::::::::
My acquaintance Todd Boyle made this video of Ralph Nader's speech in Seattle yesterday. Nader is on a tour to promote his book"Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!".
Ralph Nader
It's sad and ironic to rely on the super-rich to save us from the super-rich and the corporations. Perhaps the title "Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!" is partially tongue-in-cheek, since Nader wants citizens to agitate and organize for change. But I watched the video and he really seems to think that enlightened super-rich people could help.
Nader mentions that before the invasion on Iraq there were rich people like George Soros and plenty of military people who questioned the wisdom of the invasion. But they were drowned out and squelched by corporate/mainstream media. Nader wishes that Soros had spent $150,000,00 to get out the anti-war message.
I think that building a viable, progressive (online) media should be one of the top priorities of the Left -- starting with a media in which we just talk constructively amongst ourselves.
Nader tells the story about Warren Buffet talking to Democratic senators and asking them to raise taxes on billionaires like himself. Buffet mentioned to the senators that he pays less in taxes (as a percentage of income) than his secretary. Nader said the Democratic senators looked at Buffet like he was from Mars: they're not willing to accept the lead of one of the richest men in the world on the issue of tax fairness.
A similar thing happened in WA State: Democratic legislators are unwilling to take the lead on establishing an income tax here. The legislature tried twice in the past to establish an income tax, and the voters rejected it. The voters act against their self-interest, since they were deceived by right-wing anti-government/anti-tax propaganda. This year there's a greater chance of success. Bill Gates, Sr. is supporting a high-earners' income tax (see http://yeson1077.com/). But the legislators aren't taking the lead. They're afraid of alienating voters. It's true: if you go to town hall meetings, there are always lots of anti-tax agitators in the audience. So, unless the people are "educated" (non-condescendingly) about why we need taxes, and unless enough people get involved, things will continue to suck. In any case, it'll take time.
I spoke to some Democratic legislators about getting rid of some special interest tax exemptions that reduce government revenue. They said that, as you'd expect, the people who benefit from the exemptions flood the legislators' offices with emails, phone calls, and letters. Lobbyists swarm. The citizens' voices are drowned out, presumably because the marginal cost/benefit from changes affect the average person much less than the beneficiaries of the exemptions.
The main message is that corporations control government and We the People suffer. The main counterweight to the corporations should be government: government should protect us from private abuses. But when corporations control politicians and government agencies, government often does more harm than good.
It's also somewhat ironic that Nader spends much of the speech promoting his book.
I can't watch Nader without some ambivalence, because of the 2000 election. That was one year when it was probably better to choose the lesser of two evils (Gore over Bush).
Corruption and love of money are common in all countries. I wonder how much less corrupt European governments are, for example. It's possible that they're less corrupt but also less "efficient". That may be a fair trade-off. I wonder if this sort of thing is even measurable.
