Ralph Nader: An Unreasonable Man

[viscousmemories]

I highly recommend this fascinating documentary. I didn't really know much about Nader and had no idea what a profound impact he's had in consumer advocacy. It also provides a pretty fair and balanced review of his presidential campaigns and the backlash from many of his prior supporters.

[The Lone Ranger]

I used to be a Nader supporter. But after reading a particularly self-serving and (in my opinion) egotistical editorial he published right after the 2000 election in which he insisted that there was no difference between Bush and Gore and in which he straight-out said that he didn't feel the slightest bit bad about the fact that he almost certainly cost Gore the presidency, I lost a great deal of respect for him.


Noam Chomsky brought the issue up at the talk I attended. He complained that Nader had been saying that he [Chomsky] had been an outspoken Nader supporter. Chomsky was a little miffed about that.

What he had actually said, Chomsky clarified, was that he thought it would be a good idea in non-swing states, where either Bush or Gore was assured victory anyway (such as Texas and New York), to vote for Nader -- in order to send a message to both the Democratic and Republican parties that a lot of people are displeased with their policies. But he had been quite clear in stating that in swing states he thought people should vote for Gore -- because while Gore might have been the lesser of two evils, he clearly was a lesser evil than Bush.

Chomsky stated that he didn't think Nader was anywhere close to being an ideal choice for President, and outright accused Nader of dishonestly misrepresenting his position.


Cheers,

Michael

[Kyuss Apollo]

Nader's just a punk. He proved his point in 2000 before the general election, and should have known his history well enough to see what third candidates ALWAYS do to one of the candidates in the general election. I put him in the same boat as W, Cheney &c, and the Supreme Court for the condition this country is in now.

If he wants to say Gore was the same as Bush, then I say Nader's the same as Bush, since he handed the election to him.

[lisarea]

I do think Nader's over the top in his refusal to acknowledge any difference between Bush and Gore, and his apparent inability to compromise is childish, silly, and even dangerous. I do not think he would be a competent president.

But after everything that Ralph Nader has done for America, I'm not ready to write him off or hate him just because he's a little crazy. In fact, it's his tenacity that allowed him to accomplish many of the things he has.

I think he's wrong. I think he's crazy. And I think he's a great man who has done great things.

(For some reason, we forgot to go see that when it was playing here, but we'll go rent it soon.)

[viscousmemories]

Yeah that's the thing. I was living in a cave before 2003, so never really knew anything about Nader beyond the standard "he's the nutjob who cost Gore the election" rhetoric*.

It's a damn shame, too, because as far as I can tell that guy has singlehandedly accomplished more good for the American people than anyone in politics today. I had no idea his organization was responsible for The Safe Drinking Water Act, The Freedom of Information Act, OSHA, the EPA, and a long list of other consumer protection initiatives.

Even if it's true that Nader enabled Bush/Cheney to take office you can't just handwave away his decades of real public service. Is there a serious presidential contender that comes close to his record on that score?


*Which is itself a highly dubious claim. The film makes the point that every other third party candidate took more votes than difference that separated Bush and Gore in Florida, and raises the reality that many who voted for Nader probably wouldn't have voted at all if he wasn't a contestant. Not to mention the thousands of other ways the Republicans could've stolen the election besides the one they settled on.

[InTheServiceOfZeke]

Nader said there is no difference between Bush and Gore?

smart man...i might have to check this out and give him a second chance.

(because he is right)

[InTheServiceOfZeke]

I do think Nader's over the top in his refusal to acknowledge any difference between Bush and Gore, and his apparent inability to compromise is childish, silly, and even dangerous.

funny...i think your stance is much worse.

ever think that people like Nader might be on to something here? i mean, he seems smarter, more motivated, more successful and more in the know than anybody on this site...ever think he might be on to something?

[D. Scarlatti]

There's no doubt in my mind that Al Gore would have appointed John Roberts and Sam Alito to the Supreme Court.

Hell, Gore would have appointed Miguel Estrada.

[viscousmemories]

I can't tell whether or not you're being sarcastic. :chin:

[InTheServiceOfZeke]

Hell, Gore would have appointed Miguel Estrada.

ponch? :chin:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y115/michael1111/ponch.jpg

[ChuckF]

I was only somewhat bitter about Nader's 2000 run. As vm pointed out, it's not solidly established that Nader "cost" Gore the election - there were lots of other factors at work and Ralph just seemed a convenient scapegoat. Additionally, he did a lot of really, really good things as a consumer advocate.

Then came 2004. When Bush's failure as a president and the historically disastrous nature of his presidency was evident to everyone save the evangelical mouth-breathers that turned out for him. Important election. And Ralph Nader ran again. He didn't get enough of the vote to be considered a spoiler, but it seemed to me an exercise in vanity. I also found his 2004 argument concerning the similarity of the Democratic and Republican parties to be somewhat disingenuous; did Kucinich's candidacy fail to give voice to his progressive concerns? Why not endorse Kucinich? It seemed that he simply wanted to avoid a primary and get the face time.

I would not necessarily be opposed to him running again in '08, especially if Democrats can't grow a pair between now and then. And I think we all know that the odds of that are pretty small.

[D. Scarlatti]

I can't tell whether or not you're being sarcastic.

Sarcastic. Given that one of the president's greatest powers (many would say the greatest power) is making life appointments to the federal courts, and given that this particular president has sought the most conservative of conservative judges to appoint, it's pure folly to suggest there would have been no difference between a Bush and a Gore administration.

And, while they're not compelled to, even State courts regularly follow the decisions of the federal courts. It may take years or decades for their influence to be felt, but that's one of the reasons the appointment power is so great. It lasts well beyond the term(s) of the president.

Of course there are similarities between Democrats and Republicans, but to suggest they're identical is just stupid. And of course a third-party candidate is going to make that claim, but it can only be believed by numbskulls.

[The Lone Ranger]

It's a damn shame, too, because as far as I can tell that guy has singlehandedly accomplished more good for the American people than anyone in politics today. I had no idea his organization was responsible for The Safe Drinking Water Act, The Freedom of Information Act, OSHA, the EPA, and a long list of other consumer protection initiatives.

Even if it's true that Nader enabled Bush/Cheney to take office you can't just handwave away his decades of real public service. Is there a serious presidential contender that comes close to his record on that score?

Yep. Whatever might be true of him now, there are few if any people who have accomplished more good for the American people than has Nader.

As for the differences between Democrats and Republicans, while they are indeed depressingly small -- both parties are bought and paid for by corporate interests -- I think it's undeniably true that there is, on average, some difference. As D. Scarlatti pointed out, Gore would never have appointed people like Alito to the Supreme Court, where they'll ruin influence the course of this country for decades. Nor, I daresay, would Gore have been likely to start a disastrous and unprovoked war with Iraq.

The differences may be depressingly small, but they aren't insignificant.

Cheers,

Michael

[lisarea]

Yeah that's the thing. I was living in a cave before 2003, so never really knew anything about Nader beyond the standard "he's the nutjob who cost Gore the election" rhetoric*.

Yeah, that really is a shame. Of all the things that cost Gore the election, I'd think people would focus their ire on the election fraud or the dingleberries who voted for Bush or the dingleberries in swing states who voted for Nader or those who didn't vote at all. I could probably come up with 100 better things to blame before I'd even get to Nader.

And while Nader is wrong about his positions on Gore and Bush, he's at least wrong from a position of authority. He's not just being petulant and ignorant, as a lot of people seem to think. He's earned that opinion. He can back it up with fairly substantive reasoning. He's still wrong, but he's not just stomping his feet and having a temper tantrum, as so many seem to think.

Nader's just an easy target, I guess. He's more tangible and easier to point at than the fraud, and you can use simple, albeit specious, arithmetic to 'prove' that he swung the election. It's the kind of thing you can explain to someone in less than 30 seconds, and that's always appealing.

[D. Scarlatti]

If I recall correctly Nader focused his attentions mostly on the swing states. He turned up in Wisconsin a number of times late in the game, and on the eves and morning of the election, he was stumping around Florida. The main feature of his campaign was saying one thing and doing quite another.

[lisarea]

Ah.

To be honest, I wasn't paying attention to Nader's campaign in 2000, so all I really remember is the post game analysis.

[Dingfod]

If all of the people in Florida that voted for Nader would've voted for Gore instead, there still have been enough question about the vote totals to send it to the Supreme Court, and we all know how that turned out.

[InTheServiceOfZeke]

exactly...your votes don't count. there is no difference between gore and bush. who rules you is decided by big money.

apathy is why bush is in office and the same reason gore might one day get there. two sides of the exact same coin.

baaaaaah baaaaah.....

[Blake]

In fairness to Nader in 2000, Bush and Gore did appear virtually identical to informed observers. Watch the 2000 presidential "debates" and count the number of times that the two major candidates said they agreed, or didn't disagree, or thought the same. You'll have a hard time finding any articulated policy differences.

Of course, post-election, Gore has grown a pair and Bush has shown himself to be Nixon on steroids. At the time, however, I would have considered voting for Nader even if I had been in a swing state. The fact that I wasn't made it an absurdly easy decision.

[wildernesse]

Of course, post-election, Gore has grown a pair and Bush has shown himself to be Nixon on steroids. At the time, however, I would have considered voting for Nader even if I had been in a swing state. The fact that I wasn't made it an absurdly easy decision.

Pretend I said that.

Some people do not have the experience of living as a blue person in a red state, where to vote for a Democrat for Senate or President is equivalent to voting for Mickey Mouse. If you are not voting for a Republican, you might as well not vote. This is reflected in the fact that Georgia couldn't even get someone who resembled a viable candidate to run for the last Senate race on the Democratic ticket.

Nader is an interesting person, and I'm glad that I had the opportunity to hear him speak once. I will have to check the documentary out, if I can.

[BDS]

In fairness to Nader in 2000, Bush and Gore did appear virtually identical to informed observers. Watch the 2000 presidential "debates" and count the number of times that the two major candidates said they agreed, or didn't disagree, or thought the same. You'll have a hard time finding any articulated policy differences.
.

It does not follow that because two candidates agree on basic policy issues, they "appear virtually identical". Policy positions can change; basic compentency is unlikely to. One of Bush's biggest failings as President is his judgment about people, for example. He appoints and trusts incompetents, like Gonzalez. In addition, Bush's appointees (see Rumsfeld) shaped future policy.

[viscousmemories]

I can't seem to find any hard data, but in the documentary Nader dismisses the accusation that he focused on the swing states in 2000 by saying he spent 30 days in California and 2.5 days in Florida.

There's also footage of him being physically removed from the premises of the debates at the order of the debate committee, despite having a legitimate ticket to attend. I couldn't believe it. The security team actually had a "facebook" of people who were not allowed to get in, and all the third-party candidates were pictured.

[Kyuss Apollo]

That I did think was patently unfair. How was Nader hurting anything by just being in the same room?

[Blake]

It does not follow that because two candidates agree on basic policy issues, they "appear virtually identical".No, you're right: they appeared virtually identical because they both wore dark suits and red ties and were middle-aged well-heeled white men. They did affect different types of Southern accent, so that was a distinction. I suppose two nonfacetious differences are that Gore had a much longer record of public service in office and has a much firmer grasp on grammar.

Policy positions can change; basic compentency is unlikely to. One of Bush's biggest failings as President is his judgment about people, for example. He appoints and trusts incompetents, like Gonzalez. In addition, Bush's appointees (see Rumsfeld) shaped future policy.True, as far as it goes, and certainly in retrospect we would have been better off suffering from Gore's differing incompetencies. However, I maintain that as far as the view from November 2000 goes, there was very little to choose. We came off a legacy of a "Democratic" administration that in fact, like the British "New Left" of the 1990s, behaved very much like Republicans (gutting welfare, the Defense of Marriage Act, making war without UN authorization), and were asked to support its continuation without the charm. That, versus the lowest common denominator appeal of Bush.

Frankly, I think one reason the 2000 election was as closely contested as it was is that the personalities of both candidates were so flat that the country didn't vote for people, but on vague background ideology only, settling into a statistical culture war standoff. Except you can't share the Presidency, and the ones who fought for the ball kept it.

[Qingdai]

It does not follow that because two candidates agree on basic policy issues, they "appear virtually identical".No, you're right: they appeared virtually identical because they both wore dark suits and red ties and were middle-aged well-heeled white men. They did affect different types of Southern accent, so that was a distinction. I suppose two nonfacetious differences are that Gore had a much longer record of public service in office and has a much firmer grasp on grammar.

They also both had fathers who were highly placed in the government, which made it seem nepotistic as well.

I agree that the Clinton policies (NAFTA and the like) were pretty much "Republican lite" to those of us who are independent voters. Neither would have had my vote. I also know many who don't vote because they don't have anyone they agree enough with to feel the urge to vote for. Some only on local issues, some don't vote at all.