In defense of Nader

Michael Perelman michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Fri Jan 21 09:23:30 PST 2000


I think that the attack on Ralph Nader is ill-founded. Nader has worked on an incredible array of issues, ranging from automobile safety, medical and pharmaceutical malpractice, trade issues, etc.

I meet all sorts of people on these lists. I can't think of single person with whom I agree all the time. On the other hand, I would not elevate my individual disagreements into a wholesale dispersion of a person.

I think that the challenge to Nader would be healthy for the Green Party, but I would not think that a vote for Nader would constitute a lesser of two evils approach. A vote for Nader or any of the other leftish candidates would be taken as a protest against the status quo. When the protest becomes significant enough that it affects the outcome elections, as in New Mexico, it might have some effect.

What Nader can do very well is to articulate many of the defects of the current political system in a way that people can understand. If, by some miracle, he ever made the presidential debates, I suspect that he would have considerable effect -- just as the early Jesse Jackson was able to do.

Nader, no more than Jackson, with the likely to follow up this initial splash with long-term political organization. That would be left for others to do.

Again, Nader has accomplished quite a lot in preventing some stupid things from happening. The lawsuits that he advocates are all this left in a world of deregulation. He has no real political program. He makes mistakes, but that's no reason for a wholesale attack. To Instead, I would prefer to attack him on specifics.

--

Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list