gotten too dependent on the corporate teat, having cut loose from the labor constituency (which has been disempowered since the early 70’s, and is another Big Topic). I agree w/Nader’s perception here. But that’s not to say that there is no difference between Dems and ‘Thugs, especially the current crowd (which are *not* your father’s Republicans). There is absolutely no way Gore would have been on board with this wholesale effort to roll back the 20th century, if not the Enlightenment, that’s been pushed hard by the current regime. Given their historic association with the labor movement, and with the concerns of the common people, the Democrats ought to be naturally receptive to the interests Nader represents. Naturally, someone in Nader’s position would be angry with Democratic rejection, because dammit, *they* ought to know better! I think this also explains why a lot of Nader’s former supporters are so angry with Nader: he ought to know better than to assert there’s no difference, especially now, after six years of what almost looks like Buckaroo Banzai’s depiction of Pure Evil from the Eighth Dimension.
By Fingal, April 15, 2007 at 1:02 pm # Voting for the person you like most, even though you know that doing so will empower the one you like least, isn’t an expression of conscience, it’s an expression of vanity. The reason we have candidates nobody is all that enthusiastic about comes from the way this system was defined back in 1789. In particular, the provision that if you don’t *win* the election, you get zero power from it. Ross Perot got a significant fraction of the vote in 1992, and if that had given him any power, he could have determined whether Clinton or Bush took office by forming a coalition government with one or the other of them. But no, he didn’t get the most votes, so he just lost, and gained *no* power. Under this system, the coalitions must be formed *before* the election, not after. And this means compromise candidates. And this means that a large fraction of the population doesn’t bother to vote, because most people don’t want to vote for a compromise, that want to vote for what they actually want. But they know that doing that is completely useless, because it will translate into splitting the vote away from the person they dislike least, and towards the one they like least, among those with any chance of being elected. If a real three-way race ever really developed, that would be different, but it never does. So while I agree that both parties are corrupt, a Quixotic Nader campaign is nothing but masturbatory. -F.
By RoyNYC, March 20, 2007 at 8:06 pm # All true except whty is Nader more angry at Hilary than Geroge W? I don’t love the democrats but 4more hyears of Republican FASCISM and I’m leaving the US period. Capitalism is the route of all evil. I’m glad Chris Hedges figured it out. The Democrats are hardly to blame for the rotten path America is on. Nader should support a viable (any one will do) Democrat or shut up! He already gave an election to W which makes him a war criminal in my book.
By tanmack, March 17, 2007 at 7:43 pm # You have totally said it, brother. Talk about misplaced anger! If Gore and the Democratic party had not abandoned the progressives, unions, working stiffs to mimic the Right and to flee liberalism for their newfound “center”....Gore refused to campaign; instead he pandered for the presidency. He repudiated his base, he repudiated Clinton, feigning moral values, only to discover he had one uninspired and confused glob of voters who’d vote for him out of fear for Bush. The day Gore and the Democratic Party stand up and takes responsibility for their bungling will be the day Nader can retire.
By Susie, March 9, 2007 at 12:05 pm # Chris Hedges has published the very best description of Israel’s atrocities against the Palestinians: see “A Gaza Diary” in Harper’s Magazine, and “Israel’s Barrier to Peace.” Mr. Hedges exposes AIPAC’s lies; now we should all demand that our representatives cease doing the bidding of AIPAC and that they defend U.S. interests and values instead.
By Concrete man, March 5, 2007 at 3:22 pm # Hedges writes that he wrote a report on the Christian Right fascists. Fine, what about a report about how AIPAC controls US foreign policy, and the Christian Right? He sounds like the typical Zionist dupe that does the Lobby’s bidding for it. The myth that Nader cost Gore the election in 2000 is such a patent fraud that anyone that can’t see through it doesn’t deserve their country, a democracy, a life, or anything else.
By Dave-el, March 4, 2007 at 6:40 pm # I would like to thank Mr. Hedges for publishing my responce even though I did not directly reply to his article. So in that regards. No, I do not think Nader would be the one. I think that to middle America he appears as a demagogue in his own right. I’m from the Cleveland area and I can’t imagine anyone with more experience than Kucinich. He should run. He at least got in the debates and embarassed the crap out of the rest of them. But I think he should stay in the House and use his expertise to force them to get real.
By Joe Hill, March 4, 2007 at 2:24 pm # Thanks, Chris Hedges, for trying to explain to the dim-witted why they are forever making fools of themselves. It’s obvious that the DNC/DLC smear machine has succeeded in scaring the bejeeezus out of the lock-step ‘Democratic’ Party supporters. It took considerable bullying and a whole lot of character assassination to take down one of the few people who actually believe in a progressive alternative to the well-worn ‘Road to Ruin’ that both major parties have forced timid voters to accept. No wonder half the eligible voters don’t bother to vote when the ONLY prospect is more of the business-as-usual policies approved by the interests which own both corporate parties. The Founders of this nation (who dared to risk life and limb in what often seemed a ‘lost cause’) must be rolling in their graves over what has become of their heirs. Where they were willing to risk EVERYTHING in the cause of freedom, their heirs are afraid to risk what they even admit is a ‘lesser evil’ regime, rather than face the prospect of 8 long years of fascist rule. They wouldn’t dare to take the risk of voting their hearts and hopes....and we STILL got stuck with 8 years of Bush....but the fact is we HAVE survived him, and the sky hasn’t quite fallen. Now, once again, the erstwhile ‘Party of the People’ is poised to nominate a presidential candidate who voted for the war, for the Patriot Act, for all manner of oppressive trade agreements, and AGAINST the interests of The People they once claimed to support. Looks like the Republicans are right--The Democratic Party are a bunch of wimps!
By J Royce, March 2, 2007 at 5:24 am # The Dem apologists have blighted the fate of the Dem Party by continuing to claim that the quacking yellow ducks waddling around the floor of Congress are actually ... eagles. And so America is stuck on stupid, held hostage to those with their eyes hard shut. The reasoning of Nader-haters is the same as Right-wing “conservative” Republicans: if you like the conclusion, the argument MUST be correct. In this case, Nader was offered up as a scapegoat, and Dem activists took it and won’t let go. I have worked to elect Dems before and since Nader, but I am finally being driven out of the party. Not so much for the endless vitriol against Nader and those who saw this disaster early, or even for the sneering insults of would-be allies. No, the final reason for losing faith with the Dems is that they are not smart enough. It has been the constant strain of blaming Nader instead of demanding representation that shows the Dems haven’t got what it takes.
By Outraged, March 1, 2007 at 10:09 pm # I like Nader, in fact I’ve always liked Nader. I just don’t think he’d end up an accomplished president. I think he’d be excellent as the new vice, think of Nader as the “new” Darth, only this one would be after all the corps. Yep, I could go for that!
By Dr. Doo, February 28, 2007 at 7:49 pm # I don’t know where all the people are getting the false assumption that if Gore was president, it would have been better off. Don’t forget he is one of the biggest Islamophobes in the democratic party, and to have Lieberman would have meant not the neocons feeding the office agendas, but having the neocon right in the office. Gore could come out and talk about being against going into Iraq, but he is out of office and either didn’t have to respond to his paymasters or could oppose Bush just to speak against the opposite party (like all the democrat pundits all saying one thing against Bush, while its members in congress going along with Bush). All you have to see is his record as VP and senator and see his pro-war stance in a host of situations, including Iraq War I. His record on the environment was no better, especially when he has to pay back his paymaster. His actions during his time as VP includes wholesale old forest cutting by enlisting the alliance of environmentalist and then double crossing them at the end, allowing the building of hazardous waste incinerator near an elementary school soon after going into office, opposite of what he said during campaigning, allowed the destruction of wetlands in Florida for the sake of the sugar barons, relaxing a ban on cancer causing food additives that’s been in effect since Eisenhower, opening of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge at the same time dropping a ban on selling Alaskan oil abroad. The list could go on and on, but I would stop here. So the patriotic thing to do is not have Nader stand behind Gore or any of the other Islamophobe democrats, but for them to all stand behind Nader, so we could have true progress in this country.
By Terry Sloth, February 28, 2007 at 6:51 pm # “This rage rises out of the deep distortions and dislocations that have beset tens of millions of Americans shunted aside in the new global marketplace. The massive flight of manufacturing and professional jobs overseas, the ruthless slashing of state and federal assistance and the rise of an unchecked American oligarchy have plunged many Americans into deep economic and personal despair.” Yes, this along with the immigration issue explains the discontent among the working-class Republican base. They despise globalization and all that it represents, they look at their decimated towns that no longer manufacture a thing, they see abandoned buildings that were previously mom and pop businesses; they watch silently as illegal aliens obtain their good paying construction jobs; they apprehensively notice houses being foreclosed all around them, their anxiety mounts because they can’t afford healthcare; they hope their son or daughter will survive in Iraq; and they regret with all their heart that they ever voted for Bush. So millions of Americans are now looking for a charismatic “electable” candidate, who will honestly represent the interests of the working-class and not the global elite when addressing issues such as globalization, immigration, energy independence, and ending the Iraq War—-has anyone seen such a candidate; please let us know.
By Ernest Canning, February 28, 2007 at 5:22 pm # This is not a comment submitted for publication. I am curious as to why my previous comment, which was directed at whether Nader should register and run as a Democrat was not included in your published comments?
By Domenico, February 28, 2007 at 2:02 pm # Interesting, to say the least. My head is spinning & I didn’t have time to read the entire article nor most of the responses. I am 73 years old & figured before I got through all that I would be long dead. I like Nadar, I truly do. I think those who believe he functions as a “spoiler” are out of their wits. But then I believe most people are out of their wits. I believe Dennis Kucinich is the ONLY politician that believes what he says, means what he says, and is not driven by greed. I can quite understand why he clings to the Dem Party because he has been a successful pol in that party and it represented (or pretended to respresent) his values. I would trust him without question: In the first place, I not only believe that he is completely decent, moral and honest, I also believe that he is many many many shades brighter than the next brightest bulb in the chandelier, and is the very best of the best. That includes ALL of them. (Even Bill, and I love Bill.) I would consider a Kucinich/ Nadar ticket to mean that I had died and gone to Valhalla. Where Warriors retire & where maybe I would have a fighting chance. I’d settle for the obverse, though, if I had to do so...as in Nadar/Kucinich. Our “Founding Fathers” as people are fond of calling them, knew quite well that we humans are greedy and that we become hooked on power once we get a taste of it...Hence our Constitution. They fought like hell, did those Father guys, to get their various points of view included in that document. But in our own time we have seen that “Goddamn piece of paper” (as Bush called it), made hash of, as though it were simply a dish of boiled potatoes left overlong in the cooler. Turning a bit moldy, don’t you think? Let’s add some oil and onion and maybe a bit of green pepper and see if we can’t get something more tasty...something rather more to our liking, don’t you know? Well, now having written all this I think I shall not send it. Perhaps to Kucinich. I wish I had money to contribute to his campaign but I am entirely broke. But I think I shall save this & send it, because I have become so scared lately that I am afraid to answer the ‘phone...It’s awful what poverty and being entirely alone does to a person. But now I am uncertain as to how to go about sending this to DK…
By TAO Walker, February 28, 2007 at 12:52 pm # Dave-el (#55893) certainly has a handle on America’s soon-to-be terminal national pathology. He is considerably behind the curve, however, in his assessment of how far it has progressed. The dying American republic’s constitutional framework has already been destroyed. Its subject/citizenry are not even as high on the pyramid scheme “food-chain” as colon-ized serfs would be. They are rather mere consumer units in a meant-to-be worldwide feedlot....in a word, livestock. Corporations are indeed “things.” They are non-living entities that have acquired, thanks to their “deluded” human “servants,” hard-wired nervous systems, virtual immunity from legal restraint, privately-owned and heavily-armed security forces, near total control of most of the necessities of daily life, and a kind of self-perpetuating capability that would be, in any actual living organism, effective immortality. Corporations were set up specifically to further the predatory aims of what an earlier generation called “the money power.” They have been terribly successful. If Dave-el and others really mean not to “sit idly by” as the institutionalized degradation of the domesticated peoples reaches its intended end-state of global permanency, they’ll need to come up with something a lot more drastic than well-mannered attempts to persuade a few fellow captives, who happen to be temporarily a bit more comfortably confined, that something must be done to rein-in the Walmartians and other robotic ravagers. Only substantial voluntary material sacrifices, on a massive scale, can deprive this integrated machinery of the “cash flow” that oils its gears....and without which it must grind to a halt. Those sacrifices will have to be made almost entirely by people in the over-developed “first-world.” The rest of us already have pretty much nothing to lose. Does Dave-el see that as even remotely possible? How about the even tougher task of giving-up the widespread Western belief in “individualism,” and all the stupifying attitudinal baggage that goes along with it? This may be way too much to expect of people who have invested their entire lives in the construction and maintenance of their own private “personalities,” those cheap imitation plastic substitutes civilization imposes in-place of lifetime organic membership in the whole, healthy, human social arrangement that is our natural birthright. There’s no help to be had here from the co-opted denizens of corporate boardrooms, or from the now wholly-owned subsidiary that was, perhaps briefly, government of, by, and for “the people.” Your only help is in your essential human nature, which is another way of saying it is in each other....your families, friends, and neighbors....where you live....right now. HokaHey!
By Nick Scotto, February 28, 2007 at 12:30 pm # I hope Ralph runs in 2008! We need an alternative to the swill that we have to choose from now. 2 days after the Nov 7 election, I changed from a long time Democrat to Independent because I was sickened how Pelosi and Dean were going out of their way to say that “impeachment is off the table”. How dare they!! It only took them 2 days to forget that they are supposed to do what WE want to do and not the other way around! I will NEVER vote Democratic again unless they impeach these evil SOB’s in the White House and open a new, real investigation into 9/11. Please watch the Google video: 9/11 Press for Truth
By Al Feldzamen, February 28, 2007 at 12:16 pm # In the early 1070s, before I quit to become a physician, I was the production head at Britannica FIlms, then the country’s leading educational film company, distributing largely to middle and high schools. What better subject to teach than consumer awareness? So off I went to Washington, to gain the collaboration of Ralph Nader. At the time, my company was essentially run as a non-profit, because our owner, former Senator Bill Benton, also owned the vastly larger and extraordinarily profitable Encyclopaedia Britannica company, so ours could essentially be managed as a benefit to education. I tried to explain this to the good Mr. Nader, offering him standard royalties, etc. on his participation, but he refused. He wanted more. I raised our offer. No good. I raised it again. Again, not good enough. Finally, I had to give up. His greed seemed to know no bounds. Not for nothing is the movie about him, AN UNREASONABLE MAN, reviewed 1/31/07, so titled. Not for nothing was he such a spoiler in 2000. Not for nothing has he amassed a substantial personal fortune, over $4 million, at last count several years ago. Dr. A. N. Feldzamen
By Apple, February 28, 2007 at 12:03 pm # Been a fan of Ralph Nader since the 70s and I was pleased to give him my vote. It would have been a more decent world. Don’t understand why Democrats aren’t mad at the Democrats who voted for Bush. That seems to me to be a more direct abandonment of the party as Bush could actually win. Don’t know if he ever did, though. Perhaps Ralph’s words will finally be appreciated when more and more people realize that they are nothing more than inventory for large corporations.
By Kestrel, February 28, 2007 at 10:38 am # I was fortunate enough to be sitting in the UCLA Auditorium when Ralph Nader gave his acceptance speech for the Green Party nomination in 1996. He enthralled us all with an 1 1/2-hour treatise on how this country has been systematically plundered by corporations since the late 19th Century. He took a complex tale and proposed a simple solution—the end of legal protection of corporations as citizens under U.S. legal code. This one action would reverse the century-long trend of the concentration of power to the wealthy. This is why Ralph was running then, and this is why we need to implore him to run again. With the power of You Tube and direct media, Ralph can get this message to the people over the heads of the corporate media who deligitimize such a threatening candidate. I seriously doubt that anyone who cares about this country and who heard his speech from start to finish would do anything but rush out and vote for Ralph. This lifelong registered Democrat did!
By Michael T, February 28, 2007 at 9:30 am # Chris Hedges is exactly the kind of believer that this hardcore atheist appreciates! Yeah, the Dems have fallen into the besotting gaze of corporate cash...greed, glorious greed rules all (mainstream parties).... We’re beginning to see it happen here in Canada, where the gov is stacking judicial appointment committees with police officers and those who share the party leader’s ideology - he even said so in parliament...it’s too bad because in many ways I am very conservative, but the current crop in both canada and usa are no longer true conservatives but neoliberals and crazy believers who feel no compunction about imposing their beliefs upon everyone else using the power of the state....
By Dave-el, February 28, 2007 at 8:17 am # Begin at the beginning
By Jackie T. Gabel, February 28, 2007 at 12:55 am # ...strongest article I’ve yet read by Hedges - he knows by now the desperation of the situation - one question only persists: Why in Hell, does not the left close ranks on the 911 issue and grasp the treason at the heart of it to take these bastards down? Pretty soon, there’ll be literally nothing to loose and we’ll be asking why we didn’t seize the day when we had a chance. It’s worse than you think, the chips are coming — a unique one, for each and every one of us. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/29010 7rockefellergoal.htm Support 911Truth - End War Of Terror
By sanford, February 27, 2007 at 10:13 pm # Haven’t finished reading the column or all the comments, but I have yet to read an explanation how Nader lost the election for Gore. I am assuming that he got a lot of votes in Florida that might have gone to Gore. That might have been the case. However, Gore did not even win his own state of Tennesse. That would have given him enough eletoral votes. Having said that and I am sure some others have said so in the comments section, Gore did win the majority of votes. I think it is time to get rid of the electoral college.
By toc, February 27, 2007 at 7:04 pm # Why would anyone vote for anyone OTHER than Nader? Why did Gore and Kerry sap away votes from the candidate whose platform represented the real aspirations of Democratic voters?
By Polly Ester, February 27, 2007 at 5:30 pm # Our two party system has evolved into a teratogenetic political system, which is so malformed that you can’t determine if you are looking at an elephant or a jackass—-two species merging to form one ideology, a clever chameleon giving an illusion of two distinct creatures; but displaying only slight cosmetic variations and NO real choice. Multi-national corporations and the military-industrial complex, entwine their tentacles around the neck of the “jackass” and the “elephant,” so that if unacceptable polices emerge from this beast, their tentacles quickly tighten causing political suffocation. So given the nature of our two-headed political beast, is it physically possible for it to further morph into a functioning three headed species?
By joseph paquette, February 27, 2007 at 5:06 pm # How about taking advantage of this internet and
By NathanHale, February 27, 2007 at 3:51 pm # There was a time when the Democratic party espoused the very same principles that Nader demonstrates, worker rights, environmental quality It is truely sad and shameful that he was excluded from the debate......pussies. I would vote for either Democratic or Republican candidate who would appoint Nader to AG or EPA head and give him some teeth. Time we get out of Iraq and some of the other 800+ military bases worldwide and redistibute the wealth into domestic infrastructure.
By Bert, February 27, 2007 at 1:54 pm # Ralph’s got some pretty good ideas, whether you vote for him or not is up to you, but the idea is to hear the man out, hear what he’s got to say. By Matias, February 27, 2007 at 1: |
UN Envoy Heads to Burma with Urgent Relief Message
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article