Why Ralph Nader Runs

The Nation: Nader Keeps The Progressive Agenda Alive, Lest Liberals And Democrats Should Forget

(The Nation)  This column was written by William Greider.

---

Ralph Nader is a man of political substance trapped in an era of easy lies. He pierces the fog of propaganda with hard facts and reason, but the smoke rolls over him and he disappears from public view. A lesser man might go crazy or get the message and give it up. Nader instead runs for president again, as he is doing this year, campaigning in fifty states and addressing crowds wherever he finds them, smaller crowds this time but still eager to feed on his idealism. Ralph is not delusional. He knows the story. He is stubborn about the facts and honest with himself.

"I believe in I.F. Stone's dictum that in all social justice movements, you've got to be ready to lose. And lose and lose and lose. It's not very pleasant, but you have to accept this if you believe in what you're doing," Nader explained.

He was conducting a "newsmaker" press conference at the National Press Club in Washington on Friday before moving on to Massachussetts, where he planned to deliver more than twenty speeches in one day, in hopes of earning a place in the Guinness Book of World Records. Five or six reporters showed up at the Press Club event (including several old admirers). The only camera was a documentary film maker. Nader stood at the podium and read from a lengthy speech describing the corporate dominance of politics, the stranglehold exercised on dissent by the two-party system, the presidential candidates packaged like soap and cars, the failure of left-liberal progressives (including The Nation) to demand conditions on their support for the Democratic candidate.

"The hypocrisy of liberals, which may in some ways be unconscious, is empowering the forces that are destroying our nation," Nader asserted in an even-tempered voice. "The left in this country has been successfully cowed by the Democratic Party," he continued. "The votes of progressives are taken for granted by Democrats.... By allowing ourselves to be manipulated, we have demonstrated that we have no moral substance. We have no line that can be never be crossed, no stance so sacred and important that we are willing to stand up and fight back."

So long as progressives are willing to settle for the "least worst" alternative, they will remain ignored and excluded from power, he suggested.

This kind of talk from Nader drives some people to rage against him. He returns the favor by discussing "the rage that many in our nation feel towards liberals." Barack Obama, he insists, does not intend to alter anything fundamental about the causes. "This rage is a legitimate expression of very real betrayal," Nader explained. "The working class, most of whom do not vote, watch Democratic candidate after Democratic candidate run for office promising to support labor and protect jobs and then, once elected, trot off to Washington to pass the corporate-friendly legislation drawn up by the 35,000 lobbyists who work for our shadow government."

Whatever you might think of Nader's jeremiad, it is exceedingly timely. Democrats are on the brink of losing their old excuses for timidity and retreat. If the election produces stronger majorities in Congress and a new president who has promised big change, Nader's analysis will be tested in the clearest terms. For the first time in thirty years, the Dems will have nobody else left to blame. If Obama does not turn the page as he promised, if the Congressional majority does not step up forcefully, then we may fairly conclude Nader was right. The decay of democracy is deeper than we wished to believe.

The hard warning Nader poses is not about himself but about how the left and other elements of the old Democratic coalition will respond to their new situation. Nader is not optimistic. "I see a lot of anger around the country, but I don't see it organized," he said. "Anger that's unorganized has no power." The rationale behind his serial campaigns for president was always about this vacuum in politics. His conviction was that third-party campaigns could help mobilize a popular counter-force to leverage the Democrats and break up the two-party monopoly. For many reasons, he failed in this, as he frankly acknowledges.

"The question usually asked," he said, "is, 'Has there been a pull or a push on either political party?' I'm sorry to say there hasn't been any indicator of that, which to me means people's resignation to politics-as-usual has deepened further." Both major parties are deeply skewed in their allegiances to corporate power, and Nader believes this unnatural condition must be altered to reverse the decline and decay of society. He thinks this will happen sooner or later, but probably not in the way he has approached it. "My personal preference is a grassroots movement," he said, "but more likely it's going to be some billionaire--a progressive or liberal billionaire who makes it a three-way race. If people get used to voting outside the two parties, then things can change."

So what has his presidential candidacy accomplished in the meantime? Nader offered a modest list. His presence encouraged others to run independently for public office and showed them ways to do it. He identified the many barriers to ballot access for third-party candidates as an important issue of civil liberties as meaningful as access to voting. He brought young people into clean politics and helped them develop their skills. What else? "We kept the progressive agenda alive for the future."

[mc2012]

Critics of Ralph Nader often seem to resort to personal attacks. If you''re interested in learning about his stance on substantive issues and commenting on those, you can find them here:
http://votenader2008.blogspot.com/

[vanmungo]

Ausus--
You''re a crank and a bad-faith interlocutor because I''ve raised at least half a dozen serious facts and issues in my responses to you, and you ignore them all and keep reciting your personal credentials like some demented parrot. You''re worse than a crank--you''re a loon--and a paranoid one at that, who thinks that one man can destroy an entire industry. I cite long-term economic trends and managerial mistakes by Detroit automakers, and you cite two or three conversations you have with your European friends as a counterargument. You can''t be serious. You''re having a joke on all of us, right? Either that or you''re nuts.

[danie87]

Hello,
I am a student, studying in the U.K, and I am actually writing a dissertation on Ralph Nader, the types of voters that he appeals to, and why Americans will continue to vote for him, despite the unfairness behind the two-party system. I would be unbelievably grateful to contact some of you Nader supporters (via email) to gain some more information for my work. If anyone would be at all interested in sharing their views with me, (I promise it would not take long at all) could you please email me on [e-mail] -Thank you very much.
Danie

[xynorama]

We have witnessed some pretty strange events over these recent years. I think they appear strange because we don''t have the truth about them so their strangeness is pickling them. It is silly to suggest that Nader ''destroyed'' the car industry. The car people in this country have been making the wrong choices. They have made cars more complex than they need to be.

I don''t recognize the Republican Party anymore. I am not sure what it is.
I am disappointed in the Democratic Party too, because they did not stand up against the Republicans. When two oppositions occur they tend to compromise and I have not seen compromise. Mostly surrendering, rather than debate that would lead to some enlightenment, maybe even worthy actions.

When I saw this happening It finally dawned on me that maybe what I thought both Parties stood for no longer defined who they were. That along the road of their experience they both changed to something else.

They could adopt new names and I would understand them better as something different and I could compartmentalize them as just what they call themselves. So far it has not happened.

I think we need a new names for both Democrats and Republicans.

[ausus-2009]

vanmungo,

I have postgraduate qualifications from one of the world''s great universities, I have edited and written books, edited magazines and newspapers. I am an award-winning writer. My motoring articles have been published in newspapers and magazines and on the internet (professional motoring sites) in several countries.

What basic arguments do you want? Quality of cars. I have addressed that. Nader''s crackpot economic ideas?
I have addressed that.

To call me a right-wing crank, shows that you are judgmental and probably have a much narrower education and world experience than I do. You have no idea on what I believe in a whole range of issues. Name-calling just shows your immaturity.

Ralph Nader is a gift to America and the World.
When I want to form an opinion on something I am not certain about, I tune in to what Ralph has to say.
He is our mentor.
He seems to know it all and has a way to say it truthfully and simply.
As a feminist, I see him as the only feminist in the elections and the the overall US political scene.

[vanmungo]

ausus--
You''re a right-wing crank who relies on anecdotal evidence and irrelevant personal data--I suppose that the fact that you were once a "motoring writer" grants you infallibility on every political judgment? Laughable. And the "Latin" is a term of basic logic known to any half-educated person. I guess you don''t qualify--either on the level of education or on the use of logic. You haven''t addressed any of my facts or arguments. Just keep telling me you''re a "motoring writer" and I''ll skulk away, oh so impressed despite your inability to command facts or logic. Have a nice life.

[ausus-2009]

vanmungo,

Cut the Latin. I took Latin in school but I don''t talk in dead languages.

Your attack on me conveniently overlooks the fact that I have worked as a motoring writer. It was not just a few anecdotes. I will throw in another inconvenient fact for you. Sweden which manufactures Nader''s favorite Volvos, has the highest per capita rate of quadriplegia from traffic accidents in the world. I got this from a close acquaintance who was editor of an international publication for and about quadriplegics.

Your praise of Nader''s "Medicare for all, living-wage legislation, public funding of elections, rescinding WTO/NAFTA, repeal of the antiworker Taft-Hartley Act, etc." shows that you don''t care if America has double digit unemployment, soul-destroying taxation and runaway inflation. I take it you haven''t visited Europe lately.

[vanmungo]

gig15--I think YOU''RE stupid because you can''t discuss issues--just personalities. Read some of the comments below on the issues and educate yourself so that you don''t come off sounding like an illiterate yahoo in the future.

[gig15]

RN runs because he''s in love with himself. He is just purely stupid and needs to do something green instead of run and waste time and money for a useless cause, himself that very few people like with exception of antiGore people. Traders to the max.

[closethippy1]

How is it possible that Ralph Nader has been excluded from the presidential debates???
This is the very man who for decades has been warning Americans about the savage greed of corporations and the financial industry and who has exposed each and every politician, Democrat and Republican, who have been responsible for working with these enterprises to help them maximize their profits regardless of the economic and human consequences.
American Democracy, Inc. has lost all credibility and it will remain shattered until there''s honesty and integrity in the selection of candidates for government leadership.
It is a travesty and a joke for a candidate to appear on the ballot but not allowed to participate during the presidential debates.
If American Democracy, Inc. wants to test its mettle it will have to let the populace listen and decide for themselves who else they like besides a Democrat or a Republican.

[vanmungo]

If Gore had made a convincing enough case to enough voters, he would have been president. In fact, he did win the election, but it was stolen from him by corrupt officials in Florida and a corrupt Supreme Court. Nevertheless, if Gore had made a better case to the people, he would have won despite these obstacles. He ran a lousy campaign. That''s his own fault. He''s a cowardly neoliberal who backed all of Clinton''s pro-Republican policies. Turn the page and look for a truly progressive, independent alternative who isn''t bought off by big corporate money--that means Nader or McKinney.

[inketolstoy]

If Gore had been president we would have had hybrid and non-polluting cars, an American public motivated to be resilient, and respect in the world.

And if I had been elected President, we would have flying cars with robot drivers for those who were afraid to drive, an American public that would believe in the tooth fairy who leaves thousand dollar bills under pillows, and America would be more respected than those loveable French, Iranians, North Koreans, and Germans. Gumballs and lollipops for every one. Tolstoy in 08.

[miasm]

It''s funny that everyone on here who obviously doesn''t like Nader uses the same words that were created by the Democratic propaganda machine to perpetuate the myth that Ralph Nader runs to spoil elections and because he is an "ego-maniac" - Ralph Nader is probably the least egotistical candidate who has ever run for president. Count how many times he says "I" in his speeches and compared to Obama or McCain. Nader has done more for our country than both McCain and Obama combined. Has probably saved the life of someone you know. And yet you call him names.

I thought we lived in a Democracy - I guess it%u2019s more like a duopoly corporate dictatorship. The comments posted to this blog reflect that is true. Calling Nader a spoiler means that any 3rd party candidate who actually gets enough popularity should be shut up. Ralph Nader didn''t cost the Gore the election because the Democrats and Republicans do not own the country. Last time I checked they didn''t own my vote either. I think it%u2019s refreshing to hear someone actually talk about the issues instead of dancing around them like the corporate candidates always will to appease their corporate sponsors. I vote for him because I want 3rd parties with the same ideals as Nader to keep coming back, because he represents me. Two candidates are not enough to represent the 300 million Americans and they certainly don''t. Why don''t you all take a closer look at what you are doing to perpetuate this false Democracy.

[vanmungo]

"Jerk," "embittered old man," etc., etc.--all the hallmarks of a mind poisoned with personal hatred that resorts to vicious ad hominem personal attacks as a substitute for the discussion of issues--SERIOUS ISSUES that will determine the future of this country. Ralph Nader is running because he is the ONLY major candidate who supports these key policies: Single-payer national health care (Medicare for all); CUTTING military spending to fund urgent social needs at home; COMPLETE withdrawal of ALL troops and private contractors from Iraq within six months; a living wage of at least $10.00 per hour for all Americans; a carbon tax to fight global warming; a Wall Street speculation tax to curb reckless abuse of investor''s money; restore the New Deal Glass-Steagall act that was repealed by the Republican Bill Clinton; rescind the job-destroying WTO/NAFTA; public funding of elections to get the corrupting money out of voting. Why are both Obama and McCain opposed to all these? Because they both take tens of millions from the big corporations. Think about ISSUES.

[notopennshut]

Nader is a jerk trapped in his own misery when he feels that he does not have the attention he craves. Come on, for years now, he has shown that he is fading, and while he was in the limelight years ago, he finds that he is dying a slow death since he has been largely ignored by the media and the citizens. So he is again trying to search for the stage and the bright lights. Only now, it is showing him up as an embittered old man who is only an empty shell - just like the rats that died in my barn.

[vanmungo]

Nader an egomaniac? As if the likes of Obama and McCain are egoless saints! At least Nader is motivated by a desire to press truly principled, progressive political issues (Medicare for all, cutting military spending to fund social needs, public funding of elections, living-wage bill, carbon tax, etc.) instead of the same old test-marketed, focus-group pap ("Change," "Straight Talk," etc.) that embroiders the same old reactionary and chauvinist foreign and domestic policies, year after year, whether labeled "Democrat" or "Republican"---what difference does it make whether the Iraq war was initiated by Bush or funded%u2014repeatedly%u2014 by Congressional Democrats (including Obama)? Whether opposition to single-payer health care or union-organizing rights comes from a donkey or an elephant? Whether corporate globalization and deindustrialization (WTO/NAFTA) is peddled by a Democratic snake-oil salesman (Clinton) or a Republican one (Bush)? Whether an arch-reactionary like Scalia was proposed by a Republican (Bush I) or confirmed 98-0 by a Democratic-controlled Senate? Whether pushing nuclear power and opposing a carbon tax is the only energy-policy choice on both the Repub and Demo menus? But you get the idea--any one who cares about truly progressive POLICIES and IDEAS is an egomaniac, whereas amoral cynics who sell themselves to the highest bidders so they can shill for the bipartisan agenda of the big corporations from the Oval Office are self-effacing ANGELS.

[vanmungo]

Ralph Nader handed the election to Bush in 2000? More dopey misinformation from someone who obviously is too lazy to try to learn any more about reality than is doled out by the corporate-owned mass media. Several points of reality check here: first of all, Gore WON the election in 2000--it was stolen from him by a corrupt Supreme Court, not Ralph Nader. Second, 100,000 Florida Democrats voted for Bush in 2000--that''s Gore''s fault for running a lousy campaign, not Nader''s. Third, Gore failed to carry his home state of Tennessee--if he had, he would have carried the electoral college. Fourth, there were TEN third parties that got more votes than Bush''s margin of victory in Florida--so why not blame the Socialist Party or the Workers World Party while you''re at it? Fifth, this is a DEMOCRACY, in case you hadn''t noticed--nobody owns anyone''s vote, leas of all the two corrupt major parties; people have the cherished right to vote for whoever best represents their views. If Gore had taken up some of the progressive demands that Nader alone was raising--Medicare for all, living-wage legislation, public funding of elections, rescinding WTO/NAFTA, repeal of the antiworker Taft-Hartley Act, etc.--he would not only have won Florida but would have landslided Bush. Gore has to EARN people''s votes--they are not owed to him or Obama. You want to limit choice to two parties? Why not just limit the choice to the Dems? Hello Soviet Union! LOL!

[pvperson]

Nader runs because of his ego, he can''t stand the idea that he isn''t still a public figure. He''ll never understand that he''s become a joke every four years.

[vanmungo]

"Abuse of Trust" is arrant right-wing propaganda from a second-rate conservative hack house. Just go back and read some newspaper accounts from 2000, and you''ll read all you want about Nader''s tax returns.
Like most Fox-trained reactionaries, you seem to relish ad hominem gossip--Ayers, etc.--over the substantive discussion of issues. You go pursue your bizarro conspiracy theories; if you ever want to discvuss issues, I''ll be glad to--such as why the United States remains fifty years behind Europe on almost every front of social legislation: workers rights, women''s paid maternity leave, national health care, good mass transporation and high-speed rail, overall social services and infrastructure, etc. Your fixation on all this ad hominem stuff is absurd in the face of the serious economic and environmental issues that threaten the very survival of this country and the human race.