[GPRI] San Francisco web-debate: Nader and the Greens/The Never-Ending Debate
Richard Walton
richard at soup.org
Sun Mar 18 07:45:18 PST 2007
Hi, The debate about Ralph Nader never seems to end. This was sent by
David McReynolds. Peace. Richard.
>I got this from a Green in New York State and found it fascinating.
>Much of the discussion of Nader is much more intense than anything I'd
>seen and were educational to me, on the reality that just as most of us
>know there is a group of passionate Nader supporters, there is an equally
>passionate group of Greens who some intense feelings of hostility to
>Nader.
>Am passing this on as part of the discussion. My own views on Nader have
>been expressed before and are "respectfully skeptical".
>David McReynolds
>NYC
> ----- Original Message -----
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 4:21 PM
> Subject: [nygreen] San Francisco web-debate re: Nader and the Greens
> This is from "Beyond Chron, the Voice of the
> Rest", a website out of San Francisco.
> Their blurb says that it "provide[s] coverage of
> political and cultural issues often distorted or
> ignored by the Bay Area's largest newspaper, the
> San Francisco Chronicle. Beyond Chron presents a
> critical look at the cutting edge issues of the
> day." This must be one of those "beyond the
> Chronicle" moments -- we all know how much
> support the Chronicle has given to Ralph Nader,
> the Green Party and so forth. It's edited by Randy Shaw.
> Beyond Chron also ran a story a few days ago
> ripping the Nader film, "An Unreasonable Man".
> I've included that below, as well.
> Below those stories are Letters to the Editor
> they're also carrying (but not featuring) --
> including a good short one by NY Greens' Ivana Edwards.
> You can submit letters to the editor by clicking
> on this link: <mailto:rshaw at beyondchron.org>rshaw at beyondchron.org
> or by writing to:
> Beyond Chron
> 126 Hyde Street
> San Francisco, CA 94102
> 415-771-9850 (phone)
> 415-771-1287 (fax)
> http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=4302
> Ralph Nader Doesn't Help the Green Party
> by Marc Salomon, Mar. 15, 2007
> Just as it was said that Dwight Eisenhower rated
> a 10 as a general and a 2 as president, Ralph
> Nader rated an 11 as a consumer advocate and a 1
> as a politician. At this point, Ralph Nader is a
> tired relic of a previous generation who has yet
> to realize that his toolkit is so outdated that
> it no longer functions as designed, a man who
> cannot travel without speaking to a crowd of true
> believers wherever he goes. Just as so many of us
> have been prosletyzed by fundamentalist
> Christians, have already heard the "good news,"
> and have taken a pass, Nader needs to realize
> that his approach is alienating more than it is magnetizing.
> Elections are complex, multivariate systems. It
> is true that Nader's campaign exerted a downward
> pressure on Gore votes nationwide, most markedly
> in Florida. That said, there were many other
> variables in play, such as Gore's losing his and
> his president's own home states after eight years
> of what was considered a successful Democrat
> presidency and the Democrat Party's incompetence
> at the real election at the Supreme Court. At the
> end of the day, Bush II won by 1 Republican vote
> in that august, ostensibly depoliticized body.
> Yes, Nader played a role in the 2000 outcome, but
> there is no evidence that Nader's campaign in and
> of itself was the decisive factor in the outcome.
> In 2000, it seemed like a good idea at the time
> for the Green Party to exercise our democratic
> rights under the constitution, what with Clinton
> imposing welfare reform and NAFTA. But political
> reality has eclipsed reality and if our likely
> political base is not supportive of our
> participation at that level at this time, then
> any political party which hopes to win elections
> must take such concerns seriously. Our base
> ratified this analysis in 2004 when Nader and
> David Cobb, the Green nominee, were shellacked at the polls.
> There are those Green who believe that Nader is
> still relevant. And as in any political
> formation, the infatuation with celebrity and the
> celebrity's nurturing his own ego and the
> cult-like behavior that surrounds this all can
> often come to dominate any sober, rational
> political analysis. Such is the case with Nader
> where his devotees assert that challenging
> Nader's presidential jousting at windmills
> negates his decades of important consumer advocacy work.
> The Naderite Greens also believe that the only
> reason why Greens are not successful at high
> office is because our likely voting base is
> concerned about electing a Republican with a
> minority vote should they vote Green and "take
> votes away" from the Democrat. These Greens
> fetishize IRV as a solution to that which they
> perceive as a problem. While spoiling is a minor
> concern, as most jurisdictions are heavily one
> party or the other, my read is that voters do not
> believe that dilettantes who claim to have all
> the answers yet have no experience governing or
> building viable electoral coalitions should be
> trusted to run the government. If anything, 2000
> raised the bar over which candidates not of the duopoly must jump.
> Despite Bush II's neoconservative misadventures,
> it is clear that the ruling elites have broken
> ranks with that project and are moving to
> recenter the two party system on areas where
> there is substantial elite consensus. As was said
> in the 2000 campaign, the two major parties still
> agree on 80% of all policies, policies that have
> exacerbated the divides between rich and poor
> domestically, fatally wounded the environment and
> through the so-called "free trade" regimen,
> relegated billions to poverty, cultural
> clearcutting and dependency in order to make our
> lives in the global north more convenient.
> Just as there is division in the corporate elites
> over neoconservativism, there is debate within
> the Green Party over the role of high profile
> celebrity candidates expending scarce resources
> on campaigns for impossibly high office. As Ella
> Baker said: "strong people don't need strong
> leaders." Instead of following straight wealthy
> male leaders like Nader, Green values of
> grassroots, decentralized democracy point in another direction.
> The best way so far for Greens to move the agenda
> beyond corporate dominance is to build a base in
> the localities as we are doing in San Francisco
> in the school board, community college board and
> the Board of Supervisors, frequently in alliance
> with disillusioned progressive Democrats and decline to state voters.
> Once Greens have experience governing, we will
> move away from shouting idealisms from the
> sidelines towards bringing reality-rooted
> policies to bear at higher levels. This will
> build the trust with voters to elect Greens to
> offices where we can address critical issues as
> climate change, economic equity and
> sustainability. With out sounding too alarmist,
> we can only hope that we can achieve this before
> we pass the ecological point of no return.
> When Greens run locally, even if we don't win, we
> shape the debate. One need only look at Gavin
> Newsom's absconding with Matt Gonzalez' platform
> planks, albeit in a watered-down, sanitized,
> corporate-friendly form to validate this. Pacific
> Gas and Electric, one of California's worst
> polluters, is appropriating and coopting the
> Green brand, slathering it on almost every flat surface in the City.
> PG&E says that "Green is so crazy it just might work."
> Most people see the Green agenda as anything but
> crazy when contraposed to the corporate
> corruption of both the Democrat and Republican
> parties and the ecological catastrophe that is
> boiling over, but are reluctant to support
> candidates with no experience or the quixotic
> campaigns of ego driven celebrities and their cults.
> Electoral politics are not about what the leaders
> want, but about how movements can connect with
> voters to win elections and govern. Many Greens get this, many do not.
> -----------------------------------------
> Marc Salomon is a long-time Green party activist
> who lives in San Francisco's Mission District.
> ****************************************************************
> Re-Assessing Nader: A Selfish and Unreasonable Man
> by Paul Hogarth, Mar. 13, 2007
> Don't be fooled by reviews that say "An
> Unreasonable Man," the new film about Ralph
> Nader, criticizes his 2000 presidential campaign.
> While the two-hour documentary gives face-time to
> Eric Alterman and Todd Gitlin who blame Nader for
> electing George Bush, the filmmakers just use
> them to create an illusion of credibility.
> Meanwhile, the film gives very short shrift to
> Nader's long consumer legacy - where he is
> portrayed in glowing terms as a saint, while
> papering over a disturbing trait from those years
> that explains why he later ran for President.
> Rather than "unreasonable," Nader is a selfish
> egotist. Accountable to nobody. He burns through
> his disciples. He believes that any disagreement
> with him amounts to a betrayal. The film is
> propaganda at its worst - it pretends to see both
> sides of the issue, but really props up Nader for
> his 2008 presidential campaign.
> Let's start with the title. On the surface, it
> sounds like a criticism of Nader - that he was
> "unreasonable" to risk the fate of an entire
> country just to prove a point. But the film
> starts with the following quote from George
> Bernard Shaw - "the reasonable man adapts himself
> to the world. The unreasonable one persists in
> trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
> all progress depends on the unreasonable man." In
> other words, it's a glowing tribute to Nader.
> Because he refused to take the world as it is,
> "all progress" depended upon people like Nader -
> and therefore we should lionize him as a hero.
> For my generation, Nader will always be
> remembered as the reckless ideologue who gave us
> the worst President in American history. Which is
> why I hoped that the film would talk more about
> his consumer legacy from the 1960's, 1970's and
> 1980's - when his reputation was unquestioned and
> his accomplishments were impressive. It does, but
> not enough to go into detail and critically
> assess what he really got done - especially for
> an audience not old enough to remember that history.
> Ralph Nader pioneered the practice of non-profit
> organizations hiring idealistic young workers for
> slave wages. Because the Nader's Raiders had jobs
> "where you can bring your conscience to work," he
> found no reason why he shouldn't demand them to
> pull insane hours for little pay. It's honorable
> to have a legion of disciples who are in love
> with their jobs, but the manner that Nader worked
> them at Public Citizen bordered on the
> sadomasochistic. The film touches on this, but
> doesn't explore the disturbing precedent that it
> has set for all non-profits - and why it's so
> hard in that industry today to retain talented college graduates.
> Nader treated any of his former employees who
> deviated from what he wanted as Benedict Arnolds
> in the highest degree. The most prominent example
> is Joan Claybrook, who left Public Citizen in
> 1977 when President Carter appointed her to head
> the National Highway Traffic Safety
> Administration (NHTSA.) After he felt that she
> was ineffective and insufficiently pro-consumer
> in her job, Nader publicly called on her to
> resign - and even disrupted a press conference in
> her office. It's a theme that I picked up on
> throughout the movie about how Nader interacts
> with others, but I doubt it's what the filmmakers wanted you to conclude.
> The Carter years were the zenith of Ralph Nader's
> influence, as the consumer movement finally had
> an ally in the White House. But as the movie
> explains, Nader became disillusioned when he
> didn't get what he wanted. Carter supported
> legislation to create a new federal agency for
> consumers, but it failed in 1978 to pass both
> houses of Congress. According to Nader, Carter
> wasn't willing to do the heavy lifting to get
> House Democrats to vote for it. By 1981, Nader
> celebrated the defeat of Jimmy Carter because
> "Reagan is going to breed the biggest resurgence
> in nonpartisan citizen activism in history."
> It's incredible to believe how Nader would lose
> faith in a Democratic president because he
> "didn't work hard enough" to get a piece of
> legislation passed. Especially when you consider
> Nader's overall legacy - the Environmental
> Protection Agency (EPA), the Occupational Health
> and Safety Association (OSHA), the Clean Water
> Act, and the Freedom of Information Act, to name
> a few - losing one legislative battle isn't the
> end of the world. As any serious activist
> committed to a long-term strategy would say - you
> win some, you lose some, and you can't let one
> disappointment at a powerful politician sink your
> willingness to work with them later.
> Ironically, if Nader had prevailed in creating a
> Consumer Protection Agency, it would have been
> another bureaucracy that hired his disciples in a
> Democratic Administration. But in a Republican
> Administration, it would hire people who would
> actively fight against the consumer movement and
> undermine his influence. The fact that he felt
> that this loss was Jimmy Carter's ultimate
> betrayal raises questions about Nader's priorities.
> To call Nader an "unreasonable man" in the
> context of the George Bernard Shaw quote is
> dangerously misleading. Nader was a brave
> crusader at the beginning of his career - when he
> attacked General Motors for creating unsafe cars
> - but by the 1970's he was a vicious egomaniac.
> It was either his way or the highway - and
> although we want people like Ralph Nader to
> advocate passionately for the causes we believe
> in and stubbornly refuse to give in, they also
> need to know how to get along with people.
> Today, he's even worse. Beyond "trying to adapt
> the world to himself," he has refused to adapt to
> any reality at all. The world has changed, and
> everything he has argued about electoral politics
> has been completely disproven in the last six
> years. But still, Ralph Nader insists on proving
> a point - and he doesn't seem to care how many
> more people suffer under Republican
> Administrations. After all, he's not poor and
> won't be hurt by the Bush budget cuts.
> But you won't get this perspective from viewing
> "An Unreasonable Man." It's not a documentary - it's a puff piece.
> Send feedback to paul at beyondchron.org
> ****************************************************
> Guest Editorial: Review of Nader Film a Partisan Attack
> by Chris Kavanagh, Mar. 16, 2007
> I appreciate and respect my friend and former
> colleague on the Berkeley Rent Board, Paul
> Hogarth, as an uncompromising Democratic Party
> partisan and advocate. Paul has devoted many
> years of his life to building and supporting
> local Democratic Party candidates and
> organizations in the Bay Area. I commend him for
> his passion and political partisanship.
> So it comes as no surprise that Paul's hostile
> reaction to the new Ralph Nader documentary film
> "An Unreasonable Man" displays Paul's strong
> Democratic Party partisanship. Nader, a former
> two-time Green Party presidential candidate, is
> relentlessly vilified in Paul's
> <http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=4291>March 13 review.
> As Nader himself caustically remarks in the
> film---speaking of both the Democratic and
> Republican parties---the United States is
> controlled by an "elected two-party dictatorship"
> that has managed to effectively shut out third
> party voices and voter options for decades.
> Unlike Europe and other world regions, US third
> parties are denied free media air time---or even
> access to media---and are unable to match the
> tens of millions of campaign contribution dollars
> supplied by corporations and special interests to
> both the Democratic and Republican parties.
> The good news is that this untenable situation is
> gradually changing: the national Green Party, for
> example, has achieved solid electoral
> successes---there are currently 224 elected Green
> Party officials at all government levels across
> 22 states----since the party's founding in 1990.
> This Green Party's progress continues to
> accelerate despite Democratic Party efforts over
> the years to legally strangle and/or hinder the
> Green Party's electoral access and viability.
> In his review---"attack" might be a better
> word----of "An Unreasonable Man," Paul left out
> several inconvenient facts and statistics cited
> in the film that pertain to the Democratic
> Party's repeated complaint against Nader that he
> allegedly "spoiled" Al Gore's unsuccessful 2000 presidential campaign effort.
> Perhaps the most inconvenient truth---to borrow
> Al Gore's documentary film title----cited by "An
> Unreasonable Man" is that 10 million registered
> Democratic Party members nationwide voted for
> George Bush in 2000. Meanwhile, approximately
> half a million Florida Democrats---I repeat, half
> a million Florida Democrats!---also voted for Bush.
> Another inconvenient fact left out of Paul's
> review is that half a dozen other Florida third
> party presidential candidates---ie Socialist
> Workers Party, Reform Party, Libertarian Party,
> etc----each recieved enough votes separately to
> tip the Florida election to Bush, roughly 500 votes.
> Where is the Democratic Party's outrage at the
> Florida Socialist Workers Party's "spoiler" role?
> The more important question Democratic Party
> partisans should be asking themselves about the
> 2000 Florida election is why Al Gore did not
> aggressively seek to challenge the Bush
> campaign's post-election legal tactics, or why Al
> Gore did not win his own home state of Tennessee
> (failing to win one's own home state in a
> presidential election is historically unprecendented).
> Finally, in the aftermath of Nader's 1996 and
> 2000 Green Party presidential campaigns, another
> critical question that Democratic Party partisans
> should confront themselves with is the following:
> if the national Democratic Party was so concerned
> about Nader's candidacy and the number of
> potential votes he might recieve, why did the
> Democratic Party refuse to approach Nader and
> negotiate an electoral alliance or pact on issues
> that both parties could agree upon?
> Why didnt Al Gore (in 2000) or John Kerry (in
> 2004) offer Nader the federal Enviromental
> Protection Agency post in exchange for Nader's
> tacit support or endorsement? At the minimum, a
> mutal electoral agreement could have been
> negotiated benefitting both parties leading up to the election.
> Arrogantly, the Democratic Party refused to even
> consider such a political option. Unfortunately,
> Democratic Party partisans still have their heads
> in the sand when Ralph Nader's name is mentioned.
> ****************************************************
> Letters to the Editor
> "Even More Nader..."
> Mar. 16, 2007
> Paul,
> I couldn't disagree more strongly with your
> vitriolic column about Ralph Nader. These are my points of contention:
> 1.. Nader did not willingly run for the
> presidency the first time. The Green Party had to
> beg him to run, and he only acquiesced after
> several months. He has run of his own volition
> since, but this wasn't his idea to begin with.
> 2.. Blaming Nader for Al Gore's loss in the
> presidential campaign is the "official" point of
> view of the Democratic Party, which thinks that
> everyone left of the Republicans in this country
> has an obligation to vote Democratic. Well, guess
> what: the Democrats don't represent many of us,
> and we won't vote Democratic unless someone like
> Barbara Lee or Dennis Kucinich is running. Gore
> and Kerry have no one but themselves to blame for
> losing their elections. Neither of them even
> mentioned the environment, which would have been
> their strongest issue v. Bush. They were both so
> right wing that they could have been running as
> moderate Republicans. Yes, one can make the
> argument that if Nader hadn't pulled votes from
> Gore in Florida Gore would have won the election,
> but more Democrats voted for Bush than for Nader,
> so why point the finger at Nader? Why not focus
> your anger what's wrong with the Democratic Party
> instead of blaming someone like Ralph Nader who's
> exponentially better politically? A much better
> argument is that Gore lost the election because
> he wouldn't advocate any populist or environmental ideas.
> 3. Picking on personal traits in people running
> for office is the type of evil thing that Karl
> Rove would do and it's just plain wrong. Look,
> almost all of these people are egomaniacs or they
> wouldn't run in the first place; the percentage
> of exceptions can be figured by the percentage of
> the Progressive Caucus in the House of
> Representatives compared to the entire Congress
> after dividing the caucus by at least two.
> Unfortunately, we don't get Buddhist monks running for office.
> Overall, you're obviously more conservative than
> I am and are willing to settle for the
> evil-of-two-lessers, which I am not. This would
> explain why you blame Nader for Gore's losing to
> Bush and why you have such a grudge against him.
> But you should realize that those of us on the
> other side (i.e., those for whom the Democratic
> Party is far too conservative) still support
> Nader, at least in principle if not in strategy.
> By writing columns like the one bashing Nader,
> you will assure that our two camps will never
> unite to defeat the truly evil ones who now run
> the country. Please save your vitriol for those
> who deserve it, like the current administration
> in Washington and their ruling class masters.
> Targeting people like Ralph Nader serves no purpose but theirs.
> Jeff Hoffman
> San Francisco
> ----------
> Editor,
> Do you know where the "egotist" charge came from?
> Gore sent out a swift-boat style hit team (Gloria
> Steinam, et al) to smear Ralph Nader in 2000.
> They never, ever talked issues, they just called
> Ralph names, and they all used the tern
> "egotist." It was a PR creation, a way to avoid
> confronting Nader on the issues. You swallow
> every bit of anti-Nader tripe that the
> establishment has dished out over the years, and
> treat it as your own revelation. You know nothing
> of the man. I know him well, and his soul is as
> beautiful as yours is mean-spirited and ugly.
> Greg Kafoury
> EDITOR'S NOTE: Kafoury is a lawyer in Portland
> who served as Ralph Nader's campaign manager in Oregon
> ----------
> Hi Paul,
> I liked your piece on the new Nader film, which I
> haven't seen. I nearly lost a 20-year friendship
> over the 2000 election (I was the Gore person),
> so what you said still resonates with me.
> I particularly liked your point about what it
> would have meant to create a Consumer Protection
> Agency, and how it would have been undermined by
> Republican administrations. This is a very good and often overlooked point.
> However, you also state that Nader gets some
> credit for the creation of EPA. I have seen this
> in numerous places, but I have never seen anyone
> cite any evidence that Nader called for the
> creation of such an agency before Nixon created
> it. I have read John Whitaker's autobiography,
> especially his account of the creation of EPA,
> and nowhere does he cite pressure from Nader.
> (Not that he necessarily would). Do you have any
> sources that I could take a look at that show
> that Nader was advocating for an EPA (or
> something similar) before it was created?
> Thanks.
> Ray Lodato
> ----------
> Editor,
> Regarding "Ralph Nader Doesn't Hep The Green
> Party" by Marc Solomon, I have this to say.
> I was registered as a Green from the late 1990's
> until early in 2004. I supported Ralph Nader for
> President in 1996 and 2000. After I moved to
> Chico in 2001, I served on the Butte County Green
> Party's County Council. I left the Green Party
> because of the local party's decision to support
> the Nader-Camejo ticket in 2004.
> I believe that if the Green Party is to ever
> become a viable political party, that it needs to
> use all of its resources to elect candidates to
> the state Legislatures and to seats in the House
> of Representatives, and that the Greens must
> target districts where they have the best chances
> of electing those candidates. I'm talking about
> partisan offices, where the Greens have elected
> very few candidates but certainly could have. For
> example: Greens have served on the Santa Monica
> City Council for some time. Why haven't the
> Greens run those local officials for the Assembly
> or the State Senate? Afterall, those city
> councilpersons already have a base. Greens serve
> on other local non-partisan boards in California,
> who could advance to the Legislature or perhaps the House of Representatives.
> The Greens should pretty much give up running
> candidates for statewide offices and for
> President, as that divides their resources.
> Another thing: Were I still living in San
> Francisco in 2003, I would have voted for Matt
> Gonzales in the Mayoral Runoff. However in that
> election, I believe that it would have been
> better for all progressives in San Francisco if
> Gonzales stayed out of that race, and if all of
> the progressives united behind Tom Ammiano.
> Afterall, Ammiano made it to the runoff as a
> write-in in 1999 and received 45% of the vote against incumbent Willie Brown.
> There really was not much difference between
> Ammiano and Gonzales. After being defeated by
> Newsom in a close election, Gonzales who was
> President of the Board of Supervisors decided not
> to seek re-election. It would have been good for
> the Greens if Gonzales had not run for Mayor, and
> been re-elected to the Board of Supervisors
> instead. Perhaps, Gonzales could have been a
> candidate for Migden's State Senate, and running as an incumbent Supervisor.
> I am 61-years old. As things are, I will be at
> least 90 or dead a long time before there ever is
> a viable third party on the left in this country.
> Walter Ballin
> next article
> "More Nader..."
> Mar. 15, 2007
> Editor,
> "For my generation, Nader will always be
> remembered as the reckless ideologue who gave us
> the worst President in American history."
> I'll assume you're talking about Bush II. If you
> are..are we still having this conversation?
> Forget Florida or the 2% Nader won nationwide.
> Look at Tennessee in 2000. It's Gore's state. It
> was also red in 2000. Even if all of Nader's
> votes went to Gore, Bush still carries Tennessee.
> If Gore managed to carry his own state, he wins
> the race. Fuck Florida, fuck the recount, fuck
> the Supreme Court, fuck Nader. If Gore carried
> his own state, he wins. Nader didn't cost Gore
> the election. Gore cost Gore the election. That
> being said, I hope Gore runs again in 08 and I
> hope Nader does as well. Nader has done more for
> this country than any President since FDR.
> Sincerely,
> Eugene Chang
> ----------
> Dear Paul,
> Thanks for your very illuminating article in
> BeyondChron. I confess that I voted for Nader in
> 2000 for reasons I won't go into here. But he has
> always seemed a bit autistic to me, and I'm
> wondering whether something like Asperger's
> syndrome hasn't been considered to explain some
> of his highly unsocial (antisocial?) behavior?
> This would somewhat temper our judgment of him.
> Best,
> Kenneth Kronenberg
> Cambridge, MA
> next article
> Mar. 14, 2007
> Hi Paul,
> Thanks so much for your article: Re-Assessing
> Nader: A Selfish and Unreasonable Man
> I'm going to share it with my Father, who
> remembers how Nader started. For many people
> disenchanted with two party political posturing,
> failing to see the dissimularities between them,
> Nader is not a new, fresh voice. Your article
> clarified some gapping holes to what may have
> started as a promising vision, but ended as an egotistical epic.
> Jul Lynn
> ----------
> First, Hogarth,
> You are not the spokesman for your generation. Al
> Gore lost the Presidency through his own insipid
> campaign after eight years of functioning as the
> rightist point man in the Clinton Administartion.
> Bombing Iraq, blank check for Israel, NAFTA,
> welfare deform, environmental devastation, the
> list goes on. See Alex Cockburn's book on this
> cretin. Oh, did I forget the incredible pick of
> neoconman Lieberman as his running mate ?
> After the Clinton bubble boom bust and such
> spectacles as 26,000 African American voters in
> Duval County, FL voting for two candidates for
> Prez, thus throwing out 26,000 sure Gore votes,
> it's beyond absurd to blame Nader for this
> buffoon's loss. On the hand liberal jerks like
> you are always whining that Gore really won.......well, which is it ?
> By the way, it was the Carter Administration that
> started deregulation, not Reagan. Carter's
> Attorney General, Griffin Bell, later endorsed
> Bork for the Supremes ! Another group of
> "progressives," eh ? If the movement had such a
> good ally in the White House with a heavily Demo
> Congress how come that consumer legislation couldn't pass ?
> Now as far as not paying people, did you forget
> what happened when staffers tried to unionize the
> Bay Guardian in 1976 ? Another bastion of Demo
> Party hack apologists. Or what about KPFA's
> endless exploitation of volunteers for many
> decades ? I guess Nader's to blame for that. We
> should all be good little goosesteppers and cheer
> on Obama or Hillary or whatever clown wins the
> AIPAC primary............. Stick it up your
> gazoo, Pauly. And thanks for reminding us why we
> won't be voting for the Dems in 08.
> Kris Martinsen, Berkeley
> ----------
> Editor:
> As much as I admire Beyond Chron for the overall
> intelligence of its political analysis, these
> past years I have always been troubled by its
> adherence to a popular orthodoxy, shared with the
> San Francisco Chronicle, that promotes a number
> of ignorant myths about Ralph Nader.
> I have not yet seen the film about Nader, "An
> Unreasonable Man." While I suspect it may indeed
> be a "puff piece" as Paul Hogarth describes it, I
> am sorry that he used it as a departure to attack
> Nader as a "reckless ideologue who gave us the
> worst President in American history." That is
> simply a rationalization of hindsight which has been proved to be false.
> The truth is that with the help of crooked
> Florida officials and the Supreme Court, Bush
> stole the 2000 election. For the sake of
> bolstering the illusion that the "system works"
> Gore turned his back on complaints from African
> Americans and closed the case, just as Kerry
> would close the case on the 2004 election shortly
> after John Edwards promised to fight and look into serious fraud allegations.
> If Beyond Chron would look more deeply into what
> has happened in America since the Carter
> administration it will find that citizens'
> democratic and economic participation has been
> sliding while a few have benefited inordinately.
> Yes, things are much worse after six years of
> neocon rule, but it is not because things
> fundamentally changed with Bush's appointment--
> evils progressed from a direction that was fixed
> by neoliberals much earlier (read Robert Pollin).
> Rather than being an egotist, Nader was among the
> first to recognize how our country had jumped a
> track that promised a better life for all. Unlike
> Democrats who reinforce policies that dismantle
> what was best about America, Nader has fought for
> real democracy, against corporatocracy and
> oligarchy, and for the people as much as he always did.
> For more about where Democrats really stand
> today, please read "The Democrats After November"
> by Mike Davis in the New Left Review: http://tinyurl.com/21pn89.
> Sincerely,
> Robert B. Livingston, San Francisco
> ----------
> To Paul Hogarth:
> It is encouraging to hear criticism of the
> 'sainted' Ralph Nader. I would differ, however,
> on your diagnosis of "selfish egotist. and. brave
> crusader." The first is too mild; the second true
> only if "crusader" is synonymous with "zealot."
> Ralph Nader, throughout his career, exhibited the
> traits of the "true believer", as defined by Eric
> Hoffer in The True Believer - Thoughts on the
> Nature of Mass Movements [1951 Harper]. As an
> aside, it is sad that San Franciscans remember
> fatuous pop icons and gossip columnists, but fail
> to remember San Francisco's longshoreman philosopher.
> True believers sacrifice all for the cause and
> discard those followers who do not. True
> believers demand absolute loyalty and define any
> disagreement as treachery. True believers never
> question the rightness of the cause, even when it
> brings great suffering. True believers reject
> compromise as failure. Throughout life, true
> believers progress toward extremes and
> often become increasingly isolated. For the true
> believer, total catastrophe is better than
> partial success because it punishes non-believers
> and educates them to the cause. True believers
> find no contradiction in their personal profit from the cause.
> The saddest thing about Ralph Nader is that, in
> the end, his Gotterdammerung damaged many
> well-meaning liberals in states like Texas,
> Oklahoma, and Georgia - where being liberal has always been a risky business.
> Wayne Lanier
> ----------
> Editor,
> Your "review" is sheer drivel. It's impossible to
> believe you saw the same movie I did. And I saw
> it twice and a half and plan to own the DVD as soon as it comes out.
> If Ralph Nader is a selfish egotist, let's have
> many more like him! This country would be a different place.
> Ivana Edwards
> ----------
> Editor,
> Nader may be an unreasonable man like the rest of
> us, but he is more resonable than a lot of us.
> The catastrophy we are in today didn't arise from
> a spontaneous generation. It is the making of
> long years of a lack of people like Nader. The
> 2000 election was lost with or without Nader,
> (when did Gore for instance ever mention the
> Environment during his presedential campaign?
> Didn't he have to fire a close aide who was anti
> labor? etc.). But with Nader on the PRESEDENTIAL
> DEBATE the Amercian people got to hear some harsh
> realities, a rude awakening that may yield fruits
> in the long run. The underlying truth about all
> the attacks on Nader is to eliminate the like of
> him from the highest debate of the land: The Presedential Debate.
> Nafiss Griffis
> ----------
> Editor,
> While I am no Nader devotee and didn't vote for
> him or anyone else in 2000, I think we need to
> get over blaming him for Bush's victory.
> Al Gore won - the Republicans stole that election
> and something like 8 million registered democrats
> voted for George Bush. Aren't they more to blame
> for the Bush era than the few lefties who voted
> for Nader and probably wouldn't have voted for
> Gore anyway had Nader not been on the ballot? You
> are right that the world has changed and but is
> it true that everything he has argued about
> electoral politics has been completely disproven
> in the last six years? Yes the country wouldn't
> be at war in Iraq if Gore had been president, but
> 77 senators voted to authorize war. Worse, 98
> Senators voted for the Patriot Act! 98! Don't
> these numbers somewhat vindicate Nader's position?
> I just hate to see such an accomplished activist
> and pioneer so continuously beat up on and
> scapegoated. Nader has affected so much positive
> change it is hard to point to anyone else who has
> a more substantial legacy of consumer and
> environmental protection. And yet somehow in the
> twisted world of American politics George Bush
> was considered a serious candidate and Ralph
> Nader has been demonized even though we know that
> is was Republican treachery and Democratic
> complicity that determined the 2000 election
> result, not Nader's principled campaign.
> Julian Davis
> __________________________________________________________
> Letters to the Editor
> "Even More Nader..."
> Mar. 16, 2007
> Paul,
> I couldn't disagree more strongly with your
> vitriolic column about Ralph Nader. These are my points of contention:
> 1.. Nader did not willingly run for the
> presidency the first time. The Green Party had to
> beg him to run, and he only acquiesced after
> several months. He has run of his own volition
> since, but this wasn't his idea to begin with.
> 2.. Blaming Nader for Al Gore's loss in the
> presidential campaign is the "official" point of
> view of the Democratic Party, which thinks that
> everyone left of the Republicans in this country
> has an obligation to vote Democratic. Well, guess
> what: the Democrats don't represent many of us,
> and we won't vote Democratic unless someone like
> Barbara Lee or Dennis Kucinich is running. Gore
> and Kerry have no one but themselves to blame for
> losing their elections. Neither of them even
> mentioned the environment, which would have been
> their strongest issue v. Bush. They were both so
> right wing that they could have been running as
> moderate Republicans. Yes, one can make the
> argument that if Nader hadn't pulled votes from
> Gore in Florida Gore would have won the election,
> but more Democrats voted for Bush than for Nader,
> so why point the finger at Nader? Why not focus
> your anger what's wrong with the Democratic Party
> instead of blaming someone like Ralph Nader who's
> exponentially better politically? A much better
> argument is that Gore lost the election because
> he wouldn't advocate any populist or environmental ideas.
> 3. Picking on personal traits in people running
> for office is the type of evil thing that Karl
> Rove would do and it's just plain wrong. Look,
> almost all of these people are egomaniacs or they
> wouldn't run in the first place; the percentage
> of exceptions can be figured by the percentage of
> the Progressive Caucus in the House of
> Representatives compared to the entire Congress
> after dividing the caucus by at least two.
> Unfortunately, we don't get Buddhist monks running for office.
> Overall, you're obviously more conservative than
> I am and are willing to settle for the
> evil-of-two-lessers, which I am not. This would
> explain why you blame Nader for Gore's losing to
> Bush and why you have such a grudge against him.
> But you should realize that those of us on the
> other side (i.e., those for whom the Democratic
> Party is far too conservative) still support
> Nader, at least in principle if not in strategy.
> By writing columns like the one bashing Nader,
> you will assure that our two camps will never
> unite to defeat the truly evil ones who now run
> the country. Please save your vitriol for those
> who deserve it, like the current administration
> in Washington and their ruling class masters.
> Targeting people like Ralph Nader serves no purpose but theirs.
> Jeff Hoffman
> San Francisco
> ----------
> Editor,
> Do you know where the "egotist" charge came from?
> Gore sent out a swift-boat style hit team (Gloria
> Steinam, et al) to smear Ralph Nader in 2000.
> They never, ever talked issues, they just called
> Ralph names, and they all used the tern
> "egotist." It was a PR creation, a way to avoid
> confronting Nader on the issues. You swallow
> every bit of anti-Nader tripe that the
> establishment has dished out over the years, and
> treat it as your own revelation. You know nothing
> of the man. I know him well, and his soul is as
> beautiful as yours is mean-spirited and ugly.
> Greg Kafoury
> EDITOR'S NOTE: Kafoury is a lawyer in Portland who served as Ralph
> Nader's campaign manager in Oregon
> ----------
> Hi Paul,
> I liked your piece on the new Nader film, which I
> haven't seen. I nearly lost a 20-year friendship
> over the 2000 election (I was the Gore person),
> so what you said still resonates with me.
> I particularly liked your point about what it
> would have meant to create a Consumer Protection
> Agency, and how it would have been undermined by
> Republican administrations. This is a very good and often overlooked point.
> However, you also state that Nader gets some
> credit for the creation of EPA. I have seen this
> in numerous places, but I have never seen anyone
> cite any evidence that Nader called for the
> creation of such an agency before Nixon created
> it. I have read John Whitaker's autobiography,
> especially his account of the creation of EPA,
> and nowhere does he cite pressure from Nader.
> (Not that he necessarily would). Do you have any
> sources that I could take a look at that show
> that Nader was advocating for an EPA (or
> something similar) before it was created?
> Thanks.
> Ray Lodato
> ----------
> Editor,
> Regarding "Ralph Nader Doesn't Hep The Green
> Party" by Marc Solomon, I have this to say.
> I was registered as a Green from the late 1990's
> until early in 2004. I supported Ralph Nader for
> President in 1996 and 2000. After I moved to
> Chico in 2001, I served on the Butte County Green
> Party's County Council. I left the Green Party
> because of the local party's decision to support
> the Nader-Camejo ticket in 2004.
> I believe that if the Green Party is to ever
> become a viable political party, that it needs to
> use all of its resources to elect candidates to
> the state Legislatures and to seats in the House
> of Representatives, and that the Greens must
> target districts where they have the best chances
> of electing those candidates. I'm talking about
> partisan offices, where the Greens have elected
> very few candidates but certainly could have. For
> example: Greens have served on the Santa Monica
> City Council for some time. Why haven't the
> Greens run those local officials for the Assembly
> or the State Senate? Afterall, those city
> councilpersons already have a base. Greens serve
> on other local non-partisan boards in California,
> who could advance to the Legislature or perhaps the House of Representatives.
> The Greens should pretty much give up running
> candidates for statewide offices and for
> President, as that divides their resources.
> Another thing: Were I still living in San
> Francisco in 2003, I would have voted for Matt
> Gonzales in the Mayoral Runoff. However in that
> election, I believe that it would have been
> better for all progressives in San Francisco if
> Gonzales stayed out of that race, and if all of
> the progressives united behind Tom Ammiano.
> Afterall, Ammiano made it to the runoff as a
> write-in in 1999 and received 45% of the vote against incumbent Willie Brown.
> There really was not much difference between
> Ammiano and Gonzales. After being defeated by
> Newsom in a close election, Gonzales who was
> President of the Board of Supervisors decided not
> to seek re-election. It would have been good for
> the Greens if Gonzales had not run for Mayor, and
> been re-elected to the Board of Supervisors
> instead. Perhaps, Gonzales could have been a
> candidate for Migden's State Senate, and running as an incumbent Supervisor.
> I am 61-years old. As things are, I will be at
> least 90 or dead a long time before there ever is
> a viable third party on the left in this country.
> Walter Ballin
> You can submit letters to the editor by clicking
> on this link: <mailto:rshaw at beyondchron.org>rshaw at beyondchron.org
> or by writing to:
> Beyond Chron
> 126 Hyde Street
> San Francisco, CA 94102
> 415-771-9850 (phone)
> 415-771-1287 (fax)
> next article
> "More Nader..."
> Mar. 15, 2007
> Editor,
> "For my generation, Nader will always be
> remembered as the reckless ideologue who gave us
> the worst President in American history."
> I'll assume you're talking about Bush II. If you
> are..are we still having this conversation?
> Forget Florida or the 2% Nader won nationwide.
> Look at Tennessee in 2000. It's Gore's state. It
> was also red in 2000. Even if all of Nader's
> votes went to Gore, Bush still carries Tennessee.
> If Gore managed to carry his own state, he wins
> the race. Fuck Florida, fuck the recount, fuck
> the Supreme Court, fuck Nader. If Gore carried
> his own state, he wins. Nader didn't cost Gore
> the election. Gore cost Gore the election. That
> being said, I hope Gore runs again in 08 and I
> hope Nader does as well. Nader has done more for
> this country than any President since FDR.
> Sincerely,
> Eugene Chang
> ----------
> Dear Paul,
> Thanks for your very illuminating article in
> BeyondChron. I confess that I voted for Nader in
> 2000 for reasons I won't go into here. But he has
> always seemed a bit autistic to me, and I'm
> wondering whether something like Asperger's
> syndrome hasn't been considered to explain some
> of his highly unsocial (antisocial?) behavior?
> This would somewhat temper our judgment of him.
> Best,
> Kenneth Kronenberg
> Cambridge, MA
> You can submit letters to the editor by clicking
> on this link: <mailto:rshaw at beyondchron.org>rshaw at beyondchron.org
> or by writing to:
> Beyond Chron
> 126 Hyde Street
> San Francisco, CA 94102
> 415-771-9850 (phone)
> 415-771-1287 (fax)
> next article
> "Ralph Nader..."
> Mar. 14, 2007
> Hi Paul,
> Thanks so much for your article: Re-Assessing
> Nader: A Selfish and Unreasonable Man
> I'm going to share it with my Father, who
> remembers how Nader started. For many people
> disenchanted with two party political posturing,
> failing to see the dissimularities between them,
> Nader is not a new, fresh voice. Your article
> clarified some gapping holes to what may have
> started as a promising vision, but ended as an egotistical epic.
> Jul Lynn
> ----------
> First, Hogarth,
> You are not the spokesman for your generation. Al
> Gore lost the Presidency through his own insipid
> campaign after eight years of functioning as the
> rightist point man in the Clinton Administartion.
> Bombing Iraq, blank check for Israel, NAFTA,
> welfare deform, environmental devastation, the
> list goes on. See Alex Cockburn's book on this
> cretin. Oh, did I forget the incredible pick of
> neoconman Lieberman as his running mate ?
> After the Clinton bubble boom bust and such
> spectacles as 26,000 African American voters in
> Duval County, FL voting for two candidates for
> Prez, thus throwing out 26,000 sure Gore votes,
> it's beyond absurd to blame Nader for this
> buffoon's loss. On the hand liberal jerks like
> you are always whining that Gore really won.......well, which is it ?
> By the way, it was the Carter Administration that
> started deregulation, not Reagan. Carter's
> Attorney General, Griffin Bell, later endorsed
> Bork for the Supremes ! Another group of
> "progressives," eh ? If the movement had such a
> good ally in the White House with a heavily Demo
> Congress how come that consumer legislation couldn't pass ?
> Now as far as not paying people, did you forget
> what happened when staffers tried to unionize the
> Bay Guardian in 1976 ? Another bastion of Demo
> Party hack apologists. Or what about KPFA's
> endless exploitation of volunteers for many
> decades ? I guess Nader's to blame for that. We
> should all be good little goosesteppers and cheer
> on Obama or Hillary or whatever clown wins the
> AIPAC primary............. Stick it up your
> gazoo, Pauly. And thanks for reminding us why we
> won't be voting for the Dems in 08.
> Kris Martinsen, Berkeley
> ----------
> Editor:
> As much as I admire Beyond Chron for the overall
> intelligence of its political analysis, these
> past years I have always been troubled by its
> adherence to a popular orthodoxy, shared with the
> San Francisco Chronicle, that promotes a number
> of ignorant myths about Ralph Nader.
> I have not yet seen the film about Nader, "An
> Unreasonable Man." While I suspect it may indeed
> be a "puff piece" as Paul Hogarth describes it, I
> am sorry that he used it as a departure to attack
> Nader as a "reckless ideologue who gave us the
> worst President in American history." That is
> simply a rationalization of hindsight which has been proved to be false.
> The truth is that with the help of crooked
> Florida officials and the Supreme Court, Bush
> stole the 2000 election. For the sake of
> bolstering the illusion that the "system works"
> Gore turned his back on complaints from African
> Americans and closed the case, just as Kerry
> would close the case on the 2004 election shortly
> after John Edwards promised to fight and look into serious fraud allegations.
> If Beyond Chron would look more deeply into what
> has happened in America since the Carter
> administration it will find that citizens'
> democratic and economic participation has been
> sliding while a few have benefited inordinately.
> Yes, things are much worse after six years of
> neocon rule, but it is not because things
> fundamentally changed with Bush's appointment--
> evils progressed from a direction that was fixed
> by neoliberals much earlier (read Robert Pollin).
> Rather than being an egotist, Nader was among the
> first to recognize how our country had jumped a
> track that promised a better life for all. Unlike
> Democrats who reinforce policies that dismantle
> what was best about America, Nader has fought for
> real democracy, against corporatocracy and
> oligarchy, and for the people as much as he always did.
> For more about where Democrats really stand
> today, please read "The Democrats After November"
> by Mike Davis in the New Left Review: http://tinyurl.com/21pn89.
> Sincerely,
> Robert B. Livingston, San Francisco
> ----------
> To Paul Hogarth:
> It is encouraging to hear criticism of the
> 'sainted' Ralph Nader. I would differ, however,
> on your diagnosis of "selfish egotist. and. brave
> crusader." The first is too mild; the second true
> only if "crusader" is synonymous with "zealot."
> Ralph Nader, throughout his career, exhibited the
> traits of the "true believer", as defined by Eric
> Hoffer in The True Believer - Thoughts on the
> Nature of Mass Movements [1951 Harper]. As an
> aside, it is sad that San Franciscans remember
> fatuous pop icons and gossip columnists, but fail
> to remember San Francisco's longshoreman philosopher.
> True believers sacrifice all for the cause and
> discard those followers who do not. True
> believers demand absolute loyalty and define any
> disagreement as treachery. True believers never
> question the rightness of the cause, even when it
> brings great suffering. True believers reject
> compromise as failure. Throughout life, true
> believers progress toward extremes and
> often become increasingly isolated. For the true
> believer, total catastrophe is better than
> partial success because it punishes non-believers
> and educates them to the cause. True believers
> find no contradiction in their personal profit from the cause.
> The saddest thing about Ralph Nader is that, in
> the end, his Gotterdammerung damaged many
> well-meaning liberals in states like Texas,
> Oklahoma, and Georgia - where being liberal has always been a risky business.
> Wayne Lanier
> ----------
> Editor,
> Your "review" is sheer drivel. It's impossible to
> believe you saw the same movie I did. And I saw
> it twice and a half and plan to own the DVD as soon as it comes out.
> If Ralph Nader is a selfish egotist, let's have
> many more like him! This country would be a different place.
> Ivana Edwards
> ----------
> Editor,
> Nader may be an unreasonable man like the rest of
> us, but he is more resonable than a lot of us.
> The catastrophy we are in today didn't arise from
> a spontaneous generation. It is the making of
> long years of a lack of people like Nader. The
> 2000 election was lost with or without Nader,
> (when did Gore for instance ever mention the
> Environment during his presedential campaign?
> Didn't he have to fire a close aide who was anti
> labor? etc.). But with Nader on the PRESEDENTIAL
> DEBATE the Amercian people got to hear some harsh
> realities, a rude awakening that may yield fruits
> in the long run. The underlying truth about all
> the attacks on Nader is to eliminate the like of
> him from the highest debate of the land: The Presedential Debate.
> Nafiss Griffis
> ----------
> Editor,
> While I am no Nader devotee and didn't vote for
> him or anyone else in 2000, I think we need to
> get over blaming him for Bush's victory.
> Al Gore won - the Republicans stole that election
> and something like 8 million registered democrats
> voted for George Bush. Aren't they more to blame
> for the Bush era than the few lefties who voted
> for Nader and probably wouldn't have voted for
> Gore anyway had Nader not been on the ballot? You
> are right that the world has changed and but is
> it true that everything he has argued about
> electoral politics has been completely disproven
> in the last six years? Yes the country wouldn't
> be at war in Iraq if Gore had been president, but
> 77 senators voted to authorize war. Worse, 98
> Senators voted for the Patriot Act! 98! Don't
> these numbers somewhat vindicate Nader's position?
> I just hate to see such an accomplished activist
> and pioneer so continuously beat up on and
> scapegoated. Nader has affected so much positive
> change it is hard to point to anyone else who has
> a more substantial legacy of consumer and
> environmental protection. And yet somehow in the
> twisted world of American politics George Bush
> was considered a serious candidate and Ralph
> Nader has been demonized even though we know that
> is was Republican treachery and Democratic
> complicity that determined the 2000 election
> result, not Nader's principled campaign.
> Julian Davis
> ----------
"The only way out of our crisis (terrorism) is to reduce the anger of the most
rational, thus also reducing the constituency of the least rational." Sam Smith.
"When they come for the innocent without crossing over
your body, cursed be your religion and your life." Anon. But
often quoted by Dorothy Day.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Richard Walton" <richard at soup.org>
-----------------------------------------------------------
More information about the gpri-forum
mailing list