The Last Word on Ralph Nader

[JailBush]

Al Gore versus Ralph Nader is one of the most enduring controversies of our pathetic era. Democrats and Greens are so obsessed with their little cat fight, they lose sight of the big picture.

Some simple research and logic clears up many of the complexities and presents us with some solutions.

Most Democrats' arguments fall into two categories:

1. Ralph Nader should not have run because he was unelectable, and any good that came from his campaign was dwarfed by the votes he cost Al Gore, who, of course, was elected but not selected.

2. Ralph Nader is a jerk (or "worse than Hitler," etc.), period.

A big problem with the first argument is the extraordinary hypocrisy. Many Democrats seem to essentially say, "We're the only party capable of beating Bush and reforming the government." Yet Al Gore ran an extraordinarily lousy campaign on his own demerits, after which the Democrats turned into an auxiliary of the GOP.

The other problem is that the entire debate is focused on just one political campaign (or two, if Nader runs again in 2004), at the expense of the big picture. If good candidates don't run because they're "unelectable," won't we be condemned to voting for the lesser of evils - a strategy that only guarantees evil?

Or if 2000 wasn't the time for such a bold campaign, when IS the time? Every year offers a new excuse (or the same old excuse). Democrats blew Campaign 2002, then they blew Campaign 2003. Now America's back is to the wall, and it still isn't clear if Democrats are going to offer a respectable performance or simply a performance.

Keep in mind that candidates for public office can influence races other than their own. Nader's candidacy presumably helped get some outsiders elected to local offices, which is a good thing. Practically speaking, the only hope of reforming this country comes from the grassroots; the White House is virtually a lost cause at this point.

So it's good that Ralph Nader ran for the presidency, injecting a little life in an otherwise pathetic campaign and helping the grassroots grab a little power, right?

Not necessarily. Ralph Nader IS a jerk. The problem is that Democrats and Greens are both too ignorant, arrogant or corrupt to seek out the truth and publicize it.

Democrats' attacks on Nader push the envelope of absurdity. I've heard people complain that Nader is phony because he lives in a nice house. Like WHO CARES? I don't object to people honestly earning large amounts of money and spending it on nice houses.

If you want to know what Ralph Nader is all about, just investigate an issue where Democrats fear to tread - public education. One would expect an individual as reportedly intelligent and passionate as Ralph Nader to have a solid understanding of public education and go for the jugular, right?

In fact, Nader's Campaign 2000 education statement read like something he copied from the Democrats. In other words, it was a joke. Loosely translated, it said, "Let's help education by throwing more money at it!"

Apparently, someone forgot to tell Nader that public education has been privatized and is ruled by corporations, corrupt school officials and derelict teachers unions. Dumping more money on it is akin to fighting a fire by dousing it with gasoline.

But I voted for Nader anyway, because I had no solid evidence that he was corrupt, and Al Gore is a card-carrying member of the Education Mafia.

But I remained open-minded and kept my eyes open, and I finally found the evidence Democrats were apparently too lazy or clueless to dig up. It appeared in the pages of the Seattle Times, the corporate tabloid that endorsed George W. Bush.

The article was written by Keith Kervin, a certifiable media whore, and quotes Seattle School District spokesperson Lynn Steinberg, a media whore who jumped ship from the Seattle Times' inbred sibling - the Seattle Post-Intelligencer - to the the Seattle School District's communications department, after which she released information that may have contributed to a teacher's suicide. (I think the district framed him, with Steinberg's help, but that's another story.)

The article also mentions Green Party of Seattle chieftain Brita Butler-Wall and the "activist" organization she heads - Citizens' Campaign for Commercial-Free Schools. Both are as phony as George Bush's compassion.

Here's the URL and the key passage:

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=adsinschool&date=20020608&query=%22Commercial+Alert%22

Local News: Saturday, June 08, 2002
Seattle school district aims to be ad-free

"The district next week will receive a $5,000 award from a national anti-commercialism group, Commercial Alert, for the best effort in the nation to limit school advertising."

And here are links to a couple similar articles:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/74121_slam11.shtml
http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/commercial-alert/2002/000113.html

Two things about this article blew me away. First it focused on so many derelicts - the author, media whore turned schools assassin Lynn Steinberg, Green Party thug Brita Butler-Wall and the Seattle School Board - every member of which is totally corrupt. Who in their right mind would give an award to the Seattle School Board?

The second amazing revelation was Commercial Alert. I wanted to learn more about this org, which is based in Portland, Oregon, so I visited their website at http://www.commercialalert.org/

They list Education as one of their areas of special interest, so I thought they might have a clue about it. But their Education page at
http://www.commercialalert.org/index.php/category_id/2/subcategory_id/54/article_id/103/
features the heading "Teacher Corruption," but not a peep about a far bigger problem - corrupt school officials and teachers unions. In fact, their education blabber is clueless, period.

Then I checked out their "About Us" page at
http://www.commercialalert.org/index.php/article_id/AboutUs, which lists their Board of Advisors. I e-mailed several of them, including John Taylor Gatto, a relatively famous "teacher activist," but I never got a response. No e-mail address was listed for Commercial Alert's chair - Ralph Nader. (I found it somewhat interesting that the articles in the Seattle Times and Seattle P-I didn't mention Nader.)

A quick word about school anti-commercialism groups: Most are shams. It's a national fad that's very similar to the "smaller classes" fad - it's just a ploy designed to dupe the public. These hoodlums have no intention of reducing class size or kicking Bill Gates out of public education. In fact, their constant harping about Coca Cola and Nike is designed to divert attention from the much bigger problem - a complete corporate takeover of what were once public schools. (I've never seen any of these groups even mention Bill Gates or Microsoft.)

Anyone associated with a lame anti-commercialism group that is in turn associated with the corrupt Citizens' Campaign for Commercial-Free Schools and gives awards to a body as corrupt as the Seattle School District is no friend of mine. These people are all crooks.

I publicized this sometime ago on the Smirking Chimp chatboard (www.smirkingchimp.com), challenging Seattle Democrats and Greens to chime in. I expected Democrats to say, "Good job for smoking out the truth about Nader and that awful Brita Butler-Wall!" I expected Seattle Greens to either attack me or acknowledge the truth and promise they'd make an effort to clean up their act.

I got flamed, but not one individual supported or attacked Brita Butler-Wall, CCCS or Commercial Alert. It was as if no one wanted to talk about it. Then I got banned - I guess I gored someone's sacred cow.

What's the moral of the story? We're living in complex times, and people need to give the rhetoric a break and actually INVESTIGATE politicians, candidates and activist groups, applying a little logic to what they discover. At the same time, candidates and activists have an obligation to give the public the information they need to make informed decisions. (You won't find it on the websites maintained by Commercial Alert, let alone the Green Party of Seattle or the Citiziens' Committee for Commercial-Free Schools, at http://www.seattlegreens.org/ and http://www.scn.org/cccs/.)

If anyone had told me the TRUTH about Ralph Nader, I would have voted for Al Gore, just as I'd probably vote for Joe "Nader" Lieberman if runs against Bush. But I would also use their campaign to publicize the horrible corruption in public education that both Ralph Nader and Al Gore are so much a part of, hoping to channel public anger into local efforts to fix the problem.

I have much more information about some of the individuals mentioned above, which I'll try to post one one of my websites soon.

[JackSwift]

1. You make arguments numbered 1 and 2

"1. Ralph Nader should not have run because he was unelectable, and any good that came from his campaign was dwarfed by the votes he cost Al Gore, who, of course, was elected but not selected."

This is not the Democrats' argument, it is the fallacy of a straw man argument. We do not argue that any good came from Nader's campaign. Nor do we argue that Nader should not have run because he was unelectable. First, Bush came from Nader's campaign, and that is worse than mere no good, it is evil. Second, if Nader had wanted to run, he should have run in the Democratic primary like Bradley and Gore, and now Sharpton and Kucinich have done, and accepted the outcome in the event he lost. We argue that Nader did not do that, although he would have been most welcome to, because he wanted to achieve the exact result he achieved, and could not have done that by playing nice. We argued that he wanted Bush to win because he said that between Bush and Gore he wanted Bush. He also said that he wanted to increase the contradictions in this country, which I heard as make things lots worse. I accept these Nader statements at face value because 1. he said them 2. the correlation to causation is 100 percent and 3. In my analysis, his actions were likely to lead to the results he stated he wanted.


"2. Ralph Nader is a jerk (or "worse than Hitler," etc.), period."

Democrats have never taken the position that Nader is worse than Hitler. It is another straw man argument. Nor have we taken the position that Bush is worse than Hitler. The equivilent is Lenin (for Nader). Lenin is the equivilent because both were against corporatism and had a philosophy that social democrats are worse than corporatists, and that in order for there to be change, the corporate society must have its contradictions enhanced to the point that the bad things get so much worse that changes are extremely desireable to the people at large. The only difference between Lenin and Nader on this is that Lenin called openly for violent revolution, and Nader has not. Nader is a well educated man knowingly and deliberately using Leninist philosophy.



In summary and conclusion, the initial premises are straw man arguments, violate the rules of logic at the get go, and the counter argument has essentially swung three times at the first pitch and missed all three times.

If you want to be persuasive, state the arguments against Nader as they are best stated, and proceed from there.

[JailBush]

2. What are you talking about?

ME: "1. Ralph Nader should not have run because he was unelectable, and any good that came from his campaign was dwarfed by the votes he cost Al Gore, who, of course, was elected but not selected."

YOU: "This is not the Democrats' argument<snip>

Baloney; I've heard that argument MANY times.

"Second, if Nader had wanted to run, he should have run in the Democratic primary<snip>

How would that have helped the Greens, the third party he was trying to build up?

"We argued that he wanted Bush to win because he said that between Bush and Gore he wanted Bush."

Can you cite a reference? I'll add that to my website, if it's true.

ME: "2. Ralph Nader is a jerk (or "worse than Hitler," etc.), period."

YOU: "Democrats have never taken the position that Nader is worse than Hitler. It is another straw man argument."

Baloney again; I've heard Nader compared to Hitler a number of times. But note that I put "worse than Hitler" in parentheses, denoting the fact that it isn't used as commonly as less servere words, like "jerk." That's not a straw man argument; it's a fact.

YOU: "Nor have we taken the position that Bush is worse than Hitler."

Okay, who's this WE you keep referring to? Have all the Democrats sat down and hammered out a Ralph Nader statement that everyone signed their name to? Though very few people claim Bush is worse than Hitler, he's often compared to Hitler. Moreover, he's very likely more dangerous than Hitler, and he could in fact be just as evil; we'll never know until he gains complete dictatorial control.

"In summary and conclusion, the initial premises are straw man arguments, violate the rules of logic at the get go<snip>

Where do you get this "straw man" stuff? My arguments are entirely logical. Predictably, you have nothing to say about my comments regarding the one issue that drags Democrats and Greens alike to the ground: public education.

Thanks for your straw man reply.

[JackSwift]

19. Your education argument doesn't get to first base

because of your straw man premises.

How about some citations from the Democratic Party for your straw man arguments? Prominent Democratic spokespersons or electeds? Democratic Punidts? Got none? Your claiming that the folks here, whom you still don't bother to cite speak for the Democratic Party and Democrats? I don't think so.

Your assertions of what a political party's positions are doesn't make it true.

As for your arguments on education, I know nothing about the local northwest issues, and believe that your ad hominem attacks on Al Gore are despicable.

[Megrim]

3. Nader is a man of principle

an all too lacking quality in today's political system. He refused to be bullied in 2000, and he is to be admired for that. He has been very consistent throughout his career in his beliefs, whereas Gore has not. (Didn't Gore used to be a pro-gun, pro-life southern conservative?)

[trumad]

4. Naders a great man and I hope he runs

So we won't be seeing anymore Pro-Nader threads here on DU...

[JailBush]

5. That's what I used to think...

but why's he so clueless about public education? The Green Party of Seattle? Does he simply not CARE about education? If so, why doesn't he just admit it and not mention it at all?

[Skittles]

6. sorry

whatever admiration I once had for Nader is long, LONG gone. Admire him for 2000? WTF? He disgusts me.

[JackSwift]

20. Nader's only principle is to promate Ralph Nader

He is a man without loyalty to any principle except what he happens to believe at the moment that will enhance his personal prestige. He considers abandoning even the despicable Greens to run as an independent to further promote his own name and because he fears losing the Green nomination because many Greens (certainly not all) now see all the way through this exerable creep. Serves ya right Greens.

Ralph Nader broke a union when one of his organizations took over a magazine.

Ralph Nader taxes college students through PIRG programs that he controls in an undemocratic fashion from behind the scenes.

Do some research on Ralph Nader from a number of sources and get into the details. He is not a consumer advocate in shining armor. I was duped by that crap until the 80s when I researched the PIRG thing and saw how he actually impeded automobile safety. Nader is a narcissistic creep.

Nader said openly in 2000 that he would prefer Bush to Gore in order to "enhance the contradictions". Had Gore won a single more electoral vote, either in Florida or New Hampshire, Bush would not now be murdering Americans and Iraqis in pursuit of his malignant oil and revenge fetish in the Middle East. Nader deceived enough voters in New Hampshire and Florida hundreds of times over to have spoiled the election. He knew exactly what he was doing.

[Cheswick2.0]

7. What lame forum did you cut and paste this garbage from?

Who wrote this? Whoever it was is wrong on Nader and Gore and wrong about education.

[JailBush]

8. Who, what, where, why, blah, blah, blah.

I wrote this. My name's David Blomstrom. I didn't copy it form a "lame forum." It comes from several sources, including the Seattle Times, Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Commercial Alert - not to mention the years I've spent engaged in education activism.

YOU'RE wrong about Nader and Gore. Al Gore wrote the foreword to a book about education written by one of the biggest abominations in the history of public education, the late John Stanford. If you don't believe me, type "Al Gore" + "Victory in Our Schools" into Google. And if you think there was something special about John Stanford - well, you'd better do your research before you challenge me on that one. That corporate b*stard ruined two of the best schools I ever worked at.

What I wrote about Nader and the Seattle School Board is also true. Nader really is the chair of Commercial Alert; it says so on their website. They really did give an award to the corrupt Seattle School Board. It isn't that hard to research.

Don't be so lazy and search for the truth, like I do.

[JackSwift]

21. And Al Gore writing a forward to a book

is directly responsible for destroying two schools you worked at with John Stanford? That must have been one damn interesting forward. And to think that I usually skip or skim over those forwards.

Maybe those schools were ruined, if they were ruined, by some loathsome creep or creeps who had a more direct connection to them? Like this Stanford guy. A lousy board. Crummy teachers. (No bad students, only bad teachers.) Inadequate funding. No committment from the electorate.

My opinion about the long decline of schools in California is more of a systemic failure and changing social conditions than a few evil bad guys. Women choosing any professional field instead of teaching as they would have up till about 40 years ago. A public that believes social service quality and taxes are unrelated and that they are entitled to one and the other is theft. But until schools are treated as a priority, their decline will continue. The old saying goes: "That'll be the day when the schools have all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber."

[jpgray]

9. Nader has no claim to any moral high ground over Democrats

His actions mark him as just another average politician. He says the right things, but only because he is no danger of having to DO those things. Anyone who bases their support of a politician on what they have said and not what they have done is foolish. Nader didn't allow his workers to unionize, and he apparently uses his advocacy-group profits for high-risk stock adventures. He has consistently used his "consumer advocacy", after his big break-out with "Unsafe", for self-promotion rather than any tangible good.

He's a politican--no worse than any other, more likeable perhaps for his message, but in action he is no better.

[library_max]

10. THE last word about Nader? I don't think so.

Or did you mean that it was YOUR last word about Nader?

[JailBush]

11. OK,

this is the last SENSIBLE word about Nader. Notice how NO ONE addresses the points I raised head on. No one has anything to say about Commercial Alert, the Seattle School Board, or the phony national anti-commercialism campaign.

When it comes to the pro-Nader and anti-Nader folks, there's very little credibility.

[John_H]

12. The REAL last word on Nader is.....

Run!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ThirdWheelLegend]

15. Run for President?

I think he will.
Well unless Kucinich is the nominee.

TWL

[PretzelWarrior]

13. you have some bizzare thoughts there.

not the least of which is that Gore ran a bad campaign. He was climbing in the polls while Bush was descending in the final days. Gore won the election in a sharply divided country. He got more votes than Clinton did in either of his elections. I believe he got more votes than ANY OTHER candidate in history.

Nader turned into a problem because of how close the election result turned out. He could have stopped earlier and called it off if he was interested in America's immediate benefit. I won't argue motives of Nader or Greens. There are a lot of things I can identify with in their platform.

HOWEVER: I am a realist. Just like there are foreign policy realists who disagree with neocons. They actually believe a lot of the same things re: world realignment, but they also know it is not realistic to make it so..therefore you choose the best option of compromise.

Well, there are a LOT of things the Greens would do, but it is not realistic to get them in the seats of power to see it happen. So, in the meantime, they are splitting enough of the progressive vote to scuttle our entire country's future. Not too bright.

No one knew that much about Bush prior to 2000. It was perhaps his greatest asset. Now they know. It should turn off at least a good 2% or more of people that voted for him before. If we can work to see that the Green party is neutralized for this election and perhaps a libertarian/reform body of arch conservatives makes some noise...then we have a sure chance at overwhelming Bush's willingness to do ANYTHING to retain power.

Nader should step solidly behind a Democratic candidate and take one for the team since the whole country took one for him and he STILL didn't get enough votes nationwide to qualify for matching funds.

[JailBush]

17. You wrote, "You have some bizarre thoughts there,

not the least of which is that Gore ran a bad campaign."

Did you watch any of the debates???

[IrateCitizen]

14. I'll try to dive in on the education issues you want to discuss

First, as I have come to understand it, the corporate takeover of public schools is occuring on multiple fronts. There is the direct marketing of Coca Cola, Nike, etc. to the students. There is also Channel One -- which, IMHO, is a supreme waste of school time. There are campaigns to allow commerical marketing within schools themselves (this was Bloomberg's plan for NYC). Finally, many of the textbooks, as I understand it, are increasingly being underwritten by corporate sponsors.

I see the strategy as quite simple and devious. First, starve the schools of funds. Second, allow corporate "sponsorship" of schools to make up the funding gap. Third, eliminate anything from the schools that might offend the corporate sponsors. Fourth, make the gradual shift from public to corporate funding.

I don't know much about the personalities of which you speak in this thread, as I am not from the West Coast. However, as someone who voted for Nader in 2000 (from a safe state in NY), I can't say that he really impresses me that much anymore. I do not consider him to be a Republican mole by any means either. I consider him to be an autocrat, first and foremost.

But I really fail to see how this campaign offends you so much. While they may not be addressing some of the other prongs of the corporate attack on public schools, they are at least addressing SOME of them. Anything to help stem back the tide in this area should be welcome.

As for keeping Bill Gates out of public schools -- so long as Microsoft has an OS monopoly, that will be pretty hard to do. I think it's an issue that is much bigger than just the educational system.

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. I loathe corporate sponsorship of schools

police departments, etc.

You hit the nail on the head as far as how they get away with it. "Starve" public programs til people get fed up and cry out for privatization. (Medicare, anyone?)

Never mind the fact that when you run a school like a business, it's the kids who lose out. Over budget for the year? No problem, just sell off your new textbooks and desks. (Yes, this sort of thing has really happened.)

[JailBush]

18. Good post...

You wrote, "I see the strategy as quite simple and devious. First, starve the schools of funds. Second, allow corporate "sponsorship" of schools to make up the funding gap. Third, eliminate anything from the schools that might offend the corporate sponsors. Fourth, make the gradual shift from public to corporate funding."

That's just about the way I see it, except that the schools aren't shifting to corporate funding. Remember, corporations are all about stealing money from the underclass. Public schools remain publicly funded, but the money is inceasingly diverted to corporations, even if indirectly - as in funding corporate advertising.

Corporations do give money to schools - but it's mostly phony philanthropy which has more to do with public relations than helping children.

"I really fail to see how this campaign offends you so much. While they may not be addressing some of the other prongs of the corporate attack on public schools, they are at least addressing SOME of them. Anything to help stem back the tide in this area should be welcome."

The problem is that they aren't stemming the tide. The Green Party of Seattle has fought against Coca Cola for years, diverting attention from far bigger problems - and I don't think they've even canned Coca Cola yet.

The name of the game is to make the public THINK you're fighting the good fight without publicizing any serious issues. Then get as much mileage out of it as you can.

[radfringe]

22. for the umptillionth time

right message - wrong messenger

[IndianaGreen]

23. Unless....

the Democratic Establishment engages in Rovian tactics to prevent a peace candidate from winning the nomination (the ad of Dean morphing into Osama comes to mind, the ABC decision on covering Kucinich is another), and then goes ahead and gets one of the four prowar candidates nominated.

There are only 30K registered users in DU, but there are millions of antiwar Americans unaware of DU's existence that will never vote for a prowar candidate.

The only people that can make Nader relevant in 2004 are in the DNC.