In These Times’ July 11 issue, “Environmentalism is Dead. What’s Next?” generated a number of passionate replies from a variety of different perspectives. To expand the debate, we’ve highlighted three responses, below. The first, “Where’s the Race?” from a set of environmental justice activists, argues that the “ecomorticians” ignore both the relationship of environmental issues to race and the contribution that… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (20)Page 1 of 1 pagesI’d like to apologize in advance to anyone who complains about people talking off topic as this will mostly be off topic, but at the end it will tie in with environmentalism.
Dear Lefty and all of your little cronies whom worship the Democratic party and feel they do no evil:
Corporations have the power of individuals in many manners one of which is to make donations to political campaigns. Although these powers were given along time ago the democrats and republicans do nothing about this. As far as the Republicans go we know they are for corporate power so they will obviously not speak up about this. But for all you Democrats who claim that the dems arent corporate whores think about this. How come the Democrats dont put forth legislation to take these powers away from corporations which are obviously not individuals and thus do not deserve to be treated as individuals. How come the Democrats accept corporate donations, and oftentimes donations from corporations, like Citibank which gave to both Bush and Kerry, when it is obvious these corporations are trying to play both sides to ensure they have an unfair say in government policy. Why doesnt the Democratic party stop taking corporate donations, AS THE GREEN PARTY AND RALPH NADER (BOTH OF WHICH DO NOT ACCEPT CORPORATE DONATIONS), in order to show their constituents they wish to stop the power corporations have over our government. Moreover why do corporations donate to both parties? Well they donate to the Republicans b/c they know they are very pro business and are easily bought. But why than do they donate in such large quantities to the Dems as well? B/c they know that although the Dems arent as much of corporate whores as the Reps that they are corporate whores none the less. All you Dems who wonder and ask so naively of why people vote for Nader or the Green Party and accuse us of helping the Reps just b/c we dont fall in line with the corporate Dems this is why we do not vote Democrat b/c u will not pressure ur party to stop taking donations from huge corporations.
Finally if you want to help the environment, as corporations are consistently polluting this earth all around the planet than u Dems tell ur representatives and convince other Dems that ur party needs to stop serving corporate interests and needs to stop taking corporate donations.
Progressive Organizations and sites to check out:
www.votenader.org
www.votecobb.org
www.dcvote.org
www.ssdp.org
www.norml.org
www.dpa.org
www.cjpf.org
Posted by NaderRaider on Aug 16, 2005 at 7:21 PM any and all Dems willing to respond on this please do..especially those of u who believe when u vote for Nader it was really a vote for Bush
Thanks
Posted by NaderRaider on Aug 16, 2005 at 7:26 PM Just in case it slips by anyone’s attention regarding the above NaderRaider’s usual commentary, 95% of it is is mostly lambasting Democrats and liberals. Raider’s comment, “Dear Lefty and all of your little cronies whom worship the Democratic party and feel they do no evil” says it all.
Throwing in a little poke at the other party, the Republicans, can hardly be disguised as nothing more than an anti-Democrat harangue and a feeble attempt to appear “fair and balanced,” with about as much honesty as one can expect from Fox News Network.
Please, spare us the patronizing b.s.!
I intend to post my comments later on the main topic by the In These Times staff, Addressing The State of The Movement. I’ll have to reread it because there are at least three separate issues being discussed.
Posted by Richard2 on Aug 17, 2005 at 5:43 PM I am becoming more and more saddened with other progressives who continually bash me as a conservative instead of answering my damn questions and taking me as I obviously am a Nader / Green progressive. When will you people wake up and see that not every progressive votes for the corporate democrats and there cstills some of us that do believe in a multi party system and are voting for third parties. Moreover Richard2 why dont u have the balls to answer my question about corporate donations. As i said Ralph Nader and the Green Party(who are true progressives) do not accept corporate donations!
Posted by NaderRaider on Aug 17, 2005 at 6:56 PM To Richard2, Lefty and all you other Democrats who think your progressives yet call true progressives conservatives:
(Note to understand this please read my above three comments and Richard2s comments, moreover if u want to before you had to register to post commments if u want to see some of my old comments i was Richard from Ohio)Here is why I blast the Dems and not the Reps:
1. I do not have a party, well at least a powerful party because as of now the greens are rather weak nationally.
2. As a liberal progressive i know i will never vote for the Republicans therefore i am not looking to improve the republicans into a progressive party that i could believe in.
3. the democrats on the other hand are a liberal party, but are not a progressive party!
4. With some improvements, like the suggestions and comments i have made on stopping taking corporate donations, make universal health care a bigger issue, start blasting Bush(yes they do blast him a bit but no where near as much as the anti war movement, the Greens, or Nader).
5. You see (and any Nader or Green voter please back me up on this) I blast the Dems b/c id like to eventually vote for them if they ever get their act together!
Until than I will proudly vote Green
Posted by NaderRaider on Aug 17, 2005 at 7:07 PM NaderRaider’s bonding with the Green Party and Ralph Nader would have more credibility were it not for the fact that Nader ran as the Reform Party candidate in 2004, not the Green Party.
As most of us who have done a modicum of reading know, Pat Buchanan, one of the most virulent anti-Semitic candidates in recent time, ran as the Reform Party’s nominee in 2000.
The Southern Poverty Law Center which documents the various hate groups in the U.S. defines the goals of the Reform Party in these words: “Right-wing extremist organizations promoted his (Buchanan’s) candidacy on their Web sites and in their publications. Their members sponsored fundraisers for Buchanan and collected petitions to help get him on the ballot in all 50 states. They endorsed him both in their own groups and at state Reform Party meetings.
The support he received from far-right activists was particularly important to Buchanan as he battled a rival, relatively moderate Reform Party faction for $12.6 million in federal campaign financing that went to the party’s nominee.
But Buchanan’s take-no-prisoners stance on “culture war” issues — in particular, his bombastic opposition to non-white immigration, affirmative action, abortion, gun control, homosexuality and anything that smacked of “internationalism” — proved divisive.”
As to Nader’s desperate need to identify with the Reform Party in order to get his name on several state ballots in 2004, one newspaper had this to say: “...Ralph Nader has become the favorite new campaign tool of the Republicans and their wealthy supporters from the far right. Why doesn’t Nader disavow these tactics? Sadly, it looks like he is behaving like those he’s always blasted: sacrificing principle for political gain.” (Oregon Daily Emerald, 10/1/04).
Posted by Richard2 on Aug 17, 2005 at 11:11 PM All you do is give me personal attacks. You never answered the question of why dont the dems stop accepting corporate donations and take away some corporate power over Washington DC?
Posted by NaderRaider on Aug 18, 2005 at 1:44 AM NR,
Again, you argue like a conservative. Your continued employment of false premises is transparent and tiresome. Neither I, nor anyone on this forum whose comments I’ve read worship the democratic party. Perhaps it can be said that some of the conservative trolls who leave droppings here worship the republican party. Conservatives are religious by nature. Worship comes naturally to them. Liberals aren’t so superstitious or inclined to be led by a proslytizer.
As you know from my prior posts, I greatly admire Ralph Nader and think he would be a good President. But, I would rather have a liberal in office than a conservative. And I will not waste my vote on Nader who HAS NO CHANCE TO BE PRESIDENT running as a third party candidate.
To the topic at hand, the Bayers, Duponts, Dows, Graces, Monsantos and BASF’s of the world will continue to polute the environment with endocrine disrupting, neurotoxic, mutagenic and carcinogenic products until we, and they are all dead.
It’s not too late to stop them, but I think it’s too late to convince enough citizens that they should be stopped.
Posted by Lefty on Aug 18, 2005 at 2:54 AM In otherwords, it’s not just environmentalism that is dead. It’s we, and our posterity, who are all dead.
Posted by Lefty on Aug 18, 2005 at 2:58 AM Still no answer to why the Democrats do not take a hint from the Greens and Nader and stop taking campaign donations from corporations?
P.S. Lefty i do not mean worship in the religious meaning i mean that so many dems are unwilling to criticize the party in order to turn it more leftist and thus better integrate Green voters and Nader voters, if they did this it would pick up a few million votes as well as likely motivate the young electorate who is much more likely to be leftist.
Posted by NaderRaider on Aug 18, 2005 at 3:43 AM As important as it may seem to evaluate the state of the environmentalist movement, I’m hoping that for most people the evolution of the movement over the years is less the focus and actually contributing to the slowing and stopping of environmental destruction is more so.
If we want to do something concrete, maybe the movement could expand its use of mass media, internet, TV/cable, and radio to publish the examples of harm committed by this-or-that company or agency, and promote consumer boycotts in response. As I usually phrase it, be relentless. If Murdoch’s media division won’t publicize you, go abroad, go with several smaller competitors, take out full-page ads in major newspapers (I guess not the NY Post, but hey, maybe them too if you can manage it). Also, forming businesses in localities that compete with (and perhaps beat, but at least offer alternatives to) mega-corps might be of use, but of course only if they too have clean practices. The scope of the businesses would be largely local and regional, the media assaults local AND regional AND national AND global. (Demonstrations might be the usual tactic, but then you rely on the major media organs to publicize you) Mainly, of course, we have to find a way to consume less while still enjoying a fine life, which I honestly think most people, and surely most Americans, can do. If we use up less of everything and improve our efficient use of what we do routinely consume, it must have an effect. Fuel, food, clothing, gadgets, all kinds of things can be used less with little erosion of one’s quality of life; it would mainly be a matter of changing long-standing habits. Simple, but not easy, I know. Finally, ganging up on legislators and compelling them to judicially beat the crap out of polluters is truly lovely to see.
I’d also add that anti-business rhetoric is counter-productive. Anti-waste, anti-pollution, anti-shortsightedness, I’m there. But instead of haranguing about corporate evilness, compete with them in the marketplace and be specific and even more energetic about bringing to light their polluting, wasting behaviors. That might mean giving public approval to corporations that actually do improve their environmental record, though I know some readers will be allergic to this suggestion.
Gotta add something here, responding to “Where’s the Race”... I’m really weary of “white” contrasted with “people of color” as a paradigm. If you want to talk historical advantage in the US, well, OK I guess, but skin-color categorizing with Caucasians being described as somehow out of the “color” mix is dehumanizing and simplistic. Actually, it hits me like racism, though I hasten to add I’m not calling the authors racist. There’s plenty of exploited, victimized, and outta-luck palefaces on the planet, they’re not all sipping Perrier on the veranda while darker complected servants prune the hedge. The point made in “Youthful Hubris”, decrying divisive politics in the movement, speaks in a similar vein, which resonated with me.
However, I assume the authors of “Where’s the Race” might agree with me on one point. Whether it’s the race-relations issue or the environmental issue, the people of this planet need to get the idea that we’re all in this together, that we’re all basically cousins and that excessive wealth and economic/military power will only insulate us from ecological disaster for a short while unless major trends change soon. In short, we better get a clue pretty damn fast and do something real, or I fear Lefty’s concern that our future generations are doomed might actually come to pass.
Even if they don’t become extinct, environmental degradation could feasibly make anything but the most squalorous, harsh, and dismal existence pretty much a foregone conclusion for our great-grandchildren’s generation or not long after. And I don’t consider that an exaggeration.
Posted by Kuya on Aug 18, 2005 at 6:58 AM NaderRaider,
Instead of dressing down Democrats for taking contributions from corporations,why not tell Republicans to stop it?What’s that?They tell you to get stuffed when they even deign to listen?I see.So,instead you pester the least of the offenders.Sweet.
I applaud Nader for his work during the sixties and seventies.A thousand thanks,prayers,and blessings.Yet,not every great man deserves to be president.If the greens had studied the campaign of 2000 as it was happening,they would have seen that the left needed every vote behind one organized party to defeat Bush,Rove and the reptilian,I mean Republican, Party.Instead,Nader set himself up for failure and now we’ve got the Bush administration.
What sort of environmental legislation has Bush given us?How close to the ideals of the green party have the Republicans come?The gap is so great not even Evel Knievel would dare to jump it.
Posted by wwoods on Aug 18, 2005 at 1:26 PM Sorry, it’s a toss-up as to which party is more vile, evil and undeserving of public support and dollars: the bloated, corporate whoring Republicans or the spineless, know-it-all sanctimonious Democrats. They both suck. BIG TIME.
Look at Kerry… I’m sorry, but if you can’t handily beat an alcoholic, ex-coke fiend brain dead fool like Dubya, I don’t think I want you in office - ANY office. One of the few decent candidates the Dems trotted out was Kucinich and he was basically treated as a non-entity and the proverbial red-headed step child by his own freakin’ party!
Instead of standing behind Kucinich and trying to show some kind of spine, doctrine and plan, they did everything they could to appear as Republican Lite, a truly horrifying image if there ever was one.
As far as I’m concerned, neither one of these bloated, cash-guzzling whores deserve my or anyone else’s support.
Posted by g-love on Aug 18, 2005 at 3:32 PM And g love you know what we know the Dems are gonna run another crappy candidate in 2008.
Too all of you Dems out there do you think ur party will run a progressive such as Howard Dean and / or Dennis Kucinich(both of which I would vote for)? Or will your party weasel out and pick another fucking spineless moderate like Kerry.
Please tell your party not too run Hillary, she is no better than Kerry, please make sure the Dems run a viable progressive candidate, i.e. Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich
Posted by NaderRaider on Aug 18, 2005 at 6:07 PM Too Woods and others who have asked me why i dont ask that the Republicans stop taking corporate donations:
Ok you idiots get this this time please!
The Republicans are corporate whores and are happy being corporate whores and their constituents largely enjoy being corporate whores. Where as many Dems claim to be liberal and progressive and thus should not accept corporate donations. Moreover if the Dems actually do this as I have said before it will serve to seperate them from the Republicans and will win them over many independent voters such as myself
Posted by NaderRaider on Aug 18, 2005 at 6:09 PM The best way to elect another Republican President in ‘08 would be for the Dems to run Hillary. You think Dubya’s bad? Imagine the free world being run by Darth Cheney-burton.
Er, uh… wait a minute, I think we’re already seeing that…
Posted by g-love on Aug 18, 2005 at 8:25 PM It would make me glad to know that someone out of the Reps or Dems had an actual chance to be President, but to me it appears that any 3rd candidate would have an impossible time getting more than a few electoral votes, more likely none at all. Also, if s/he were somehow elected, virtually every federal legislator would be in the “opposition party” in effect, able to block any legislative agenda the occupant of the White House would promote. There would have to be enough broad-based support at the district level in favor of that candidate’s party to weaken the two big parties’ lock-hold on power. They’ve worked for decades to strengthen their power bases, and have been able to make any real challenge to themselves almost impossible, sadly.
On the other hand, 3rd parties have arisen in the past, and had an influential effect on public debate and policy. It was 100+ years ago, but precedents are precedents, and even the Republican Party was new and small, once. What brought them together was a galvanizing issue, preventing the spread of slavery into the conquered western territories in the mid-1800s. That’s a very long and convoluted story.
However, if another party could form around a modern galvanizing issue, one that didn’t evaporate in an election cycle or two, it might have a chance to gain a firm footing and show itself to be a force to reckon with.
A long-term strategy would have to be formed and broad support increased over time, from the level of the neighborhood to the district and beyond. Nader would likely be dead by the time power could perhaps be successfully wrested from the Rep/Dem monopoly, but if he or his supporters (or any other challenger to the big two) could get that groundswell started and capitalize on it, building not just a movement but a true alternate vision of how the power of the US government ought to be used, they could leave a real mark on history and in time have a strong nationwide scope.
Whether it’s a Nader-inspired movement or someone else’s, short of that, the two-headed monster is here to stay for a long time.
Posted by Kuya on Aug 19, 2005 at 11:14 AM Kuya wrote:
“if another party could form around a modern galvanizing issue, one that didn’t evaporate in an election cycle or two, it might have a chance to gain a firm footing and show itself to be a force to reckon with”
the galvaanizing issue is going to be Peak Oil.
the political tactic will be what Ralph only gave lip service to - pull equally from the disaffected wings of BOTH parties to nullify the spoiler problem.
the organizing principle to unite around is:
“Defend the natural and social commons from further privatization which shift cost off of individuals and onto society denying the property rights to the fruits of the excluded’s labor”
Posted by BillG on Aug 20, 2005 at 1:28 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by In These Times Staff
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
