Topic: Democracy
God Bless Ralph Nader Ralph Nader is more than an advocate for consumers; he fights for American democracy.by Joel S. Hirschhorn
(centrist liberal libertarian)
Thursday, February 28, 2008
God Bless Ralph Nader
Joel S. Hirschhorn
Because he wants to salvage American democracy and help Americans, Ralph Nader is running for president again. He deserves the support of all Americans that see themselves as progressives, dissidents, independents, and patriots who want to remove the stranglehold of the two-party plutocracy on our political system.
When it comes to being an honest, proven and trustworthy change agent, Nader is the gold standard. So why are so many Democrats going ballistic and spewing hate towards Nader?
They are in denial about both Obama and Clinton. Both owe much to the corporate and business world that Nader has waged war against for decades. Like Clinton, Obama has taken huge amounts of money from several business sectors. Both refuse to advocate a single payer universal health care system that Nader champions; this protects the enormously profitable health insurance industry.
They are crazy-glued to their misplaced blame of Nader for the Bush victory in 2000, even though several other indisputable factors also explain Gore's loss, including his poor campaign that was unable to deliver his home state of Tennessee, the incompetence of the Democratic Party to stop the Supreme Court's disgraceful action, and the cowardly behavior of the Democratic Party over many decades that kept them from working to replace the Electoral College with the popular vote. And rather than blame Nader for the Iraq war, the Democrats have only themselves to blame, not only for authorizing the war but for many assaults on the Constitution that Bush has gotten away with.
They fear the public becoming more aware of the many policy positions of Obama and Clinton that are downright asinine, in contrast to Nader's sound positions. For example, Nader is against nuclear power, while Obama has had a very cozy relationship with powerful people in that industry. And Nader wants a carbon pollution tax to combat global warming, that neither Obama nor Clinton favor. And no surprise, Nader makes the case for impeaching Bush and Cheney that Obama and Clinton are too cowardly to embrace. He also straightforwardly supports total public financing of political campaigns – the only way to rid our political system of corrupt forces. Meanwhile, Obama is backing away from his written commitment to using public financing for the general election.
They fear Nader siphoning enough votes away from the Democratic nominee to make McCain president, despite Nader having little campaign money compared to the Democratic nominee. What happened to all that yes-we-can confidence? Do the Democrats think that all those people who have gone nuts over Obama will finally see the light and reject their political messiah? This is only plausible if the Democratic bigwigs and pundits really know that Nader's positions and arguments (certainly not his slick rhetoric or personality) have the capability of breaking through the hope-hysteria of the army of Obamatons.
They fear Nader being persuasive enough to move the Democratic nominee to the left (more populist and progressive) and making it more difficulty in beating McCain and his appeal to independents. Democrats prefer the centrist bait and switch approach to sucker in voters and then surprise them after the election.
They fear the public seeing a truth-telling, independent candidate not driven by a thirst for political power. Nader is not running for president again because of ego or some deep ambition to be president, but rather out of a sense of obligation and responsibility to serve the public and the nation, as he has done for many decades. He is the only credible opponent to corporate special interests. It is not a matter of exercising his constitutional right, it is a matter of being a truer populist and progressive than the Democratic nominee.
The Los Angeles Times editorialized in support of Nader: "The Democrats and Republicans may believe your vote belongs to one or the other of them before it belongs to you, but they are wrong. More choices among candidates mean more opportunities for you to make your views known in an election." Nader said. "It's real political bigotry by the two major parties who have locked up the system with these ballot access obstructions against more voices and choices and giving voters a chance to have their free choice of candidates." How sad that Democrats show such little respect for a patriotic dissident like Nader, who has always been a troublemaker fighting for ordinary Americans.
In many ways, the Nader candidacy is not about him becoming the best president possible, but rather in pushing any Democrat who becomes president to be a far better one by serving the public interest in the noble Nader tradition. A vote for Nader is always a vote for rebooting American democracy. All the nasty talk from Democrats about Nader insults we the people more than Nader.
[Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through www.delusionaldemocracy.com.]
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 69 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Joel S. Hirschhorn only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Joel S. Hirschhorn is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I don't agree with many of Nader's positions (he's too socialist for me) but I agree that he is providing a good option for left-leaners who don't trust Obama or Clinton. Competition is a good thing.
I don't think the Democrats have anything to worry about though. Looking at the turn-out in the primaries it appears that the number of Democrats dwarfs the number of Republicans. How this will carry over into the general election, I don't know.
If bomb bomb McCain wins, it will be the people's loss. I will not vote for the lesser evil, I will vote for the Libertarian candidate (that is, if Ron Paul is not on the ballot).
So Nader is giving Democrats the same opportunity to not vote for the lesser evil.
Posted By: Ivan from Oregon
Date: 2008-02-28 11:04:36
Our founding fathers knew that "democracy" is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch. That's why they set up the voting system the way they did - to prevent tyranny of the majority over the minority and vice versa. We have corrupted the system by the 17th Amendment as well as allowing rule changes that now prevent citizens to present evidence of criminal conduct to a grand jury.
We are past the point of 50% of people sucking on the teat of government at the expense of future generations. Popular elections of the president would totally disenfranchise all but a few States, adding to the existing tyranny.
Nader's campaign filmmaker, Jurgen Vsych, has just released her new book about the 2004 campaign, "What Was Ralph Nader Thinking?" http://thewomandirector.com
I read your article, and it's so brief, such a one-note tune, that how can it have any validity or merit whatsoever. I could take your points more credibly if you investigated and discussed the vicious voter disenfranchisement tactics taken by the Democrats. The fact that they fought like wolves to keep Nader off the 2004 ballot, while supposedly being the open, benevolent party of the people.
Let's not assume for a moment that the Democrats are on the angels' side. And, to play devil's advocate, and to follow the implications of your article (which I intuitively question and refute), perhaps the Democrats should be "assisting" a "spoiler" to the Republicans, as you imply with McCain aiding Nader.
To make the broad assertion that Nader is some Republican shill is beyond asinine, plain and simple. I think you need to take a longer look at where the two-party-system has come in recent years. Further (and don't take this personally), you're just reinforcing the paranoid stereotype that far too many libertarians fall into. Wise up.
NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. gold futures rallied to a record high of $1,000 an ounce on Thursday, fueled by a combination of a weakening dollar, strong investment demand and inflation fears due to rising crude oil prices.
Record gas prices push energy spending to near 1980s levels
So gasoline prices are at an all-time high. But after adjusting for inflation, rising incomes and better fuel efficiency, how bad are they really? The experts' answer: Bad. Nearly as bad as they've ever been, and not likely to get better anytime soon.
Talk about a country that has more morons in it than fleas, we have it. Remember, blue collar Bushies, if things get too tough you can always call Dr. Jack Kevorkian. Don't watch your kids go hungry. Make that call today. Pick up the phone and call now! And if you call in the next ten minutes we'll throw in the urn absolutely free. I'm Bob Miller, and I'd like to help you out, which way did you come in?
Posted By: George Barner
Date: 2008-04-07 18:02:27
Nader is a very bright politician. I agree with his polical philosophy. However, he must know that he is only promoting Nader and has absolutely no chance of being elected. He must also know that his appeal is more to Democrats than Republicans and that any vote for Nader helps the Republican candidate. He should be ashamed of his efforts in taking Democratic votes away from Gore. If he really loves his country now is the time to bow out.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
