In defense of Ralph Nader

Some Democrats won’t speak to me because I don’t hold Ralph Nader responsible for George W. Bush’s election in 2000.

In January, 2005, my friend, Tod Brilliant, and I arranged a venue in Healdsburg for Ralph to come talk with us and raise funds to pay off the debts related to his run for president in 2004. Everything he had to say made sense.

Ralph Nader has always made sense to me. I realize that many Democrats think he was a “spoiler” in the 2000 election, resulting in GWB’s running our country for eight disastrous years. To them, Nader’s run in 2000, 2004, and 2008 doesn’t make sense.

Here’s what I ask these Democrats:
1. Is there any substantive issue on which you don’t agree with Ralph Nader? The answer is always, “No.”
2. Why do you blame Nader instead of blaming the Democratic Party for moving so far to the right that Nader stands almost alone in support of Democratic principles? Typically I don’t get an answer to this question.
3. Why don’t you blame the Democratic Party for not supporting public funding of campaigns so that those who are running for office can afford to listen to the citizens? Again, I usually don’t get a response.

Yesterday I posted "The Paul Wellstone Way." Wellstone, whom I admire very much, urged us to vote for what we believe in. For those that believe that Ralph Nader best exemplifies the principles Democrats should stand for, he deserves their support.

On February 25th, I posted ”Zinn and Nader .....hold presidential candidates' feet to the fire." Nader came up with 12 questions to ask Clinton and Obama, questions they should be addressing. I even got some flack for this post.

If the issue of whether or not Ralph Nader is a plus or a minus for our country is worth your time, I urge you to read the following and make up your own mind:

1. Transcript of Ralph Nader's February 24th interview on "Meet the Press."

2. Chris Hedges’s February 26th Truthdig article in support of Nader running for president, "Pariah or Prophet?"

3. "Robert Scheer debates Ralph Nader," a transcript of their conversation on The Nation cruise in July of 2007. Friends who were on the cruise told me they thought Nader won the debate. The debate was presented as “Truthdig Editor Robert Scheer goes head to head with progressive icon Ralph Nader, who denies the charge that he has been a spoiler and challenges the value of the Democratic Party.”

Scheer’s final comments: “Ralph Nader has been one of the great citizens in this country’s history. And I don’t think he cost Gore or Kerry the election. I agree with that analysis, I think that they shot themselves in the foot. And I think they should have run a more vigorous, progressive campaign. In Gore’s case, no one has mentioned it, but he distanced himself from Clinton, who was enormously popular, and he failed to carry his own home state. And if you can’t carry your own home state, you haven’t done something right in that connection. So I agree with Ralph that he should not be held responsible for the state of the country, in any negative way. I think he has been an incredibly useful person, I’m not being condescending here—this is heartfelt. I think he’s a great person. And I do think he has the right to run. ...”

I’ve already decided that Ralph is a plus for our country. I haven’t yet decided whom to vote for, but if I take the late Senator Paul Wellstone’s advice, I’ll be voting for Ralph Nader.

Sidebar: If The Washington Post cartoonist Tom Toles captures the feelings of a majority of Democrats, Tuesday's cartoon makes me sad.

(photo of Ralph Nader: World Prout Assembly)

Howard Zinn and Ralph Nader team up to create an action plan to hold the Democratic presidential candidates’ feet to the fire

Full disclosure: Zinn and Nader are only teamed up in this post because I think joining together their ideas on how to get the frontrunning Democratic presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, to address crucial issues makes sense.

On February 23rd, Howard Zinn’s article, "Election Madness" was posted at Information Clearing House. Zinn describes “election madness” that seizes the country every four years: “I'm talking about a sense of proportion that gets lost in the election madness. Would I support one candidate against another? Yes, for two minutes-the amount of time it takes to pull the lever down in the voting booth. ”But before and after those two minutes, our time, our energy, should be spent in educating, agitating, organizing our fellow citizens in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in the schools. Our objective should be to build, painstakingly, patiently but energetically, a movement that, when it reaches a certain critical mass, would shake whoever is in the White House, in Congress, into changing national policy on matters of war and social justice….

“Today, we can be sure that the Democratic Party, unless it faces a popular upsurge, will not move off center. The two leading Presidential candidates have made it clear that if elected, they will not bring an immediate end to the Iraq War, or institute a system of free health care for all….

”They do not propose what the present desperation of people cries out for: a government guarantee of jobs to everyone who needs one, a minimum income for every household, housing relief to everyone who faces eviction or foreclosure.

”They do not suggest the deep cuts in the military budget or the radical changes in the tax system that would free billions, even trillions, for social programs to transform the way we live….

“We should not expect that a victory at the ballot box in November will even begin to budge the nation from its twin fundamental illnesses: capitalist greed and militarism.” [emphasis mine]

Enter Ralph Nader: His advice: Email or write Obama and Clinton and challenge them to address what Nader describes as "Candidate Taboos," which he lists in an article published in Counterpunch on January 15th. He describes 12 taboos including the following:

* You won't hear a call for a national crackdown on the corporate crime, fraud, and abuse that have robbed trillions of dollars from workers, investors, pension holders, taxpayers and consumers. Among the reforms that won't be suggested are providing resources to prosecute executive crooks and laws to democratize corporate governance so shareholders have real power. Candidates will not shout for a payback of ill-gotten gains, to rein in executive pay, or to demand corporate sunshine laws.

* You won't hear a call for our income tax system to be substantially revamped so that workers can keep more of their wages while we tax the things we like least, such as pollution, stock speculation, addictive industries, and energy guzzling technologies. Nor will you hear that corporations should be required to pay their fair share; corporate tax contributions as a percent of the overall federal revenue stream have been declining for 50 years.

* You won't hear a call for a single payer health system. Almost sixty years after President Truman first proposed it, we still need health insurance for everyone, a program with quality and cost controls and an emphasis on prevention. Full Medicare for everyone will save thousands of lives a year while maintaining patient choice of doctors and hospitals within a competitive private health care delivery system.

* You won't hear a consistent clarion call for electoral reform. Both parties have shamelessly engaged in gerrymandering, a process that guarantees reelection of their candidates at the expense of frustrated voters. Nor will there be serious proposals that millions of law-abiding ex-felons be allowed to vote.

Other electoral reforms should include reducing barriers to candidates, same day registration, a voter verified paper record for electronic voting, run-off voting to insure winners receive a majority vote, binding none-of-the-above choices and most important, full public financing to guarantee clean elections.

Nader concludes, “ Voters should visit the webpages of the major party candidates. See what they say, and see what they do not say. Then email or send a letter to any or all the candidates and ask them why they are avoiding these issues. Breaking the taboos won't start with the candidates. Maybe it can start with the voters.”

Regardless of who wins in November, let’s take Howard Zinn’s advice and devote our time and energy in “…[E]ducating, agitating, organizing our fellow citizens in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in the schools. Our objective should be to build, painstakingly, patiently but energetically, a movement that, when it reaches a certain critical mass, would shake whoever is in the White House, in Congress, into changing national policy on matters of war and social justice.”

(Photos of Howard Zinn and Ralph Nader: World Prout Assembly)