Edwards and Kucinich are out

of the race. Who else is going to keep the important issues in the debate?

We already know elections are stolen- but we are asked to forget it and just blame Nader. Corporatists and warmongers have a lock on the media and all three branches of government. Surely they can allow a few diehards to confront authority.

by Laudyms (0 articles, 856 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 438 comments) on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 1:57:38 PM
 

From OpEdNews member Guajolotl

Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008  2:47:36 PM to my mailbox instead of being posted in the comments section here.

Ralph Nader is a demagogue. He criticizes but does not offer solutions. He stands like a rock on "principles" but has done nothing, in spite of his many achievements, to make a difference in the way corporate America does business. All of the reforms in car safety, for example, were passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices and fines for non-compliance. The car manufacturers cleaned up. By denying left and progressive Democrats a role in the political process, Nader apparently doesn't understand the relationship between strategy and tactics. Tactics  are not strategy, they only take  into account the changing ways and means of the correlation of objective and subjective forces and forms of struggle, of immediate tasks, of defeats and victories, the ebb and flow,  the phases of development, the historical and national specifics, selecting the time and place, maintaining flexibility, mobilizing  alliances,  refusing  to jump stages. A strategy, on the other hand, is grounded  in constant contact with the leading role of the people(without falling to their level, but raising them), the total movement, the final transformational objective, adapting to new circumstances without becoming lost, maintaining firmness in flexibility, elaborating the correct line, putting it in practice and mobilizing the forces for it.     Nader apparently is unable to vary the formula, thus converting a tactic into a strategy, a sure way to fail. He shows not the slightest ability to understand the art of compromise, unable to retreat if the offensive forces are not yet developed, and when he fails, he can blame an unresponsive public.     He refuses to work with established groups, but rather expects others to drop everything and join him, even though he has exhibited a scarce ability to form an enduring and growing political party over these many years. He won't join another party, but he won't develop his own.  Instead of focusing on the defeat of the ultra-right, he focuses on destroying both parties by implanting a so-called third party, which in fact never materializes.  Setting up a third party is typically sectarian. Someone who barely gets 2.74 % of the popular vote is scarcely a leader of the masses.  All that remains is to put on the mantle of spoiler. Kucinich, by contrast,  had a radical program, and ethically worked within the Democratic party. If he had not been sabotaged as he was, he would have had the whole Democratic apparatus on his side, and would have done so democratically. Nader refuses to declare himself during the Democratic contests, and waits until the primaries between Republicans and Democrats to declare himself, so he can throw a monkey wrench into the works.     This allows him to attack liberal Democrats and line up with the Republicans in the name of progress.  By equating Democrats with Republicans he  helps nullify progressive Democrats elect reactionaries. He  parades around as being  anti-corporate and helps vent revulsion in the country against big business. However, he has  no day-to-day plan on organizing the masses and defeating the corporations for real. He claims  to be for the working class, but has control over  the middle class firmly in mind. A Princeton and Harvard graduate is hardly a working class hero. The fight over surplus value and profits  is not confined to the shop floor but permeates all aspect of life. What you win on the shop floor or contract, your employer can take away in the legislature. This forces to workers to enter the political arena. Nader has nothing to say to working people, the majority of the population, and those who make everything function. What is holding back a more dynamic movement is Nader's fostering of illusions among many working and middle- class people  in the system, and  who are not yet convinced that a new system is necessary.  This leads to  adventurism,  where he can  stand  back  and watch others take the rap. By  denying  tenacious  and  effective daily struggle, Nader  leads people to failure, people  who  wind up as passive  members of a demoralized organization. Instead of joining the movement of the present and fighting shoulder to shoulder for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of momentary interests of the working class, Nader  says that the important thing is to "jon us" in fighting for a more advanced position. Instead of uniting ALL progressive forces in the battle at hand, Nader plays a divise role by drawing activists into futile efforts on the basis of militant slogans and allegedly advanced positions. He is a  middle class radical seeking short cuts and has no patience for the long-term organizing task of pushing the Democratic party beyond itself,forcing it respond to popular pressure. Nader's answer to such crticisms is "Voting for a candidate of one's choice is a Constitutional right, and the Democrats who are asking me not to run are, without question, seeking to deny the Constitutional rights of voters who are, by law, otherwise free to choose to vote for me." , as perfect example of petty-bourgeois individualism defying discipline for a larger cause, as can be found. In  in 1958 he owned more than $3 million worth of stocks and mutual fund shares; his single largest holding was more than $1 million worth of stock in Cisco Systems, Inc. He also held more than $2 million in two money market funds. He claims he pours all that money into his non-profit organizations.
   

by Kevin Gosztola (231 articles, 127 quicklinks, 72 diaries, 895 comments) on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 3:12:18 PM
 

Nader redux

Nice piece Kevin. Well written and to the point.

Many castigate Nader, not to mention other third party and Independent efforts because on some level, they are aware that their party and its' candidates are inadequate to the job. 

Voting the lesser evil is always the only option if you don't search for other options or create one. You cannot improve a situation by supporting and implementing the law of the drag. 

by Jack Harrington (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 399 comments) on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 3:43:48 PM
 

And that's the thing

If I vote for Obama because I fear a McCain presidency but do not support Obama, I am allowing this electoral process to become more and more controlled by the establishment and the corporations---The Ruling Class.

If Americans want to shift power back to the people (or elect presidents who respect the rule of law and respect the people of America), it may mean taking the chance that a fake populist candidate like Obama loses and McCain wins because Obama did not really take up and defend the issues the people really care about.

by Kevin Gosztola (231 articles, 127 quicklinks, 72 diaries, 895 comments) on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 4:06:22 PM
 

Some questions for you

Having never been a political activist, perhaps you can clarify some issues that have left me puzzled as I have read your articles, as well as others who identify themselves as “Progressives.”

You keep talking about what appears to be two, and only two classes of citizens. The “Ruling Class,” and “The People.” I am wondering what you use as the criteria that distinguishes between membership in one class or the other. Is it only income, or do you include other factors?

You have repeatedly labeled Obama as a “fake populist.” On what he has said or done causes you to classify him in this way? As things stand currently, your position is certainly one of being in the minority.

You talk about “… the issues the people really care about.” What are these issues (excluding those which the candidates have already addressed), and by what process do you conclude that there is some significant number of people who, in fact, really do care about them?

In your article, The Future of the Peace Movement, you rightly identified the need for agreement, cohesion of membership, and organizational structure. These questions, I think, may be helpful in achieving those necessary steps to impacting on the political process.

by Sherwin Steffin (15 articles, 25 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 97 comments) on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 1:56:30 PM
 

You Raise Some Good Questions

You keep talking about what appears to be two, and only two classes of citizens. The “Ruling Class,” and “The People.” I am wondering what you use as the criteria that distinguishes between membership in one class or the other. Is it only income, or do you include other factors?

In my statements, I separate the two because primarily I believe that this country is divided by the Ruling Class (politicians, policymakers, CEOs, shareholders, etc.) and then the People (all the others who are seen as subordinates to those in the Ruling Class). I do not qualify it entirely as something that is an issue of income. I think it's very much about status. It's very much about whether you are black or brown skinned. And I think it has even more to do today with whether you speak English or not.

Now the Ruling Class will always be unified in wanting to preserve the status quo or make things work they way they do without interruptions by insurrections or revolts spawned by the people. 

You have repeatedly labeled Obama as a “fake populist.” On what he has said or done causes you to classify him in this way? As things stand currently, your position is certainly one of being in the minority.

I call him a "fake populist" because I believe that based on what I have read we want to be out of Iraq a lot faster than he is willing to make plans for, we want a single payer health care system that he is unwilling to support, we want to repeal NAFTA when he does not, and we want somebody to take on the corporations whose actions in the globalization of our world economy have led to problems with food, energy resources, etc. 

I call him a "fake populist" too because I believe that as much as he wants to be a man of the people he is already self-censoring himself. People in Illinois who know him speak of remarkable differences between Obama before the Illinois State Senate and Obama who is running for president. Obama's integrity has been compromised whether he cares to admit it or not. And that fact that he has been censoring himself all along makes me think that if he gets the nomination and runs against McCain, he will go on the defensive and censor himself even further.

Obama is not a "progressive." He is a corporate Democrat who has a good following among the American people and that following is kind of cult-like so cult-like that they believe Obama will do things that he hasn't even said he would do.  

You talk about “… the issues the people really care about.” What are these issues (excluding those which the candidates have already addressed), and by what process do you conclude that there is some significant number of people who, in fact, really do care about them?

I think the issues people really care about, the ones that are on the people's minds that are not apathetic or are not just people who go along with what's said and do as their told, are: the Iraq war, the economy, security, health care, gas prices, jobs & NAFTA, the corporate media, global warming, civil liberties, immigration, and even more so now than ever, the Constitution.

Now, I have no way to prove it except for the fact that I have just sat through six months of an election and have an idea from those months what people care about and what people do not care about. 

People just want to know that everything is going to be alright. And people like me who pay attention have a duty to inform them on what can be done to make things be alright. Unfortunately, they are given false dichotomies and half truths and omissions and distortions so often that it's tough to tell what exactly people think the solutions should be for these issues.

In many cases, the people's favorite solution is a good but not great one and the great one has been deliberately buried so the public does not support it.

Does that answer your questions? I'm willing to elaborate if you want.  

by Kevin Gosztola (231 articles, 127 quicklinks, 72 diaries, 895 comments) on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 2:48:07 PM
 

Ralph Nader

I don't fear Ralph Nader. However I see no purpose for him to run. He should endorse Cynthia McKinney instead. We need a third party alliance of Independents, Greens, Socialists, Libertarians, and Constitution Party people to defeat the right-wing Democrats and Republicans.

by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 868 comments) on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 4:11:19 PM
 

Nader on the morning after the 04 results

As you undoubtedly recall, John Kerry thought he won in Ohio and was preparing an acceptance speech. C-Span was waiting for it and then found it wasn't going to happen. So they allowed Nader to give his thank-yous to his supporters to allow a revision. Words I cannot forget: If John Kerry had listened to me, he might have made it.

"Unsafe at any speed" would just as well be the advice to politicians who speak their pieces and think the people listen. John Kerry, whom I worked for online, was a poor example when it came to reaching the people. Of course, Nader puts himself close to the bottom in that category. How he could make himself more useful than by running I do not know. But it seems he is a person who has a good idea and doesn't know how to execute it. What do you think?

by Margaret Bassett (31 articles, 1969 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 1282 comments) on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 4:20:44 PM
 

I think he knows what he is doing

That's why he stepped into the race with an exploratory committee.

Also, Ty, Nader and McKinney are going through the nomination process right now in the Green Party and after the Green Party Convention in Chicago, one of them will run. Now, your issue is one worth having: What about McKinney doesn't Ralph Nader like? If Nader can't line up behind a Green Party candidate , I do have a problem with that.

However, he is running right now for the Green Party nomination. And so, to your think about him not being able to execute...I think you are missing the fact that Nader is locked out of debates, refused ballot access, and treated like a "spoiler" by the media, a term media conveniently use to get Democrats to not support him.

As long as Nader is believe to be a "spoiler," he stands little chance of getting more than 2 or 3 percent of the vote. But if people can stop thinking like Republicans and stand up for a man who takes real stances on real issues, than maybe we'll see another run like the campaign we saw Ross Perot wage.

We the people can make a dent in the corporate two-party dictatorship. We have to. Come July, we have to have something going whether it be supporting the Green Party or Nader/Gravel  

by Kevin Gosztola (231 articles, 127 quicklinks, 72 diaries, 895 comments) on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 4:34:35 PM
 

two-party corruption

   If you want to be technical, according to George Washington, who was in a good position to know, Obama and McCain are the two candidates who are damaging the electoral process, as any party candidates who claim a "divine right" will do.  George Washington called political parties what they are, "self-created societies" which seek special status for themselves in government.   So now we have Democrats and Republicans claiming sole right to be candidates for office and sole right to participate in government.  What is going on at state level is more significant that what is going on at federal level.  States like Oregon and Florida are passing legislation to prevent independents from becoming candidates.  Alabama obtained a Federal Court ruling upholding Alabama's un-Constitutional nomination petition signature requirement, continuing to make it impossible for independent voters to be candidates for office in Alabama.  Arizona passed legislation to dismiss all deputy registrars who were registered independent and removed the option to register independent from the Arizona voter registration form, resulting in a decrease in independent voter registration from 80,000 per year to 13,000 per year.  Meanwhile, Americans continue to register as independent voters.  Go, America.

        Originally, all voters in the United States were independent voters.  Political parties and their corrupt candidates represent European ideals of government, which come from the philosophies of monarchs.  Have you noticed any  American political party royalty lately?

         They are on their way out.  Political parties are a thing of the past in this country.  They have proven their inability to provide good government and are being rejected by the voters.  As soon as independent voters gain ballot access, there will be independent candidates for office.  Once independent voters are running against independent voters and being elected, these two parties can slink back to Europe where they came from.

Robert B. Winn

by Robert Winn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 28 comments) on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 7:14:22 PM
 

Just this

I am unsympathetic about all of the "spoiler" arguments surrounding Nader. He has the right to run, and the American system should have a more open mind than CNN's Bill Schneider, who immediately branded Nader a "public nuisance." That was an anti-democratic swing taken by Schneider. I think the American people like the egalitarian ideas of a level playing field, a fair hearing and an open mind about candidates, and let the best man win.

--I was saying that in another thread, but here looks like a good place to repost it. I will even expand--

At the end of day, Nader votes are Nader votes. Gore votes are Gore votes. Some people were unhappy that Nader's votes were not Gore's votes, but the basis of their anger relies upon the ludicrous and insufferably arrogant suggestion that "Nader's votes are Gore's votes."

These are the kind of people who argue that "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine too." Clear minded thinkers won't fall for this, and to anyone going there, I would say "Sorry Charlie. What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours. That is also the basis of private property, which is also the basis of capitalism. Once that is abrogated, the American system is abrogated."

by John Kusumi (43 articles, 0 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 88 comments) on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 3:27:50 AM
 

Look what happened with Ross Perot

He drew large numbers of votes away from the Republicans when he ran, less so the second time, but still a noticeable amount. Nader will have the same effect on Democrats. He pulled a lot of votes away from the Dems last time and now we also have a Green Party candidate that many Dems will vote for, so the Democratic candidate is going to have a hard time pulling enough votes with these distractions. I find it odd that Nader jumped into the race so late. Was he backed by Republicans each time as a secret weapon to keep a Democrat out of the White House?

by Watching (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 313 comments) on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 3:53:59 AM
 

No

???

by Kevin Gosztola (231 articles, 127 quicklinks, 72 diaries, 895 comments) on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 7:32:22 AM
 

Perot?

When are you folks going to understand that we do not owe you our votes?  If you cannot convince us to vote for your candidate, what makes you think we don't have the right to find someone we do wish to vote for?

by Jack Harrington (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 399 comments) on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 11:23:42 AM
 

The Problem...

..is not Nader, or Perot, or any third party-independent candidate. It's the American people's inability to see beyond the mainstream media's anointed candidates. If the MSM tells the general voting public that a candidate is a long shot, an outsider, or a fringe candidate, they'll take it as gospel and rationalize voting for the lesser of two evils as "not wasting my vote." In reality, the only wasted vote is for the evil of two lessors!

by Craig Thomas (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Monday, March 3, 2008 at 12:32:17 PM