For a leftist hero that's different from those pandering Democrats, he's quite the hypocrite. He railed against Gore and others for investing in not-so great companies, yet invests in such corporate monsters as Wal-Mart, GAP, the Limited, and HALLIBURTON himself. These all part of a Fidelity mutual fund that his own "Nader's Raiders" denounced, companies that are reviled by the WTO protestors--people Nader supports in word. He casts himself as a proponent of labor, yet denies his workers the right to unionize. He talks up his consumer advocate history, but at the same time uses funds from his advocacy groups for stock market adventures.
The premise for his run is a false one. He declares there is too little difference between the parties (there are plenty of life-and-death differences for people to vote on), and further states the reason half the people don't vote is because the two party system doesn't speak for them, tries to encourage apathy, etc. Well, he's run a few times now, and I haven't seen the other half of the country start voting again. It's not that they don't care about Republicans and Democrats, apparently they don't give much of a crap about Nader either. And if it's the media's or the public's fault, how does Nader expect to fix those problems when it's in the interest of the intrenched parties to maintain the status quo? By making more failed runs for the presidency?
Finally, anyone who says he wants to "heighten the contradictions", or prefers Republicans be in charge for that reason, should be thrown out on his ass. Ends justifies the means rhetoric doesn't EVER fly with me and it certainly shouldn't with you. For those who rightly criticize the argument that the IWR Dems were "giving W enough rope to hang himself with", I hope you NEVER try to justify Nader's statements that have the same basic and flawed idea. Putting Republicans in power so that their atrocities galvanize the populace is a sick way of using widespread suffering for political gain, and I want no part of it.
Look at these
quotes from the man himself, and compare them to his portfolio:
"I'm quite aware of how the arms race is driven by corporate demands for contracts, whether it's General Dynamics or Lockheed Martin," Nader told the Progressive in April. "They drive it through Congress. They drive it by hiring Pentagon officials in the Washington military industrial complex, as Eisenhower phrased it."
The Fidelity Magellan fund owns 2,041,800 shares of General Dynamics.
"Both parties are terrible on antitrust," Nader told CNN in August. "Look, we have Boeing now, one aircraft company, manufacturer after the McDonnell Douglas merger." In a June press release, Nader expressed disappointment in the Clinton administration's Justice Department to challenge the merger of British Petroleum with Amoco, or Exxon's merger with Mobil.
The Fidelity Magellan fund owns 2,908,600 shares of Boeing, 24,753,870 shares of British Petroleum-Amoco and 28,751,268 shares of Exxon-Mobil. The fund also owns stock in Shell, Sunoco, Texaco and Chevron -- on whose board Bush advisor Condoleezza Rice serves.
Nader runs on being BETTER on these issues than the Democrats, not being equally bad. In hypocrisy, and in profiting from corporatism, he is equally guilty.