[lbo-talk] Fwd: [PGP-Discuss] Run, Ralph, Run

[Shane Mage]

>Run, Ralph, Run
>WASHINGTON, Feb. 12, 2004
>
>This Against the Grain commentary was written by CBSNews.com's Dick
>Meyer.
>
>Public Enemy Number One for the vast majority of Democrats is George
>Bush.
>Ralph Nader, liberal icon, occupies the second slot on the enemies
>list.
>Something is wrong with that picture.
>
>Naderis thinking about running for president again. That has provoked
>a
>nasty, vehement, righteous barrage of opposition from liberals,
>progressives,
>Democrats and assorted Bush-haters afraid a Nadercampaign could help
>re-elect
>Bush.
>Their anxiety may be understandable, but the shut-Nader-up campaign is
>appalling.
>
>I say: Go for it, Ralph.
>
>Why? Because Naderis not to blame for the fact that Al Gore is not
>president.
>Because I believe vigorous, high profile third-party candidacies (as
>high
>profile as third parties get in this country, that is) are good, even
>crucial
>for
>the political system. Because skilled political mischief-makers
>capable of
>occasionally piercing the homogenized, focus group tested, corporate
>sponsored
>claptrap of the two big parties area rare godsend. Because more
>voices are
>better than fewer voices.
>
>If people oppose Naderand are committed to Anybody ButBush, they
>should give
>money or time to the Democrats. People who complain about the
>rightward drift
>of the Democratic partyshouldn't and the importance of free, diverse
>political
>speech shouldn't be working to keep Naderoff the ballot and the big
>stage.
>
>After a long conversation with him, I believe Naderwants to run. He
>says
>he'll decide by the end of February. He won't hook up with the Green
>Party
>this
>time. The key factors in his decision are whether he thinks he can
>get the
>volunteers and money to mount a 50 state campaign. "The money is a
>problem,"
>he
>said. Backers in 2000 have abandoned him, with a vengeance.
>
>Money is a problem not just for Naderbut for the network of public
>interest
>and consumer groups he invented. Public Citizen, the biggest group
>Naderfounded, lost 20 percent of its membership and $1 million in
>donations
>after 2000.
>(Full disclosure: I worked for Public Citizen writing a book on
>federal tax
>policy in 1984.)That's a sign of just how thoroughly some people
>blame Ralph
>Naderfor the sins of Al Gore, George Bush and the United State
>Supreme Court.
>
>But this is pure scapegoating. It's emotional.
>
>Blaming Naderfor 2000 is like blaming Steve Bartmanfor the Cubs
>failure to
>get in the World Series last year. Sure, if Bartmanhad not innocently
>tried to
>catch that foul ball headed for MoisesAlou'smitt, the Cubs might have
>won Game
>Six. But if the Cubs had won four previous games, they would have
>made the
>Series. They could have come back from that freak play and still have
>won Game
>Six. They could have won Game Seven. There are lots of "could haves."
>
>In 2000, Gore could have won his home state like almost all the other
>candidates in U.S. history have. He could have waged a semi-competent
>campaign
>and
>won New Hampshire, Ohio, Arkansas and Florida, handily. The Supreme
>Court
>could
>have ruled for Gore. Nader spent two and a half days in Florida in
>2000, but
>it's his fault we went to war in Iraq? Right.
>
>Nadersays the "liberal intelligentsia touts itself as the most
>tolerant voice
>in America." But with their rabid demand for him not to run, "They're
>crossing from opposition to censorship." He understands some of
>this. "They
>are
>desperate to replace Bush, " he said. But he is mystified as to why
>their
>opposition is so, well, rabid. He is particularly dumbstruck by an
>open letter
>in the
>Nation magazine, supposedly the leading voice of dissent and civil
>liberties
>in
>the leftie world, commanding him to not run. There's a Web site
>devoted to
>keeping him out of the race. A Stanford law professor and blogger
>named
>Lawrence
>Lessig likens Nader to the tobacco and auto executives he's famous for
>attacking. He's being vilified.
>
>I don't understand the degree of the hostility. Naderdoesn't seem to
>either.
>He thinks it has something to do with the Left's inferiority complex.
>Fear of
>a Naderrun, he speculated, shows "how low liberalism's self-esteem has
>sunk,how low its expectations are."
>
>Naderbelieves that his campaign would help unseat Bush. Go ahead,
>chortle
>dismissively. I think he 'sright. Nadertalks about "field testing"
>lines of
>attacks, rhetoric, issues that the Democrats are too timid to use.
>
>Perfect example: A few weeks ago Michael Moore, appearing with the
>dearly
>departed General Clark, called Bush a "deserter." This was deemed not
>kosher;
>Clark was urged to denounce the gadfly and apologize to his Highness.
>Well, it
>might not be by the Marquis of Queensbury's rule of politics, but
>President's
>Bush National Guard service is now a huge issue and it has tapped
>into some
>people's concerns about his moral authority to be a "war president."
>
>Naderbelieves another campaign would bring some people into politics,
>perhaps
>into the Democratic column in November, and wouldn't scare any voters
>off. He
>wants attention focused on issues he thinks Democrats are too
>cautious on:
>poverty, corporate crime, minimum wage, regulation, campaignfinance
>reform and
>media consolidation.
>
>Fundamentally, Naderbelieves that ballot-access and campaign finance
>laws
>that discourage third parties are a serious civil liberties issue, an
>issue
>not
>close to the radar screens of the established civil liberties groups.
>He is
>outraged the big boys kept him and Pat Buchanan out of the debates in
>2000.
>They
>will do so again if he runs this year. It simply galls Naderthat only
>two
>teams get to play in the big tournament. It's not in his nature to
>just take
>it
>without a fight.
>
>I think the zealousness of Nader-phobia reflects a larger rage and
>ugliness
>that has infected both sides of this narrowly and bitterly divided
>electorate
>(an infection I have written about ad nauseum, I know). If you're not
>with us,
>you're against us and we hate you. Clinton-haters. Gore-haters. Bush-
>haters.
>Not opponents, haters.
>
>But it is precisely in times like these when dissident voices --
>Right, Left,
>Radical Center -- are especially important. The electorate is
>divided, yes,
>but a huge slice of the population is simply alienated from politics
>and
>government altogether. And these voters, or non-voters, are better
>served when
>they
>can cast loud protest votes. Sometimes these votes are so loud that a
>Jesse
>Ventura becomes a governor. Minnesota survived.
>
>In response to Lessig'sinsults on his blog, someone posted a message
>supporting Naderthat said many people "feel betrayed, abandoned, and
>utterly
>unrepresented. I refuse to turn the act of voting into a choice
>between the
>lesser of
>two evils. Thatâ*™s exactly what the 2000 elections appeared to be,
>and I pray
>that the 2004 elections will be different." Two parties, nearly as
>similar as
>Coke and Pepsi, don't satisfy all consumers.
>
>Third parties and independent candidates have served the country
>pretty well
>over. If John Breckinridge hadn't run as a Southern Democrat in 1860,
>Abraham
>Lincoln might not have been elected. I think Perot, Buchanan, John
>Anderson
>and Naderspiced up the national debate.
>
>I hope Nader runs. I hope someone to the right of Bush runs too. More
>is
>better. Run, Ralph, Run.
>
>Dick Meyer, the Editorial Director of CBSNews.com, has covered
>politics and
>government in Washington for 20 years and has won the Investigative
>Reporters
>and Editors, Alfred I. Dupont, and Society of Professional
>Journalists awards
>for investigative journalism.
>
>E-mail questions, comments, complaints, arguments and ideas to
>Against the Grain. We will publish some of the interesting (and
civil) ones.