[fla-left] [Election 2000] Citizens Committee for

[Michael Hoover]

> So Michael, psephology & celebrity aside, what do you make of Ralph? 
> Or doesn't it matter who's president?
> Doug

Is there supposed to be a correlation between what I think of Nader and 
whether it matters who prez is?

Answer to second question: yes

Answer to first question (somewhat different version of post I sent
to e-lists several months ago, apparently not to lbo)

Nader is probably only person to ever critique corporate system in *Homes 
and Gardens* magazine, saying that it "only stimulates one value in 
society - the acquistive, materialistic, profit value.  Hoe about the 
justice value? the health value? the heritage-for-future-generations value? 
the accountability-in-government value the enforcement-of-consumer-
environmental-worker-laws value?" (August 1991, p. 144)

Of course, it is RN's name recognition that got him into above magazine and 
it is such recognition that explains Green Party willingness to nominate 
him a second time despite his 1996 'non-campaign' (which should have 
been seen as betrayal).  Long-term viability of minor parties that have
relied upon individual has not been very good.

His anti-corporate theme reminds of not-so-Progressive Era advocacy of using 
gov't to prevent economy from imposing hardships on individuals unable to 
help themselves and to promote social reforms that would lead to social 
progress.  While number of such reforms were enacted, middle-strata 
progressivism had conservative effect of undercutting more substantive 
democratic demands and reducing pressure for great changes.

RN's rhetoric may sound populist theme but his modus operandi has always 
been 'reform from above': lobbying, testifying at hearings, influencing
rulemaking process, presenting research findings, organizing 'astroturf' 
(in contrast to grassroots) efforts.  He may or may not be "squeaky clean" 
(and I'll opt out of addressing such stuff), but his phalanx of inter-
locked groups are staff/bureaucratic organizations in which professionals 
conduct most activities and "members" are called upon to pay dues
and be "mobilized" for mail/phone campaigns (hence, astroturf politics).

Nader's identification with 'public interest' (term popularized by some 
folks whose formative political experiences were in so-called New Politics
movements of 1960s/1970s that should be viewed with caution) causes 
notwithstanding, his association with founding (or co-founding) over 50 
organizations makes him contributor to interest group 'hyperpluralism' 
leading to more organizations while simultaneously narrowing their focus.

Lest I be labelled a 'revolutionist' who inherently opposes lobbying/
reform/etc.,  I think RN deserves both recognition and respect for work 
he has done.  Still, his persistence about the pernicious corporate 
system has never gone far enough in detailing/explaining consequences of 
US capitalism.  He hasn't asked sufficiently hard questions about
ways in which capital shapes daily lives.  And, he has been in position 
to do better job of encouraging involvement that transcends 'public 
interest' lobby's need to continually attract duespayers (achilles heel 
of such groups is high turnover rates).

While RN's comments in Homes and Gardens convey broad concerns, the one 
constant and the principal function of his activity has been consumer
protection.  Thus, his politics have been both "defensive" and self-
limiting.  Moreover, his adoption of a consumerist outlook weakens his 
claim to be a 'public interest' advocate when talk is in terms of 
limiting deception to which consumers are subjected (rather than, for 
example,speaking about eliminating poverty).

Nader, in keeping with tendency of "leftish" types in US to cite 'home 
grown' examples of 'good' politics, speaks of Jeffersonian democracy.  
But Jefferson was part of US 'duopoly' that Nader opposes, a duopoly 
that has existed throughout country's history.  In any event, invoking 
even the radical TJ (there were several of him) is call to go 'back to 
future' that only partially was.     Michael Hoover  (who will return
to '2 screens and I'm out' rule of thumb after this post)