He’s back. And he’s got your back. Yes, Ralph Nader has thrown down that withering, raggedy old gauntlet in one more tiresome bid for the presidency. Our modern-day Don Quixote will mount his high horse, yet again, to announce why he believes he is the only true independent candidate for the White House. Following Nader’s Feb. 24 announcement that he is… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (27)Page 1 of 1 pagesYes, but…
How will we ever get beyond your political system that’s corrupt and too narrow in what views get any clout? How? How—unless somebody can speak to the issues that get no play otherwise?
Sure we want to avoid 100 more years of war in Iraq.
But — What about 100 more years of winner-take-all two-party, money corrupted electoral system?
How will this ever change?
Posted by mfogler on Mar 13, 2008 at 12:05 PM At least this blatant Obama shilling is filed under Viewpoint.
I fail to see how normally clear-thinking individuals still blame Nader for the 2000 Bush “victory” and the resulting policies. I remember my 87-year-old granduncle scoff at Gore as a man “who couldn’t even win his own state.” And - ahem - that state isn’t Florida. Nor did he take Clinton’s Arkansas.
With either he would have taken the presidency.
Washington’s piece isn’t so much “mean and unfair” but ahistorical.
Posted by TheoPapathanasis on Mar 13, 2008 at 1:46 PM “Nader’s insistence on hogging the electoral limelight in 2000 siphoned off crucial support from Democratic nominee Al Gore and helped sweep in our most disastrous president ever.”
I am withTheoPapathanasis granduncle : Gore lost the election due to his own stupidity. If he had simply carried his home state (Tennessee) Bush would be unknown to most of us. (Whether the world would be better or worse is unknowable to us mortals, however.)
I would be nice to have a real alternative to the pathetic two party system we currently endure.
Posted by wolf on Mar 13, 2008 at 3:19 PM Laura, you don’t seem to get it. Ralph, More power to your ideas. Keep working to end this insane war and bring our people home. You’ve been out there making speeches, doing interviews and writing articles and have written at least three books in the last 6 years. And you’ve been writing weekly commentary on the things that really matter, at http://www.nader.org .The question is where has the Press been on these important matters you discuss? where have the “Talking Heads” been on corporate crime and the profiteers of this war? The population is too busy being entertained and watching Sporting events to get involved, they take the EASY route and don’t bother to think, settling instead for snippets and quick slogans. Knowing what’s going on in a Corporate controlled State takes WORK. Thank you Ralph, for all the good things you’ve done to protect the PEOPLE of this Country. Amazing how quickly they forget, or perhaps they just don’t know. Almost everyone’s lives, or that of friends and relatives of theirs, have been improved and made safer because of you, Some wouldn’t be alive today, if not for Ralph Nader! Their minds have been intentionly bombarded with with Corporate propaganda and the Democrat Party scapegoating machine. Obama and Clinton, and that phoney Terry McAuliffe should be ashamed of their comments regarding you. They continue the DNC scapcoating myth. thank you for your great and continued service to your fellow countrymen. America will never ever be able to repay you. More power to your ideas. http://www.votenader.org….All the rest of you out there, buckle-up! ....
Posted by sebtree on Mar 13, 2008 at 8:49 PM I do not believe Nader is running simply to feed his ego. To state that he is is irresponsible. Ms Washington, the other readers, me, none of us know what his motivation is, except what he has declared. That being said, I would prefer he didn’t run, or if he was going to, he should have done so when we had an open field.
Still, I wish Obama would address some of the issues Nader feels are being ignored. How about Palestine? This issue has been avoided entirely, with the candidates only words on this being their reiteration of their undying love for the criminal state of Israel. Still, I can understand their need to avoid this conflict: saying anything else would end their careers. That’s the sort of thing Nader would like to change, and a good reason he is so demonized (besides having the bad taste to have been born an Arab American).
I am supporting Obama, for all his warts. I am encouraging others to do so, and have contributed money to his campaign (after supporting Kucinich). But I will say this: if Clinton wins the nomination, I will vote for Nader. And please do not waste your time trying to convince me that I must vote for Clinton.
I hope the Dems figure this out before Denver. I am not alone in my sentiments. Run her, lose. It’s that simple.
Posted by opeluboy on Mar 14, 2008 at 12:14 AM another thing no one discusses is that george w. bush didn’t win in 2000 or 2004, privately owned touch screens and central tabulator software and voter roll caging by crosspoint did. (yes, it’s documented do your own research) his occupation of the white house is a fraud sanctioned by the judiciary branch of government. that should scare every american, yet your corporate media is too busy pleasing sponsors to discuss it. 2008 is near and these tools of election fraud are still in use - don’t believe a close election - only 23% want a third term for bush.
a democratic horserace is more exciting than issues. issues that matter were offered by kucinich, gravel, dodd, and later, edwards, and they were ignored, and voters believed the media when told that they were ‘unelectable’. polls early on showed only gop mccain could beat clinton or obama head to head, yet edwards would handily whip mccain and any gop running mate. never heard that i bet.
with the two dem frontrunners playing he said she said - the issues don’t matter to the horserace - the corporate media may give nader more press than they gave the unelectables just to turn brain-dead independents away from the gop-lite-dems.
but rather than ripping away at the corruption of the ‘two party system’, i hope that ralph takes the opportunity to present the disasters and issues that loom before you and offers ideas and solutions that americans can digest.
because the real problem is, that as bad as it is, too few fathom how bad it’s going to get ...
Posted by hourglass on Mar 14, 2008 at 6:37 AM Al Gore’s loss of the election in 2000 has been explained by saying…
1. …his home state went to Bush, electorally speaking.
Or…
2. …Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris effectively disenfranchised thousands of voters in likely-Democratic districts in Florida, tipping the scales toward Bush electorally.
Or…
3. …voting machines were fraudulently managed, favoring Bush.
Or…
4. …high-profile scandals from Clinton’s presidency stained Gore sufficiently that voter enthusiasm for him was partially eroded.
Or…
5. …Gore’s uninspiring demeanor turned off too many voters.
Or…
6. …the Republican program was compelling to more voters than the Democratic program.
Or…
7. …the Supreme Court halted the recount of ballots in Florida and cynically installed Bush.
Or…
8. …Ralph Nader drew off just enough of Gore’s presumptive voters to put the election into Bush’s favor.
Some of the explanations for Bush’s victory are more plausible than others (for the moment, I leave it to others to argue out which), but plenty have been offered. In any case, it’s wrong to lay Gore’s loss entirely at Ralph Nader’s feet, even if conventional wisdom presumes that those who voted “Nader” would have surely voted “Gore” if Nader had opted out of the race.
Also, arguing from adverse consequences (e.g. if Nader had stepped aside we wouldn’t have this mess, e.g. two wars) is not only logically fallacious but may also be wrong factually. If Gore had been CinC on 9/11, we likely would still have at least one of the wars we now have, namely Afghanistan.
As for Iraq, regime change there had been official US policy since the Clinton administration. Perhaps Gore was secretly out on all that, and just maybe the ideas that Saddam Hussein was somehow behind 9/11 and that he had an active WMD program wouldn’t have gained currency with him. Maybe. But more realistically in the context of that time, had Gore believed either one of those ideas (or had he considered them useful enough to push, absent sincere belief), it is at least arguable that he might have taken very much the same course Bush did.
That’s speculation obviously, but in context, Nader’s effect in 2000 doesn’t seem to have been the pivotal factor. I can’t agree with the author’s implication that it was so.
Finally, if anything, I’d like to see even more non-Big Party candidates getting into the elections. I want their messages to be heard and their faces to be on TV. I want them to attend all the debates and to be given as much camera-time and meaningful questions as the media favorites now get. I want them on all the state ballots and for their parties’ programs to be offered up seriously by the media right along with the Biggies’. At the level of the candidates and their organizations it may all be about getting enough tick-marks in their column to win, but at the level of the public, what we need is more room for more voices. No one is better off when all the choices are pre-selected and pre-screened for “win-ability” even before Election Day, as now.
Posted by Kuya on Mar 14, 2008 at 8:06 AM Yes, notice the comments, people talking,exchanging ideas. asking for more voices and choices, more (corporate free) candidates in the debates. This is the reason for Nader’s sacrifice to the American people. You can find article after article on the issues put forth by Nader by just surfing www.nader.org. Other candidates stay silent on mant many issues. SEb
Posted by sebtree on Mar 14, 2008 at 5:16 PM Please give me a break Nader is a meglomaniacal publicity hound
who can’t stand the fact that time has passed him by leaving him with
a mouth full of regrets and dust
Posted by headed on Mar 14, 2008 at 10:36 PM Only monarchies have succession crises. If the US truly had the “government of laws, not of men”Ā¯ that it says, right on the label, that it has in its republic, it would be a matter of no great consequence which individual happened to fill any particular office in our republic at any given time. We only have a succession problem because we have let the presidency become a quadrennially elected monarchy.
We don’t at all like to admit that we have abandoned the republic we gave ourselves in the Constitution. Because of this, we will never be able to reform the procedures for succession to the presidential monarchy, because we will never get the people in this no-longer-republic to admit that we are no longer a republic. Look, we wouldn’t have ceded public power to a monarch-president in the first place were it not the case that we found even the everyday issues that arise in the conduct of a republic to be too fraught to be decided in public by the representatives of the people. The people certainly aren’t going to take on the burden of reworking the very framework of government.
This is a very old story. Power concentrates because a people (or peoples) find it too burdensome to manage their own affairs. But the institution or office into which the power concentrates wasn’t designed to bear all of the weight of the state, and certainly no human can live up to the god-like demands of being the philosopher-king that the falsely inflated institution demands of the incumbent. More and more weight is put on a person and institution that grows increasingly incapable of bearing any weight as that person and institution is distorted away from its original function as a mere part of the greater whole of public governance, and takes on sovereignty itself. The Leviathan, after all, is a monster, and any human who becomes Leviathan becomes subhuman as he pretends to superhumanity. Thus Dubya. A subnormal can maintain the pretenses of god-emperorhood better than all the more self-aware competitors, so a subnormal is what succeeds to the throne of the god-emperor.
Posted by Glen Tomkins Ā· March 13th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
as quoted from Crooked Timber
Posted by Major Major on Mar 15, 2008 at 3:23 PM They all dig power, headed, and not just the contenders for 1600. The will to serve translates as the appetite to lead, i.e. the conviction that they each clearly have, which is that their personal leadership is what’s necessary to make that vital break with the past OR to carry on with the mission in hand. When we’re lucky is when we get one who feels compelled to advance interests beyond their own and those of their faction, which fortunately isn’t as rare as we complain of in our most cynical moments.
(That’s MY most cynical moments… I’ll try not to project onto you… but I’m not alone; lots of us have had crises of cynicism in the last decade.)
Nader’s influence is almost certainly negligible at this point, but I still push for more voices, more contestants for the “throne”, to take a tangent from Major2’s entry. I mean more party programs and confrontations with both Biggies’ “accomplishments”, submitted seriously for our evaluation, not only Nader’s own. They should have been part of the mix all along.
As I imply above, if Nader’s entry into the race actually has the central influence in bringing about a Republican victory, it will mean (imo) that the Dems didn’t convince enough voters to back them on their own merit.
It’s not as if there isn’t a clear-cut difference between the directions each Big Party’s candidates want to go, not to mention eight years of Republican rule to provide the contextual basis for American voters to do what Ronald Reagan advised in the 1980 election, which was to figuratively ask, “Am I better off now than I was four (in this case, eight) years ago.”
(And, “Is the country better off?”)
Posted by Kuya on Mar 17, 2008 at 6:38 AM Laura, hon, still flogging a dead horse? Seriously, give us something that isn’t just a compendium of tantrums from the DemocraticUnderground.
Posted by thistle on Mar 18, 2008 at 12:00 PM I thought you Americans had a democracy. If it truly is one, anyone with a vision and some clear policies ought to be able to run for the presidency.
Laura, to blame Nader for Bush’s presidential win is foolish, and perpetuates the split on the left, not solves it.. If you must play that game, blame the conservative voters, blame Bush, blame Gore for a lacklustre campaign.
Better yet, keep your focus on showing why your candidate, whichever one she or he might be, is the best choice for all Americans—and the world, for that matter—and why another Republican win will make a lot of things worse.—Nanook the Canuck
Posted by nanook on Mar 19, 2008 at 5:59 AM Yes, articles like this just reveal the intellectual weakness of much of the “Left” today. This is what passes for analysis of our power structure and political system? If Nader hadn’t run, then Our Hero Al Gore would have been president and everything would have been okay. Is that it? Anyone but Bush, especially if it’s a conservative Democrat who won an Oscar for narrating a crowd-pleasing documentary?
The Republicans, I’m afraid, are much smarter than this and have been spending the last 20 years calculating how to build a mass populist movement around their ideas. Laura Washington, meanwhile, is sill playing in the sandbox with Ralph Nader.
Posted by Melocoton on Mar 19, 2008 at 5:52 PM Nader is not “stealing” votes; he is giving people an opportunity to give their votes to someone they believe in. If you really want to lay blame, it is with the people who vote for Nader, not the candidate himself.
It’s an election, not a birthday party, where the gifts are promised to one person. The votes don’t belong to anybody until the voters cast them.
Posted by onze on Mar 19, 2008 at 6:03 PM I’m no fan of Nader, but neither am I a fan of Democrats who still blame all of their own failings on him—eight years later!
Posted by marcello09 on Mar 19, 2008 at 6:04 PM Nader’s biggest mistake was to run as an independant.
He does this because he likes to not have party pressures cramp his style. But this was the greatest blunder in decades, because if he had become the candidate for the Democrats he would have won every presidential election he ever contested.
As well he would have had such standing in the democrat party - that he could have ensured that most of his policies were endorsed.It would have been fantastic to have an articulate committed social reformer as President.
The army of lobbyists which plague the decision making process at higher levels might as well have retired, as he would not have been interested in even talking to them, nor would he have needed corporate support or funding.” I am Ralph Nader and I am the Democratic candidate for President “
‘Wow, Ralph you have got the Job ’ would have been the general response, because with his record over several decades he had proved that he was concerned about the needs of ordinary people rather than the whims of the corporate sector.
Because Ralph did not feel comfortable within a party that he had occassionaly criticised, the U S ended up with the Bush disasters as Presidents.
Mind you, because he was so well regarded - he might have won the presidential elections he contested as an independent.
The CIA have their people looking after all the polling booths and these are secret ballots which are easy to rig.
Perhaps the answer is for everyone to vote openly on the internet and then it would be almost impossible to rig the voting process.
Most of the friends of individual voters know how they are likely to vote, so what is the problem with everyone voting openly ?The CIA would not be comfortable with a voting process that they could not rig.
Posted by poetrylark on Mar 26, 2008 at 8:59 PM When any candidate “crashes the party” with crazy, radical ideas like single -payer health insurance (which Barack and Hillary are steadfastly against and which is supported by ~56% of physicians) they are pushed to the side by the media and the DLC money handlers. Corporate friendly-face John Edwards hints at it and is marginalized. The wealthy liberals in the Democratic party power structure are given to platitudes, but don’t want to get the mud under their fingernails. If somebody just speaks the word “Change”, that’s good enough for them (see http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Obama.html). It cleanses their conscience, nevermind that reality is different on the ground. No need to follow up and hold them to your progressive standards when they become president (see The Clinton Years and ritual bombing/sanctions against Iraq that killed 500000, welfare reform, Defense of Marriage Act, repeal of Glass-Steagal, the bombing of former Yugoslavia, etc.). The Repubs dig a big financial ditch by overspending on defense and wars (see Reagan/Bush and Bush II) and the Dems fill the ditch with money extracted from Social Programs (see B.Clinton, maybe Hillary/Barack can continue the cycle; no matter, the rich libs won’t object, not with “a seat at the table”). Anyway, the whole point of this third party exercise is that none of issues are being seriously addressed by the mainstream candidates. The mainstream candidates then blunt this effect by co-opting the issues that concern potential supporters of the third party candidate. Ross Perot courted Republicans who were interested in balancing the federal budget. Bill Clinton wins and upper, middle class liberals rejoice. Ralph Nader runs, gets far less of the vote than Perot did, may or may not have cost Gore the election, and dipshit minipundits like Eric Alterman and Todd Gitlin get into a lather. The Nation (an Obama endorsement, for chrissakes), The Progressive, and In These Times do the bidding of the corporate, milquetoast Democratic machine, because we can’t spoil the “feelgood” of Democratic victory. Now we can seat our triangulating deaf, mute, and blind asses “at the table” for 8 years. The overall effect will be the same as electing McCain, he’s just going to tell you how long we’re gonna be stuck in Iraq. The Democrats will do the same and tell you troop reductions are on their way, in fact, they’re just around the corner….any day now…err, the government of Viet…, I mean Iraq, as soon as they actually engage in the liberation opportunity we’ve generously provided for them (it IS their fault/responsibility, you know, the SAVAGES!!) Of course, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the corporate Democratic party has a better plan. Maybe I’m wrong about the party of Wilson, Truman, LBJ, and Biliary Clinton. History may prove me wrong, but history tells me that it’s likely that their clusterfuck of the American left is going to continue another 8 years if those of the left continue to support their effete, detached masters. Really, let’s just stop the pandering, because, in the end, all you’ll get is an electoral feelgood that leads to few tangible results. The Democrats have more power AND get more money for their campaigns and to wage legal warfare to keep third party candidates off the ballot! The left will go mute for 8 years and you can have that self-satisfied smirk that Air America listeners get when they “put those damned Republicans in their place.” Because WE won. But we didn’t. They won because it’s our people enacting their policies. [continued in next comment]
Posted by nimmpau on Apr 2, 2008 at 8:55 PM Knowing that Laura and In These Times are based in Chicago, I can understand that local pride might make one want to endorse the Democrats. After all Democrats run most aspects of Chicago and IL State government and the proof is in the pudding. From our magnificient public transit, public healthcare, and educational institutions to our national reputation for clean and ethical government, one almost blushes when thinking of the “worker’s paradise” of Illinois.
Anywho, all sarcasm aside, in the end I agree with Laura that Ralph’s show is getting a little old. That’s why I’m voting for Cynthia McKinney, the Green Party nominee who the Democratic Machine couldn’t kill.
Posted by nimmpau on Apr 2, 2008 at 8:56 PM Approximately 50% of those who voted in the past two elections, voted for George W. Bush. His conservatism should have been apparent to voters in 2000, but by 2004, voters who believed otherwise should have been disabused of that notion. Fifty percent! Sure, many Republicans are disgusted with Bush and his cronies now, but ask them about Ronnie, and they get all dewy eyed. They might vote for a Democrat this year because of Republican abuse of power and stupidity, but they are still conservative. So, if the Democrats were to pick a nominee from the far left, as Ralph contends they should, who would vote that candidate into office in 2008?
I’d like to make a suggestion. Rather than try to shift the political spectrum hard to the left in one election, every election, over and over, why not vote for the Democratic candidate, who ever it is, and put them office, and then work like hell to move them left after the election. Pick an opponent who will be more receptive to your ideas, and for whom the worst imaginable outcome is less bad (i.e., bunker buster bombs dropped on Iran (McCain) v. continuation of bad trade policies and delays in getting troops out of Iraq (Obama/Clinton)). Once you reset the definition of the center, then you work for candidates farther left. Of course, you can vote for Cynthia McKinney. It probably won’t make a difference, but maybe it will help usher John McCain into office. After McCain appoints two or three Supreme Court justices, it won’t matter who gets elected to be President, of course, but you’ll feel better for not having voted for a dirty corporate Democrat. One more windmill vanquished.
Posted by SeattleGuy on Apr 6, 2008 at 7:31 PM You’ve missed an essential point here. How do you think these dirty corporate Democrats are going to be even slightly nudged to the left. Return to 1993-1994 when Democrats were had the Presidency and Congress and enlighten me. Hell, return to 2006 when the elected Democratic majority was supposed to mean the American public was fed up with war (and don’t tell me about the 60 votes needed to override the veto, make a freakin’ attempt) No, the sad truth is that the inaction is more a reflection of Democrats interest in maintaining their addiction to corporate money than they are in actually winning elections. Go for the ever shrinking corporate,moderate, mushy middle. Don’t try to engage the > 50% of eligible voters who are alienated from the process.
Let Barack or Hillary set the left limits of the debate. You’ll feel better because you didn’t help get that damned Republican into office. And when Barack or Hillary have given everything away to Wall Street and we’re still in Iraq (not proper manners for the American Jackboot to “cut and run”) and the American Liberal Intelligentsia(TM) has drifted off to sleep (I refer you, once again, to the Clinton years).
You’ve asked me to select the lesser evil of 2 varieties of corporate dirtiness. Neither is accountable to the public. One tries to give that appearance and fools part of it into things like “Change we can believe in.” But it’s all empty slogans. Until the corporate dirtiness itself is addressed (and I don’t see any democrats rushing towards that lofty goal, well, Edwards a little bit and look where that got him…) At least it’s got the Clintons on their way to someday becoming billionaires. But what the people get is a slightly friendlier face of Empire, a deregulated banking industry, and a further whittling away of what meager protections from the excesses of capitalism still exist for the under 6 figure set.
See, Seattle Guy, I know you (OK, I don’t, but I know most liberals tolerated the right wing excesses masquerading as Triangulation during the Clinton years with nary a peep). When Barack or Hillary get into office you’ll be phoning into Air America to defend these corporate swills against the Republican nasties. Or maybe you’ll post here or to DailyKos from behind the comfort of your laptop about how you think maybe we can win the war now that our guy’s president (I mean, we can’t afford to lose it, can we?, that’d look bad for our guy), maybe more elimination of social programs to balance the budget is necessary (it’s not our fault, we didn’t run up these massive deficits!). Tiliting at windmills indeed!
Posted by nimmpau on Apr 7, 2008 at 4:03 AM Some of the discussions above relating to questions of the day can find updated answers by registering your E-Mail address at www.votender.org. try it, you be enlightened from time to time. Sebastian
Posted by sebtree on Apr 7, 2008 at 5:14 AM During the 20th Century the republicans became the party of Big Business. Big Business traditionally do not have a lot of public support.
After a few stockbrokers and advertising executives and CIA operatives have voted - who is there left to vote for them ?
A lot of small business people vote for the democrats,If this is true (and it is) then how did the republicans win all those presidential elections ?
Truth be known - they did not win many at all.
Mostly rigged by the CIA who have their operatives secretly imbedded in all the electoral offices where votes are cast.
Ballot boxes go missing and are replaced by pre election filled ballot boxes.
So Trickey Dickie and Regan and both the Bushes never won any elections.
Posted by poetrylark on Apr 7, 2008 at 7:04 AM I am not familiar with the opinions of Ms. Washington, I am annoyed with what she has said in this article. Her views are anti-democratic [small “d”] as they eschew challenges to the established two-party system, and the Democratic [big D] Party. Mr. Nader did not cause any candidate of the Democratic [Big D] Party to lose any presidential race. No one Democratic [Big D] candidate for the Presidency, even the sainted Obama, for whom I have the greatest respect, has the courage to discuss the issues that affect the country as a whole [and not just this interest group or that]. My fears is that others like Ms. Washington will continue to denigrate Mr. Nader’s candidacy simply because he may draw votes from the ultimate nominee of the Democratic [Big D] Party. Well, if she and others like her don’t want that to happen, maybe then such nominee should address the issues being raise by Mr. Nader and propose solutions that benefit the country as a whole, as we are a people with common interests, are we not. Oops, another inconvenient question. And if that is her concern, why is not Ms. Washington chastising Hillary Clinton for tearing an inherently fractious Democratic [Big D] Party to shreads, as she is bent on doing, rather than working to unite it behind the candidate who will have the most committed delegates, when the dust settles—unless she is successful in persuading these so-called “super delegates” to cut another backroom deal, like they did for Walter Mondale.
Posted by pdaly on Apr 25, 2008 at 4:04 PM “But in a perfect world, there would be room for a spirited and substantive debate about the role of independent parties in American politics today. Thanks to George W. Bush, however, this world is far from perfect.”
Strangely, Laura even ran with this as her tagline, her precis—the context of her keen political insight. So…until 2000 third party candidacies were what, viable? Commonplace? Possible?
Sure, there was Ross Perot threatening to embarrass Poppy Bush with what he found out about the War On Drugs when Bush appointed him to a figurehead post on a POW/MIA commission which Ross unfortunately took a little too seriously…but no worries, it’s all in the family, isn’t it? http://impiousdigest.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&am mp;Itemid=72
No, the real problem, Laura, is you. And the rest of the 4th estate, without whom we have absolutely no democracy at all. Well, there’s already a bit of a problem since everyone associated with the political process in America is a lying sack of…well, you know. And you do know this, Laura.
And yet you still get us sucked into voting for the right wing or the left wing of the Party, arguing the relative merits of “our representatives” when we don’t even have a democracy to begin with. We used to laugh about the Soviet Union’s one-party elections—are we really so much more sophisticated when we know that the same coffers sponsor both “sides” in our elections? Or did we imagine there were no strings attached?
Here are a few modest suggestions for actual, substantive political discourse in this land of collective make believe (and no, they will never, ever be addressed, a sure-fire sign of their validity):
* the drug war~~why are drugs illegal? what’s the cost/benefit analysis? who profits and how from the prohibition, especially on cannabis? (Dr. Melamede’s “Harm Reduction: the Cannabis Paradox” http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/2/1/17 is both an eye and a mind-opener, as is any old link to the prison economy http://impiousdigest.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&am mp;Itemid=72 )
* secrecy~~what are the (theoretical) checks & balances on the apparatus of the National Security State? (Okay, it’s a trick question because there are none. Zero. Not operationally, not budgetary…nothing. My favorite quote here comes from a senator, but it could just as well describe the conscience of a nation):
In 1956, when Senator Mike Mansfield sought to establish a joint oversight committee on intelligence, Senator Leverett Saltonstall, advocating the ostrich’s position noted, “It is not a question of reluctance on the part of CIA officials to speak to us. Instead, it is a question of our reluctance, if you will, to seek information and knowledge on subjects which I personally, as a Member of Congress and as a citizen, would rather not have” (cited in Britt Snider monograph).
Good luck, America! (Oh, one last link to the next Leader, a real war hero’s other biography: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8221 )
Posted by iridescent cuttlefish on May 4, 2008 at 4:58 AM Laura Washington writes: “At the Feb. 26 debate… [Obama] cheerily told voters that he is no liberal. Yet Obama is the only wall between 100 more years in Iraq and economic disaster at home.”
Really? This is the last election until 2108? Oooooh, that’s scary! Honestly Laura, you’ll have to try a wee bit harder to get me to pull the lever for a Democrat who’s a self-described non-liberal.
Now what exactly were those political differences between Obama, Nader and third party candidates that might help a lefty make her decision?
Nader: 12 Political issues that matter for 2008:
http://www.votenader.org/issues/
Obama: Issues
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
Or what about the potential Green alternative? Cynthia McKinney
http://www.runcynthiarun.org/Issues
Posted by MenacingToad on May 12, 2008 at 12:28 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Laura S. Washington
- Obama Needs a Black Agenda
- Honest Abe and Honest Obe
- The Whole World Was Watching
40 years ago this week, Chicago police battled protesters at the DNC. Two '60s radicals remember the madness, and look to Denver for change - Gun-toters in La-La Land
- The Great Election Robbery of 2008?
- Obama Not Feelin’ the Love from Smiley
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
© 2008 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
