The latest, liberal anti-Ralph sally from Prof. Wilentz & company is disappointing. It is also blatantly inaccurate in its purported quotations. A little fact-checking is warranted. On some political points, the logic is flaky. Definitely in need of an aggressive edit. The editor him/herself must be edited. I’ve got friends among the signatories, so I want to be careful here.
I will start with the baldest misquotation, and proceed to the more devious sophistry.
First on abortion. In boldface we are told Nader said: “The repeal of Roe vs. Wade would be of little consequence.” The alleged source is an interview with San Donaldson that you can find at www.abc.com. Thing is, he never said that. He said if Roe v. Wade was repealed, all would not be lost. Battles would be fought in the states, and majority sentiment would destroy the Republican Party if they persisted in attempts to outlaw abortion. (I remember George Will writing the same thing some years ago.) You might disagree with that assessment or criticize it for complacency, but you could not honestly ascribe the attitude or words that Wilentz & Co. have.
Second on voting for Bush rather than Gore. Nader is quoted as saying that to Outside magazine. But the Wilentz statement follows up with: “Mr. Nader would happily throw the country to the Right, placing the Supreme Court and the entire executive regulatory system in the hands of the most retrograde elements in our political life.” This is a pretty reckless mischaracterization from some very sophisticated readers of political rhetoric. Nader’s actual position is that a Bush victory would not throw the country to the right. Nor has he suggested that a country thrown to the right would make him happy.
Third on the positive function of environmental reactionaries. Here again the problem is not quotation but interpretation. To see the political opportunities created by overt reactionaries is not to welcome their ascent to power. Nader’s point is the lack of difference between the “reactionaries” and the sort of policies we have gotten from Clinton and Gore. Now you could disagree about the extent of difference -- I for one think there are differences in this area – but if, like Nader, one sees no meaningful difference, then one is not wishing for the less-preferred outcome. The point is the outcome is the same in either case – Bush or Gore as president.
Fourth, Nader’s call to stop U.S. aid to Israel as “irresponsible” and “inflammatory.” Here our left friends seem to be morphing into Madeleine Albright. There is nothing unkosher about strong criticism of Israel. It could be wrong or ill-timed, but that’s a different matter. The Wilentz statement doesn’t offer any new insights on foreign policy.
The statement does have some fair criticisms, but they are not emphasized. Instead, it tries to put words or notions in Nader’s mouth. This is a tip-off that the foundation for the more judicious criticism is thin.
In the area I work in – economic policy – Gore makes ideological concessions to conservatism that indeed seal any gap between the candidates. Both candidates evince support for smaller government, paying off the national debt, welfare reform, an unfettered Federal Reserve monetary policy, and free trade. Taken together, this dogma presents a formidable obstacle to social and economic justice. Nader has alluded to some of the problems, though not enough for my taste.
On the simplest level, Gore has coupled his support for smaller government with promises for universal health insurance and pre-school, among other things. Who is he kidding? Such incoherence typifies his campaign. If he loses, he and the statement’s signatories will have nobody else to blame.
God isn’t finished with Ralph yet, nor with the vibrant movements that propel his campaign. But if he loses, Gore will be yesterday’s mashed potatoes. That should tell you where the attention of the left belongs.
Max B. Sawicky Senior Economist Economic Policy Institute
Note: I have endorsed the Nader campaign and offered to help, but I am not an official part of it, nor have I been designated as a spokesman for it. My opinions do not represent those of my employer or any of my colleagues.