  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 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: . Comments: 97 Published. Add Yours?Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. |
A Slap in the Face
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
By brian badberry, February 27, 2007 at 7:08 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
In retrospect-my votes or nader in this all too-red state of Idaho were meaningless except that they may have sent a message to both parties that I, for onre wasn’t buying their same old-same old bullshit anymore. The electoral college( which should be abolished) prevets the formation of a viable third party. Al) presidential eectionsl progressive citizens should push for diect(i.e. popular vote -based) elections- which would require a constitional samendment. We need it, but I doubt if we’ll ever get it.
Reply to this | Report thisBy ms_xeno, February 27, 2007 at 7:02 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Good column, Chris. Very on-target, though it seems as usual the detractors haven’t read one word of the piece they claim to be commenting on. At this point, anyone who thinks the DP are not complicit and knowing players in this “fascist empire” is deluding him or herself.
Of all the harebrained Nader-bashers, my favorites are the ones who invoke the “closet Republican” acusation. Nader has never hidden his beliefs in policies that do, in fact, appeal to ground-level, secular Republicans: Such as improved oversight of the corporate boards that see to investments. It also makes me laugh that the bashers crow with pride about how they have groups like “Republicans For Kerry” on their side even as they howl with fury at Nader to taking GOP money. Please. There are tons of former would-be revolutionaries out there who have wholeheartedly embraced Republican values at their worst. They are loved in the Right-wing media and worshipped by their fans. They are also exceedingly prosperous and kowtowed to frequently by liberals and even Progressives. (DLC) If Nader had wanted to go that route, it would certainly have been easy and profitable. Yet he did not. The party that beats on him routinely for walking away from them miss the point: Nader did not move at all. They did. All he did was acknowledge that they betrayed their own principles for a buck. They spew vitriol because they can’t endure that knowledge. Guys like Gitlin and Alterman wanted to coast to some lucrative gig on Gore’s coattails, and they hate Nader for pissing in their punchbowl. Too bad, Boys. You helped grow this shit and now you’re waist-deep in it, just like the rest of us.
Reply to this | Report thisBy walt, February 27, 2007 at 6:46 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I will tell you my Ralph Nader story. It was around the time he announced his 2000 candidacy and he was appearing on a sensible talk show like Charlie Rose’s. I was enthralled by his perspective on the politics of the time. Clinton had just brought Democratic Party stock to an all-time low and the Republicans had more or less decided on GW Bush. What Nader spoke about were his reasons were for running. I wish I had a transcript so I will paraphrase what I recall. Nader said (more or less) “I am running for the people without health care, the people who have lost their standard of living due to their jobs being moved off shore, the people who have lost the protection of O.S.H.A., the people whose property has been devalued and whose health has been damaged by environmental pollution, the planet left unprotected by a crippled E.P.A. ... etc.”
The list wasn’t long, but it was concise. The man who had challenged the auto industry and given rise to the consumer protection movement was ready to turn his focus on government. It was a beautiful thing.
In the latter days of the campaign, it became clear that he would not secure consideration for the Presidency, but he was still a force to be reckoned with. He had the power to barter his support with the Democratic candidate and affect the platform in ways that would have moved the Democratic party back to its traditıonal roots – looking out for the working person, minorities, the disenfranchised. But he didn’t. He ran instead. Like to hear it or not, he elected George W Bush.
Was Nader egotistical, or merely stubborn? Was he a spoiler or an idealist? You can spring to his defense or condemn him, but the net result is in his decision he ignored the fate of “the same people without health care, etc.. ... and we were soon to learn bitterly, the Army Reserves, National Guard and their famıilies and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.”
He is someone who intentionally sacrificed the worst off among us. I felt it was an appaling act of narcisssism by Nader and his followers ... but not one (sadly) without historic precedent.
Nader in an interview that same year said that the nation must put itself in the hands of an elitist class (people like him). He definitely used the word “elitist class” and definitely implied that there was a class of people who knew better than the rest of us. Again consulting my meager knowledge of history, I was reminded of the Marxist concept of a “Vanguard Party” – a proxy group standing in for democratic participation run by intellectuals and elitists. And we all know how that turned out.
So who would I / will I vote for? The one that has the best chance of reaching out to independents and Republicans, as well as Democrats. The one with the best chance of steering the Democratic Party back to its traditional roots. The one most responsive to political pressure from morally valid constituencies. I frankly don’t care if it is Clinton, or Edwards, or Obama, or someone else, who will come riding in at the last minute. As long as they can win (!) and pull America back from the moral abyss of the Right. And as long as they can be held to the fire by active Democrats, who are disciplined and orgranized enough to do so. It’s not that hard. The Republicans did it.
Reply to this | Report thisWhen Chris Hedges says “it is better to stand up and fight, even in vain, than not to fight at all” it sounds commendable but feels like morality in the abstact. Despite all the rest of the commendable moral abstractions cited in this piece and considering the + or – percentage points by which elections have been determined of late, I have to consider a vote for Nader a moral outrage.
By Chris Florky, February 27, 2007 at 6:38 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Although I agree with Chris Hedge’s comments about most Democrats being co-opted by the corporate moguls, I still don’t think that Ralph Nader is the answer. Why not Dennis Kucinich? I’d like to hear Chris Hedge’s comments on this man, who is by far - in my mind, the most spiritually minded (not dogmatically religious minded) candidate out there! He doesn’t appear to have ‘an agenda’, nor ties to the various corporations.
Reply to this | Report thisHe also has a different vision than most,i.e, a Department of Peace instead of the Defense Department. It gives a whole new and different energy to communications and relationships throughout the world.
By Mark Sherman, February 27, 2007 at 6:04 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
A great article that points out again that corporate money controls both parties. I’m a bit surprised that Kucinich doesn’t even get a mention as one major party candidate whose stated positions and actions while in elected office are pro we the people.
Reply to this | Report thisBy TAO Walker, February 27, 2007 at 1:05 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
If a dose of Ralph Nader could work on what ails the comatose and cancer-ridden American republic, Chris Hedges’ prescription here might offer some realistic hope of at least some temporary remission....if not really any prospect at all of an actual cure and recovery. If, however, as is already dead-certain from where us native Turtle Islanders stand, the fatal flaws in America’s national character have exposed “the last best hope....” to disorders of mind, body, and spirit soon to prove terminal, those who would like to tell their great grandchildren the story of the cleansing cataclysm right this minute hard upon us had best look elsewhere than the thoroughly corrupted political system, for a way through it.
The corporate leviathan has acquired a mass and momentum only the laws of Nature can arrest. No mere U.S. President can prevent the Walmartians and their kind from super-sizing their footprints all over the face of the Earth, as their rampage progresses to its inevitable dead-end. A “public” aroused sufficiently to the scope of its peril to actually make voluntarily the huge material and psycho-emotional sacrifices necessary to stop the machinery of global anihilation in its tracks is as much the stuff of pipe-dreams as is a techno-fix for global warming or a miracle-working messiah who’ll have a cure for institutionalized insanity.
What the domesticated peoples need, to end ten thousand years of captivity and degradation, is nowhere to be found outside their own essential human nature. Ironically, our tormentors have always known this. Which is why they’ve spent so much of their own dwindling vitality trying to both disrupt and suppress the organic function of humanity within the living body of Earth, to destroy the organic form of humanity necessary to the integrity of its function, and to prevent awareness of that form and function among their captive populations....not to mention the great lengths they’ve gone to in a vain attempt to wipe-out us free wild natural human beings.
Nothing made available within its increasingly suffocating confines by civilization itself can help the inmates out of that death-trap. Their only hope, and help, is in one another. Our tame brothers and sisters, subject for five hundred generations to induced immaturity, must grow-up....must overcome the lethal handicap of their artificial “individuality” to recover their natural immunity to the fear-mongered machinations of their tormentors.
As for this hell of a mess that’s been made in our Living Room....the only way out of that is to clean it up.
HokaHey!
Reply to this | Report thisBy rabblerowzer, February 27, 2007 at 1:01 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I was sorry to see Vilsack drop out. As in the past, the Rabid Right slime machine (the MSM) will build up and then knock off each succeeding Democratic front runner until they get down to the one Republicans think they can beat. As the field narrows, opportunities for lesser know candidates will emerge, and as happened in the past, the last Democrat left standing will win the nomination. Even those with little funding.
All Democratic candidates should remember what happened to Gary Hart and resolve to fight the slime machine to the bitter end. A majority of Americans still respect honesty and courage. Crooks and liars can only win if you allow them to.
Reply to this | Report thisBy AG, February 27, 2007 at 12:40 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Nader in 2008.
I will not be defined by others who say my vote for Nader is a vote for the republican party. That is utter nonsense, and the longer they believe it, the longer the country will be caught in this mess.
It’s not just that democrats are the lesser of two evils, it is that they stand for principles and actions that I don’t support. NAFTA, health care, and ultimately, supporting the Iraq War.
How could Nader in 2000 know that our country was heading down the wrong track, and Gore be ignorant of it? Why didn’t Gore even carry his own state? How could he allow the Florida count to stand and not challenge it? Whether your head is 12 inches or 2 inches under water, neither is acceptable, but the democrats want you to vote for them because they will only hold your head 2 inches under water.
“I’d rather vote for what I want and not get it than vote for what I don’t want, and get it.” - Eugene Debs
Unrepentant Nader Voter
Reply to this | Report thisBy toophat, February 26, 2007 at 11:54 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Indeed, Chris is on the ball with his observation about Mr. Nader. Ralph Nader is the only one looking out for us. Keeping his sharp tongue for the CAPITALISTA. They are capitalist with fascists tendencies. This evolution of capitalist in democracy to Capitalista will take us back to days of Mousollini. We know how that story ended.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Dennis D, February 26, 2007 at 7:18 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Chris - I want to thank you for this article. I never felt as if I’ve had to justify my voting for Nader in the past and will not in the future should he decide to run again. Our two party system is nothing more than an illusion. There’s no such thing as the lesser of two evils when both parties are evil. They both follow the Golden Rule - He who has the gold rules, period.
Reply to this | Report thisAnyone willing to stand up to the dictatorship we are presently under will always have my vote. Anyone that votes for either the Republicrats or Demicans is just confirming the definition of insanity.
By Polly Ester, February 26, 2007 at 7:18 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
”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.”
A two party system 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; displaying only slight cosmetic variations, thus creating the illusion of choice.
Multi-national corporations and the military-industrial complex, entwine their tentacles around the neck of both the jackass and the elephant, when unacceptable polices emerge from this beast, the tentacles quickly tighten causing political suffocation.
“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.”
So given the nature of this two-headed creature, is it physically possible for it to morph into a three headed beast?
Reply to this | Report thisBy Mad As Hell, February 26, 2007 at 6:46 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
“Mad as hell said “Still Nader stayed in the race. And we KNOW that had even 10% of the people who voted for him had voted for Gore in Florida, 3200 American service men and women would still be alive, and 650,000 Iraqis would still be alive. And tens of thousands of the injured would not be hurt.”
-Did Ralph Nader force the Democrats to authorize the use of force against Iraq? “ --Jeremy.
Jeremy asks an excellent question and, of course, the answer is no, Nader didn’t. The problem is that a number of people had the power in their hands to stop George Bush at various points in his rise to catastrophe.
But as THOSE Democrats cannot excuse their votes by saying “Hey! Don’t blame US--Ralph Nader should have pulled out so Gore was elected” neither can Nader evade HIS responsibility either. He had it in his PERSONAL power to affect the course of the election, and KNEW that his actions would bring a proto-fascist to power. He KNEW this, KNEW Al Gore for all his flaws was NOT a proto-fascist yet did not act to prevent Bush from “winning”.
Nor does the fact that Gore lost Tennessee either absolve Nader of responsibility. Sure, the BIGGEST responsibility falls on Al Gore, but that STILL doesn’t absolve Nader for NOT taking an action that he knew could stop Bush.
And he and his apologists REFUSE to accept responsibility for HIS actions, instead tossing out red herrings of OTHER factors that led to Bush’s election.
Like Buchanan cost Bush 4 states...Sorry--that’s HIS responsibility that he must acknowledge--he also (and I do NOT blame Buchanan for this) inadvertently drew 3000 votes in one district that even HE claimed must surely have been miscounted.
I have NO idea where other folks got the idea that Clinton caused 500,000 deaths in Iraq. That’s simply a nonsensical number.
The Naderites simply refuse to believe that it’s better to be under believers in Democracy and Freedom, no matter how inept and corrupt they may be than to live under out and out tyranny.
Under tyranny, they won’t be able to “vote their conscience”. They will be TOTALLY silenced--FORCIBLY! Why don’t they understand that?
Reply to this | Report thisBy Quy Tran, February 26, 2007 at 6:19 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
A man with thousand faces !
Reply to this | Report thisBy Ernest Canning, February 26, 2007 at 6:03 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
There are times in your life when you hear something profound and it sticks with you. For me, the year was 1969. I had just returned from Vietnam. The professor in my college freshman history class commented, “If the American right can be criticized for its absolute insensitivity to the human condition, the American left can always be criticized for its inability to count.”
While no progressive can argue with Mr. Nader’s willingness to directly confront the corporate global project, one has to question the wisdom of his tactic of repeatedly running as a Green or as an independent--a tactic that guarantees within the conglomerated media that he will be excluded from the debates.
If Mr. Nader truly wants to make a difference he should recognize what Dennis Kucinich so clearly understands--that the Green Party/Nader critique is more appropriately directed at the cabal of corporatists who have sold out rank and file Democrats in favor of the corporate global project. As Jeff Faux so poignantly notes in “The Global Class War” it was Bill Clinton who betrayed the working men and women of this country, pushing Reagan/Bush neoliberal agenda with the fast track adoption of NAFTA and the WTO.
Because so many progressive Americans are registered as Democrats, Mr. Nader needs to understand that it is essential that progressives first recapture the Democratic Party--a party which should truly be a Party of the People--before a serious effort can be made to recapture America for the vast majority of Americans.
There are two ways that Mr. Nader could make a difference. The first would be to openly endorse Dennis Kucinich.
For anyone who doubts that Mr. Kucinich is every bit as prepared to take on the corporate global project and the military-industrial complex, I would invite them to go to Kucinich.US and see for themselves. This effort, even at Truthdig, to focus solely on those candidates whom the corporate media dubs as “viable” entails a poll-driven self-fulfilling prophesy that diverts us from supporting only those candidates who offer substance.
Better still would be for Mr. Nader to immediately re-register as a Democrat and to declare his candidacy. That way, there would be no way he could be excluded from the early primary debates. The presence of both Mr. Nader and Mr. Kucinich at those debates would bolster the chances that the “message” would reach a large sector of the American People.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Argonaut, February 26, 2007 at 5:11 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
This is really simple. There were several reasons why Gore lost in 2000 and changing any one of them would have given him the win, saved 600,000 lives and trillions of dollars. Edwards did not campaign. Gore lost his own home state (?!). The Supremes sold out. Etc., etc. And Ralph Nader siphoned votes. *If* he is a smart and good as you would have us believe, he would understand that; hell, he would have understood it in 2000. So, for my money he is either stupid, delusional or ego-maniacal, and he ain’t stupid.
I put him up there with Pat Buchanan. Both of them can have excellent insights into our problems, but both of them come up with the wrong answers. In Pat’s case the answer for what ails us is lower taxes and getting rid of brown people. In Ralph’s case it’s Running for President. Lord, take me home. I’m ready.
Reply to this | Report thisBy reginald, February 26, 2007 at 3:23 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I’ll always wonder why Nader never ran for Senate or Congress. Politicians usually work their way from there to “the top”. Nader could have done a lot of good as Senator or Congressman, just as Bernie Saunders has. Nader is an idealist I know, but a little common sense, like making a reputation as a legislator first before running for President, would make him a more intelligent idealist.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Kush K, February 26, 2007 at 3:00 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Chris, you like Nader has brassy cajones. The middle class needs to wake up. The Democrats are not on the side of the middle class or the working class for that matter. They are all sold out, bought by a system which compels reliance on money. What is killing American democracy is this money dependence. The Clintons and the OBama of this world know that.
Although I agree with you Chris, I do not see anything worthwhile being organized for the people. The duopoly masquerades as democracy and people are cheated every election cycle.
Nader has the right vision. The problem is that most middle and working class Americans are beguiled by the corporate media. Is there anyway how the media can be free? Internet is the best thing that has happened. But how far is that going to take us?
Reply to this | Report thisBy Jeremy, February 26, 2007 at 2:59 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
WCG said “It IS about Nader’s ego. Otherwise, why wouldn’t he work within the Democratic Party? Why wouldn’t he seek to change from within what he sees as wrong?”
-Yeah, right, because that’s been working so well with Dennis Kucinich and company. Progressive democrats are continually mocked and ignored by the DLC and party leadership.
Mad as hell said “Still Nader stayed in the race. And we KNOW that had even 10% of the people who voted for him had voted for Gore in Florida, 3200 American service men and women would still be alive, and 650,000 Iraqis would still be alive. And tens of thousands of the injured would not be hurt.”
-Did Ralph Nader force the Democrats to authorize the use of force against Iraq?
Reply to this | Report thisBy Margaret Currey, February 26, 2007 at 2:54 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
It does not matter who runs, if the election system is corrupt than no matter who runs the Republicians will win, the money they have will corrupt any state. We have Fla. and Ohio and there are probably other ways the corrupt the system, there is the way of keeping people from the polls there are the police presence as was the case in Fla.
People in the south were scared from voting, the state police go to the houses of people who are active in getting the vote.
Up north there was the jamming of the telephone number to keep people from taking elderly people to the polls.
This country should be encouraging people to vote instead it is the other way around.
Like a said does it matter who is running if the system is corrupt.
Margaret from Vancouver, Washington
Reply to this | Report thisBy fewkes, February 26, 2007 at 2:53 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Chris,
Thanks for writing such a great column about Ralph Nadar. I appreciate your insights.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Christopher Robin, February 26, 2007 at 2:48 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
“The New Democrats” = “Republicans” prior to 1980
Reply to this | Report thisBy Wyatt_Hertz, February 26, 2007 at 2:29 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
By their fruits: For “the root of all evil”: the ‘greenest-thumbed’ White House in history--bar NONE. Due: the Math…
Why don’t we ‘secular progressives’ start pushing facts like that in the suckered faces of these borne-again pro-’life’ WARpharisees?
why don’t we ask the Bush War Cabinet to “recu$e"-themselves-for-LIFE-- from any personal profit traceable to any war on their watch. YES or NO…
“EXPOSED” OR “DISCOVERED” “DELIBERATE” or “INADVERTANT”
--surrender on demand said profit to, say..."College Funds for Children of the Fallen”...create a little ‘tension’ ‘bout those ‘legally blind trust’ ‘robustly complex’ portfolia...(Remember how nervous Bush seemed in his response to the “conflict of interest” question in the Presidential Debate with Kerry? --"anybody want some wood”...)
how ‘bout Mr. Precedent (& Vice, on down, one by one) you Share Your Thoughts on the CONCEPT--we’ll let you ignore the fattening warfall of your “inheritance” for now: just explain to us why you Over-indulged Chickenhawks should be allowed to have present and future donor-payback & proxy investment $pecial Force$ panning martial bloodstream for Gold...to even be obliquely situated years from now is repulsive…
IMAGINE the possible fallout if this question had been posed in this setting:
http://www.kyndmusic.com/2006/07/01/artist-general-war ning-recusal-question-bad-for-bush/ ]
ARTIST GENERAL’S WARNING:
Stoploss: Soul America:
From THE
Most Chickenhawked War in U.S. History
http://www.symbolman.com/chickenhawks.html
REV. HOGTIE POTUS (COWBOY NOIR)
FROM PULPIT NONFICTION FOR A CHANGE:
A Moral Smackdown--Left of Center!
~On ‘Religical’ Lust to Dominate Superpower Democracy as compared to:
The Faithful Truth and Moral Beauty of the Amish (Quaint as Geneva Conventions?)
http://www.kyndmusic.com/2006/10/09/the-truth-moral-be auty-of-the-amish/#more-826
Reply to this | Report thisBy derrek farina, February 26, 2007 at 2:27 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The United States of Amnesia - Gore Vidal. Well put for how people so easily forget events in this country. Ralph Nader, like him or hate him, wasn’t responsible for 8yrs of Bush.
We are. We allowed this to happen. The 2000 election was daylight robbery, but the fact that people believe it was Nader that stole crucial votes just goes to show. That the USA is still in going strong.
The Supreme Court decided the election, such words as electoral fraud and massive rigging (words that are easily used when political pundits in the USA describe other 3rd world elections, but to my knowledge hasn’t been used here) decided the election.
‘If Gore was in power, the Iraq war wouldn’t have happened.’ Most probably, but he and Clinton presided over those sanctions that we just as deadly. The only difference was that American soldiers weren’t dying. But Iraqi children were suffering and Iraqis were being bombed daily thanks to British and American warplanes.
The choice isn’t only between Republicans and Democrats. Anyone that comes out w/ an agenda that resonates w/ the people should be given a fair chance. The only way we the people can get money out of the equation is when we start voting not just for people who stand a chance, but for people who stand for the people and not just talk about it.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Enbie, February 26, 2007 at 2:26 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Every great person who worked to truly change the system was hated in their own time.
As usual, anytime Nader’s name comes up the whiners come out in force to blame him for 2000. They can’t be bothered to read and think; they just want to whine and blame and call names.
We live in a corporate state – deciding which corporate puppet to elect president is your right and it’s also stupid.
I’ll vote for Nader every time he runs and if I’m alive 30 years from now, will happily tell anyone who will listen that I wasn’t afraid to vote for real change when others were determined to be the good slaves.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Humble Visitor, February 26, 2007 at 2:06 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Nader is and always has been a spoiler. . . that’s all. He has known all his life that he didn’t stand even the remotest chance of being elected and yet this sad, burned-out old excuse for a crusader keeps TAKING MONEY FOR HIS CAMPAIGN FROM THE RNC and returning back to make sure the chances of wresting control from these maniacal megalomaniacs is once again destroyed while he and his pathetic little band of merry men traipse through the wreckage that they have once again created in the name of “green” or “righteous rebellion” against the “empire” that he so dilligently sucks up to so that THE RNC WILL CONTINUE TO FUND HIS CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE currently running for the Presidency so that they, the RNC, can make sure he siphons off enough votes to insure another “non-need” for a recount of the popular vote cause the rethuglican friends of nader get a “mandate” of less than 3% of the popular vote!!! Chris, I think your stuff is pretty damn good, all in all, but this pathetic symbiosis you have with nader needs to go by the wayside quick.
Reply to this | Report thisRalph sold out years ago. He only does this shit now to keep his misguided little ego feeling good at everybody else’s expense. Don’t think so? LOOK AT THE LAST TWO ELECTIONS HE HELPED SABOTAGE!!!
Nuff said.
By Erika McDonald, February 26, 2007 at 1:27 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I agree with Chris Hedges.
I would also like to tell all the Democratic Party hacks, once and for all: I DO NOT VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS, NEVER HAVE, AND NEVER WILL!!!
How wrong people are when they assume Nader’s voters would otherwise vote for Dems. Tsk. Tsk. I voted for Nader in 1996 and 2000. I voted for David Cobb in 2004. What would I have done if these candidates were not on the ballot? STAYED HOME!!!!
I believe there is about 11 cents difference between the Reps and Dems, but that is not enough for me and the non-voting 50% of the population to go to the polls.
How will Hillary even be different from BUSH? She is open to invading Iran, and does NOT regret her vote in favor of the Iraq War.
One more thing: I believe, with every fiber of my being, that Al Gore WOULD have invaded IRAQ!! He and Clinton had already murdered 500,000 Iraqis with their deadly sanctions policy!
Reply to this | Report thisBy Christopher Welzenbach, February 26, 2007 at 1:05 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I agree that the mainstream Democratic candidates are sellouts, not only to corporate money men, but to the Israeli lobby. However, Nader has only proven his own inability to get elected. Now that Mike Gravel has thrown his hat into the ring, I think there is a viable, non-corporate sponsored alternative to a Nader candidacy.
Chris Welzenbach
Reply to this | Report thisBy Don Knutsen, February 26, 2007 at 12:32 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I find myself agreeing with Chris Hedges take on Ralph Nader and more the faults within the democratic party establishment that , together with a corrupt republican party stole the election in ‘2000 for the shrub. Its too easy for democrats to lay blame on Ralph Nader for their own apathy..and thats what its been for along time. I don’t remember seing an active, involved democratic party since the days of Nixon. It has been corporatized and usually resembles republica lite. Clinton, who ofcourse was much better equipped to be president then the current dolt, was far to subserviant to the corporate interests. We have not had an administraion, a democratic administration that represented the middle class for alon, long time now. As we watch the core of our country evaporate, isn’t it high time we start demanding something more from our elected representitives ? Nader is the lone wolf trying to point that out, he isn’t in it for ego or wealth. I think he is dismayed at the lack of awareness in the public still.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Donald Johnson, February 26, 2007 at 12:28 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Nader is correct in his criticisms of the Democrats, but wrong in his solution. That’s why the debate among leftists (I’m ignoring the centrist Democrats who are part of the problem) is so vicious. The Nader-haters can’t bring themselves to admit that Nader is correct in most of what he says, though many of them say almost the same things so long as Nader’s name isn’t brought into the discussion. Nader-supporters can’t bring themselves to admit that Nader’s 2000 campaign helped Bush steal the election.
So, Mr. Hedges, assuming you read this, I think you’d be better off writing articles pointing out where Nader is correct. This ought to keep you busy for quite a while. But don’t support another Nader candidacy and don’t defend it, unless you can explain how it would actually accomplish something useful and not throw another election to a Republican.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Dave C., February 26, 2007 at 12:12 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
All who claim the US and the world would be in a better state had Gore won the presidency are correct.
Reply to this | Report thisDemocrats are better at steering the helm of empire than Republicans. It really is that simple.
Why vote democrat and watch it all slowly unravel?
Vote republican and get it over with or vote for you conscious.
It’s as if Republicans are a shotgun blast to the head while the Democrats are a slow churning knife in the back of democracy. Take your pick. I choose Nader.
I’ll be helping him once again in 2008!
By W., February 26, 2007 at 11:47 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Chris, I am a fan of your writing. I read your latest book and I found it to be enlightening and accurate (speaking as a former evangelical). It also scared the hell out of me. On this point, though, I think you are missing something. I admire Nader, but in this case, Nader lied. The difference between the parties may not be great, but it is significant. Just think of all the people who would still be alive now if Gore were president.
Maybe the answer is run-off elections. That way people like Nader could run and make a good showing but not end up helping someone like Bush. Let the Naders and Ross Perots and John Andersons have their say, but let the final election be between two candidates. No more spoilers.
Reply to this | Report thisBy PTCruiser, February 26, 2007 at 11:32 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Bravo!
It has long puzzled me why Democrats believe that folks like Ralph Nader owe them something when in fact it is people like Nader who have broadened and lengthened the legacy of the Democratic Party. Yes, George Bush was a disaster in the rough but many of us recognized this fact in 2000. This reality could not have escaped the attention of Al Gore and his staff and handlers.
Nader was not afraid to point out inconvenient truths about the Democrats and the Republicans and the Democrats will never forgive him for it. Al Gore is a good and decent man but he did not deserve to be president because many of us believe that George Bush is not. We do not want to be taken for granted.
Senator Clinton is right. We can find another candidate to vote for if we do not care for her positions. Run, Ralph, run!
Reply to this | Report thisBy JUSTALK, February 26, 2007 at 11:17 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Chris, If Nader wants to do good, let him back Gore, the Republicans would support any other option.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Bob, February 26, 2007 at 10:32 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Thank you for asking why Mr. Nader takes all the blame for the 2000 election. It’s interesting to me that Nader affected the election in two states - Florida and New Hampshire, for a total of 29 electoral votes. Pat Buchanan, on the other hand, played a role in four states - Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon and Wisconsin - where he polled more votes than the difference between Bush and Gore. In other words, without Buchanan, Gore would have lost these states as well, which, coincidentally, add up to 29 electoral votes.
What this says to me is that third parties, even when they have a small impact (in total number of votes) can change an election profoundly. What we need is more support for third parties, not less; simply accepting the two dominant parties “divine right” to run the show just deprives us of democracy, as Mr. Nader has said for more than 20 years.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Jurgen Rommel Vsych, February 26, 2007 at 10:21 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
He who pays the piper calls the tune. Voters must “follow the money” and see what corporations are funding Hillary, Barack and John Edwards’s campaigns, and then not be shocked - simply shocked! - when their guy (or gal) can’t rock the boat when they’re in office.
Like James Ridgeway says in “An Unreasonable Man,” “The Democrats are the meanest bunch of mother f***ers.”
Reply to this | Report thisBy hegemony57, February 26, 2007 at 9:28 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Nader is right to speak his special brand of truth to power while democrats (spineless corrput whores according to Mad As Hell) make nice to corporations and play the venal nationalistic game almost as well as republicans do.
The question of when authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism and economic distress morph into fascism is worth thinking about. IMHO we are moving towards that line by degrees and an adequate analysis (not to mention a prescription) does not seem to be coming from a neutered democratic party.
No matter his personal style or ego Nader’s voice is a critical one in these times.
And then there is the question about why dems can’t dems embrace him and his ideas by bringing them into the party. Of course the answer is simple. Dems are in thrall to the corporatists who have branded him beyond the pale.
Run RALPH run.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Chris, February 26, 2007 at 9:16 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Nadar has refused to accept any responsibility for his actions in 2000 (lesser of two evils!? wake up, how could Dem rule be compared with the giant GOP mess we are in now?).........simply stated that puts him a lot closer to Bush than anyone else.
He was a great advocate; now sadly a self-aggrandizing jackass who is past his sell-by date.
Reply to this | Report thisBy anchorite, February 26, 2007 at 8:49 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The wise violate sense and restrict imagination.
CORRUPTION
A hundred holes
A hundred Hells
I’d travel going tippy-toe
To find the hottest glowing heck
And plug it with your wretched neck
A thousand sores
A million cramps
Could never ever balance
Your greedy game of just desserts
And cumulation callous
You blind yourself
To better spread
Material seduction
You say you’re striving
For the best
Yet authorize aggression
As wreckage nears and common tears
Are building to a flood
A silent impropriety
Might stop you if it could
For now we labour while you dream
Up another crime
None would seek or dare to work for
Justice in our time
~Anchorite
Reply to this | Report thisBy James, February 26, 2007 at 8:19 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Amen to that.
Mr. Hedges, you have found yourself another loyal reader.
Reply to this | Report thisBy jeff chalk, February 26, 2007 at 8:07 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
unfortunatly, you are correct. Up in Canada where I live we have a George Bush bum boy as Prime Minister. The corporate sector controls both the liberals and the conservatives. The manufacturing sector was gutted in the first Canada-US trade agreement. We have a health care system under attack at provincial level where local gov’t’s want to do as they please with the money that is earmarked for healthcare
Reply to this | Report thisBy Kim Viner, February 26, 2007 at 8:05 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Well, let us set aside the FL example and the one you didn’t mention; NH. I believe a huge part of Nader’s problem is that he chose this battle at a most inopportune time. Even if you accept your “least worst” arguement, the fact is that Nader chose the worst possible moment in electoral history to be the deciding factor in a U.S. presidential race. Nader’s disruption of the “least worst” propostition in this case led to the worst presidency in American history yielding an unnecessary war; ruination of the enviromnment; and a tremendous and illegal aggrandizement of the power of the executive branch. It will take a very long time to set it straight. Moreover, when it became apparent to most of us that Mr. Nader’s continuned presence in the race would not accomplish his goals and lead to possible victory for Mr Bush, he refused to pullout of the race. Also unfortunate for Mr. Nader is that the longer this administration is in power the worse it makes Mr Nader look. Rightly or wrongly, some of us will blame Mr Nader for it forever.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Alejandro, February 26, 2007 at 8:03 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I agree with every thing you write of Mr. Naders’ commitment. However, it is my opinion the he is un-electable and that the country would suffer the same result his candidicy had in 2000. My hope is that Mr. Nader and all progressives would get behind Al Gore, who is electable. Mr. Nader is a great American and patriot, to be sure and he would be most effective in a cabinet level possition. (In my humble opinion)
Reply to this | Report thisBy Hank Van den Berg, February 26, 2007 at 6:59 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
We really do face a difficult decision: Do we go with the least evil of the two big parties or do we go with a party that really represents our interests and, thereby, put the worst of the two big parties back in power? It all comes down to how confident we are that our ideas and understanding are accurate. If we are convinced about what needs to be done, then we will not hesitate to vote our conscience and go with whatever party, big or small, represents our understanding of the world. If we are not sure, we inevitably find ourselves falling back on the least evil of the potential winners in 2008. Are there enough peopole who have learned enough and thought enough to have become convinced enough to work hard to bring about true change? Figuring out what is right and then pursuing those convictions is never easy.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Kellina, February 26, 2007 at 6:51 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Go get ‘em, Chris. You did a great job of expressing what is happening to this country, with one exception. I’d say that, due to BushCo’s refusal to use the FISA court, that we already have a despotic country: Secret information is collected to blackmail any opposition.
Reply to this | Report thisBy John Lowell, February 26, 2007 at 6:28 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
How it is that Chris Hedges so frequently manages to prescribe more-or-less properly after having diagnosed so sloppily boggles the mind. The whole cause and effect sequence he reports, economic victimization to religious fundamentalism to fascism seems more the analysis of a George Bush than a graduate of Harvard Divinity School. Might it be that some come to Evangelical faith entirely out of conviction?
Now to see the connection of fundamentalist theology - specifically its pre-millenial dispensationalism - with a jingoistic Middle Eastern foreign policy is clear enough and to discern in it a certain parentalism would be entirely fair. But it is a distortion to see in Evangelicalism per se the seed of fascism. How are we to account for Amish or Menonnite pacifism, for example. What it would be more correct to say is that the present Evangelical leadership - the Falwell, Dobsons and Lands - have imported a God and country dimension into Evangelicalism that was entirely foreign to it as recently as 100 years ago. In those days dancing and movie going were of more concern to Evangelicals than were apologizing for West Bank settlements. The incipient fascism which Hedges sniffs out is of more recent vintage and is hardly the consequence of the economics of Evangelicalism’s adherents. It is derived more of an absurdly literalist echatology and the imposition of a pronounced psychological parentalism.
Now, as to the prescription: Ralph Nadar. Add to Nadar a properly grasped anthropology in all it’s implications and you’d have a decent candidate in my view. But given this antropological deficit and Nader is just one more Josef Mengele. At the moment, I’d rather Ron Paul if we really have to vote for someone.
John Lowell
Reply to this | Report thisBy WCG, February 26, 2007 at 6:23 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I suspect that Nader is really a closet Republican, knowing that every vote he can siphon away from the Democrats is a vote for right-wing extremists. Little difference between the parties? Yeah, right. So things wouldn’t be different today if Gore had been president instead of Bush? It didn’t matter to our country that Kerry lost the election? Pelosi hasn’t done any different in the House than her Republican predecessor? Dream on.
It IS about Nader’s ego. Otherwise, why wouldn’t he work within the Democratic Party? Why wouldn’t he seek to change from within what he sees as wrong? Look at the Christian right - they’re a minority even among Republicans, but they control the party because they’re organized and they VOTE. Some of them supported third party candidates in the past, but they saw they were just giving votes to the Democrats.
But no, Nader won’t be a small fish in a big pond. He likes being the spoiler. He may be in a very small pond indeed, but he’s a big fish there. So what if his actions help Republicans? Hate is just as good as love when you’ve got an ego to feed. Bottom line is that Nader doesn’t care about results, only that he’s considered “important.”
Reply to this | Report thisBy Mad As Hell, February 26, 2007 at 6:02 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Nader STILL doesn’t get it and he’s about the only one:
The Democrats may be spineless corrupt whores but the Republicans are out to create a fascist empire--ESPECIALLY the Republicans Nader helped get elected.
In France, Mitterand was DOOMED as the corrupt cluck he is--but when a neo-nazi was nominated by the other party, he won a landslide re-election.
Before the 2000 South Carolina primary, it’s true, it was hard to tell the difference between the parties. Bush claimed “Compassionate Conservatism” and sounded like he was only a click or two to the right of Clinton. McCain was interesting but VERY Conservative.
Then the South Carolina primary happened, where Bush’s people called Republican voters and push-polled them asking if they would vote for McCain knowing he was father to an illegitimate Black child (rumor has it they used the “N” word). They implied that McCain had cheated on his wife, rather than the truth: They had adopted a girl from Bengla-Desh. She probably IS “illegitimate” (is if innocent children could be that) and she’s as dark as any African-American. But the POINT is that it showed us who George W. Bush REALLY is--a power-hungry monster who will do or say ANYTHING to smear an opponent, true or false.
Then there came the general election campaign and the lies got greater and greater and it became clear this man was solely in the grip of the fundamentalists and the corporations, both of whom wanted control and to silence ANY critics.
Still Nader stayed in the race. And we KNOW that had even 10% of the people who voted for him had voted for Gore in Florida, 3200 American service men and women would still be alive, and 650,000 Iraqis would still be alive. And tens of thousands of the injured would not be hurt.
I think if Nader had said, “Even though I had no way of knowing what would happen, in retrospect it is clear that Gore would have been far, far better for the nation and the world. Had I known then what I know now....” then he would be forgiven.
But Nader refuses to accept ANY responsibility for the accension of the catastrophe named George W. Bush. So he doesn’t deserve to be forgiven.
He doesn’t understand that his refusal to compromise WAS a compromise--it not only put the nation at a REAL risk of a fascist takeover, it threatens to throw the whole world into another global war.
Reply to this | Report this