 |
 |
Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 10:46 PM
What You Should Know About Ralph Nader
The Facts
"Our founders did not oust George III in order for us to crown Richard I," Ralph Nader once said. Born in Winsted, Connecticut on Feb. 27, 1934, Nader achieved JD at Harvard Law after graduating Magna Cum Laude from Princeton in 1951.
Known as “America’s toughest customer,” Nader, who makes his hometown in Washington D.C., has run for U.S. President in 1996, 2000 and will be the on the ballot in 2004 (Not in Ohio, he didn’t make it), joined by running mate Peter Comejo.
His accomplishments include: Over 8 major federal consumer protection laws, launching federal regulatory agencies (EPA, etc.), recall of millions of defective motor vehicles, founded the 'The Multinational Monitor', a monthly magazine.
Ralph Nader oft accused of arrogance has been attacked and justified on several grounds. This month, QCF tells you why and lets you create “The 3rd Person.”
--- The editors
Leave the Election Alone
Choosing the lesser of two evils may actually be all the U.S. has
By Chris St. Charles
Ralph Nader should not run for president; it’s just that simple.
Nader claims that our entire electoral process is broken, specifying that we need something other than the “winner takes all system.” In other words, everything from the presidential election to city councils and county commissions should proportionally count votes for other parties and allocate various posts accordingly. If 20% of the total electorate votes for the Green Party, then the Green Party should then hold 20% of whatever elected body is up for grabs. In theory, this sounds like a good idea, democracy in the truest sense of the word.
| If he goes ahead for 2004, Ralph Nader will be in conflict with countless allies who have stood alongside him in many battles -- including his previous presidential campaigns. |
|
Of course, it’s not that simple.
Here’s what Nader fails to tell us. The plethora of party representation found in other democracies, namely Western Europe, are a system that was built for such a thing. In other words it was created to sustain what the Federalist Papers called “factions,” the very thing that the constitutional framers sought to avoid, hence the omission of them in the U.S. Constitution. The irony of all this is that the multiple parties of Western Europe are roughly the equivalent of PACs and other special interest groups found, and allegedly much loathed by even Nader himself, in the United States.
|
The other major part of the anti-Nader position rests on what certainly has to be an ad hominum attack. What is the Nader candidacy about? Nader is certainly not about any real attempt at winning the election.
If it’s about simply being heard, Nader could just as easily contribute to the discussion and debate through a variety of other activities that do not involve actually running for president. People like Michael Moore take that approach.
The campaign is mostly about the megalomania of Nader. You don’t have to go any farther than the fact that Nader is not running on the Green ticket like he did in 2000. Why not? Nader talks a lot about their intrinsic virtue, but I guess they just don’t appreciate his guidance anymore.
Another thing that the Nader folks are fond of pointing out is the fact, and it is a fact, that overall the two parties are becoming more alike in practice. The Republicans and the Democrats are both heavily tainted with corporate money and act accordingly. Nonetheless, not even F. Lee Bailey can convince me that John Kerry and George W. Bush are virtually the same choice. There has never been a singularly more unfit person for the office of president than Bush.
Kerry may not be the next Winston Churchill, but he is certainly not the reckless silver spooned cowboy who takes his talking points from the “Shootout at the OK Corral” script. Yes, there is a lot more than bad domestic policy on the hands of Dubya. There’s a whole lot of American GI blood there too.
And that is what is so troubling about the Nader effect, the thought of four more years of Bush. I know that we, as the people, should demand much more than choosing between “the lesser of two evils,” as it is the distinction between Bush and Kerry is often distinguished. But let’s face it: If there was ever a critical time to choose between the lesser of two evils, it’s right now. Can you even possibly imagine what the policies of the Bush administration would be like without the worry of re-election? Have you ever seen the made-for-TV film about the Jonestown massacre? Did you know that the effects of quitting cocaine produce auditory hallucinations that can often be mistaken for the “voice of God”?
So, Ralph, if you’re reading this, following the lead of Michael Moore and Bill Maher, I am on my knees. I am begging you Ralphie! Please, for the future of this country and its entire people, which you seek to protect, I beseech you! You titled your last book “The Good Fight.” I read it, and it moved me, but every champion knows that “The Good Fight” is the result of picking the ones that you can win. Ralph, if you drop out of the race, we can win, or at least continue on to fight another day.
Links
· Dissident Voice --- "Running On Empty"
· The Unity Campaign --- "Ralph, Don't Run"
· Democrats & Liberals --- "Ralph, Don't Run"
· Sfbg --- "Nader Shouldn't Run"
· In These Times --- "Should Ralph Nader Run in 2004?" Poll
· Tulane Hullabaloo --- "Nader's Dangerous Chances"
Nader’s Run Answers Call for Choice
Ralph Nader’s integrity is confused as selfishness
By Michael Meldon Jr.
The nerve of Ralph Nader: always sticking his head into national politics and ruining things for us good democratic minded people. Who does this man think he is? He seems so selfish and doesn’t appear to care that he could be giving the Republicans the election by taking away democratic votes from John Kerry. The Democrats might have found someone that may be able to beat George W., and Nader once again comes into the presidential election to screw things up. All he cares about are issues such as ending the war in Iraq, enforcing civil liberties, and establishing real justice across all economic lines. This man has real nerve--nerve to stand up and fight for real American citizens and issues that affect us all.
 |
|
The national media doesn’t focus much on third party candidates and when they do speak about them they tend to smirk while they report. They seem to think, like most of us, that the third parties in U.S. presidential elections have virtually no chance of winning the presidency, only spoiling it. But why do we all seem to share this view?
The main argument seems to be that “Nader has no chance of winning, so why run?”
Let us first look at why people view Nader’s chances of winning the election to be so slim. One reason that his run for President seems unreachable is that Presidential campaigning is outlined with a set of guidelines a mile long. These guidelines make it extremely difficult for smaller candidates to compete, especially when they do not accept donations from big business like our two contending parties. When politicians take funds from big business, the main beneficiaries seem to be those businesses, placing the American people second. Nader insinuates that our government is virtually run by lobbyists for major industries and large businesses and that we need to end this in order to establish a true democratic government that works for its people.
|
Another reason the public majority doesn’t understand Nader is that his views never get to be heard like those of the two major parties. Nader makes just as many or more stops across the country to meet with citizens---he was the only candidate in 2000 to campaign in all 50 states---and relies on local coverage to spread his word. Many times this doesn’t work in his favor. The amount of people that listen to Nader speak at local gatherings doesn’t compare with the number of people that can be reached through the power of television. Local media pushes him aside and usually gives him only a short blurb if they do report on his run.
Either way, the real word of a campaign is resonated on the nationally televised Presidential debates that Nader doesn’t get to take part in due to the Commission on Presidential
“Some students are applauding his willingness to stand on ideological principle and his efforts to alter the increasing homogeneity of the two political parties.”
Michelle Myers, Newsweek |
|
The national media doesn’t focus much on third party candidates and when they do speak about them they tend to smirk while they report. They seem to think, like most of us, that the third parties in U.S. presidential elections have virtually no chance of winning the presidency, only spoiling it. But why do we all seem to share this view?
The main argument seems to be that “Nader has no chance of winning, so why run?”
Let us first look at why people view Nader’s chances of winning the election to be so slim. One reason that his run for President seems unreachable is that Presidential campaigning is outlined with a set of guidelines a mile long. These guidelines make it extremely difficult for smaller candidates to compete, especially when they do not accept donations from big business like our two contending parties. When politicians take funds from big business, the main beneficiaries seem to be those businesses, placing the American people second. Nader insinuates that our government is virtually run by lobbyists for major industries and large businesses and that we need to end this in order to establish a true democratic government that works for its people.
|
Debate’s (CDP) rules. The CDP was organized as a private organization by the Republicans and Democrats in 1988 and works as an “exclusionary mechanism to keep out third party competitors” according to Nader in his book, Crashing the Party. The rules state that no third party candidate can take part in the elections if they do not average 15 percent in 5 specified major polls by September. At first, this seems reasonable. However, once it is realized that the specified polling companies are owned by the major media that don’t seem to cover Nader’s campaign, one can see that it is nearly impossible for Nader or any third party to rise in their polls. The media explains that Nader and these third parties were not significant enough to merit the coverage however, because they were not high enough in their polls. Huh? Yep- they have all sides covered; the coverage will never be there if the major media doesn’t want support to be there.
The second part of the question- “why run?” is answered simply if you understand this man at all. Nader decided to run for President because he believes that this country may be headed in the wrong direction- away from a democracy. When Nader started his consumer activism and fighting for civil justice he never foresaw himself running for the Presidency. It took the persuasion by hundreds of people that admired his leadership and activism to show him that the country needed him as a leader. It took a few presidencies, however, for him to believe their words and he decided that he wanted to help the United States and serve as its leader in order to get it headed back in the right direction.
The spoiler idea is nonsense; no one is entitled to votes, votes must be earned. When you have someone such as Ralph Nader that has real integrity and different ideas you cannot simply connect him automatically with the Democratic candidate. They differ extremely on issues and make-up. To say that Nader takes votes away from Kerry is not accurate when those that are doing the voting are educated of the different stances of the candidates. This country’s politics need not rest on political parties, nor were they meant to. George Washington expressed in his farewell address in 1796 his distaste and mistrust of political parties and warned the American people of political parties becoming too powerful and misusing their power.
People must take a good look at Nader whether the media covers him or not to determine his real goal. If the public actually knew what Nader stood for, not took what they know about him from the skewed media or hearsay, they would see a man that has real integrity in his push to make the government work for the good of its citizens and that he is not in the race to ruin it for the Democrats. Voters need to educate themselves on candidates and vote for which they see most fit for the role, not vote against the leader they like least. Only education and change can alter the poll numbers and eventually win the election for a real change for the United States. It’s about truth, honesty, and democracy-not splitting hairs.
Links
· Historynet --- George Washington's Farewell Address
· Ralph Nader's Campaign Site
· Newsweek --- "Why Ralph Should Run"
· CommonDreams Newscenter --- "23% of Voters in Poll Say Nader Should Run in 2004"
· CommonDreams Newscenter --- "Kids, Don't Try This at Home"
· MEKKA --- "Nader:It Is 'Censorship' To Say I `Shouldn't Run'`
Contact Information
· michaelmjr@queencityforum.com
|
|
| |
|
|
