Reproaching Ralph

I know a lot of heads have strong feelings about this election and=20
Ralph's influence on mainstream politics, so here's David Corn's=20
opinion. I don't agree with all of it, but some points are interesting.=20
Ralph is not on the Nov ballet here in California as some may not know,=20
but there is a concerted effort to write him in. I am currently leaning=20
that way, as I will not support a pro-war president.. I had wished his=20
campaign would've gathered more positive press, however with the state=20
of media in this country I didn't expect it. More than anything else=20
this election I hoped that voter reform would gather strength. This does=20
not seem to be the fact, and even with the (non)debates over with, no=20
real new views having come about. Is this country so apathetic that it=20
has completely given up on any reforms. Do people believe reform must=20
come from within Washington? Seriously? Is the status quo really ok for=20
most today? I would spit the usual ... corporations / debt have pacified=20
the nation..blah blah blah, but really. Where has the action of the 70s=20
gone? Have we finally realized again, as the weather underground did in=20
the 70's that peaceful marches and grassroots action really don't=20
matter? Millions marching across the globe, millions in our own country.=20
What did we gain? The polarization has not stopped. The attacks from=20
both sides have not quelled anything. All this talk about=20
division/inclusion... are we really going to see anything get better=20
with either of these parties? I'll cast my vote for Nader and say no. A=20
wasted vote? I don't believe in such a thing. A wasted election? Now=20
there's something I agree with.

-J

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1013-33.htm

Published on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 by TomPaine.com
Reproaching Ralph
Nader's Bid for President has Failed Utterly to Achieve Any of Its=20
Stated Goals
by David Corn


I have not written about Ralph Nader=92s campaign for the presidency=97un=
til=20
now=97for three reasons. First, I worked for Ralph (who has reached=20
first-name stature) 24 years ago. Not even out of college yet, I spent a=20
year as a writer for various publications and books produced by Ralph=20
and his public interest groups. In this position, I gathered the=20
connections and learned what I needed to start a career in independent=20
journalism. Ralph gave me my start, and I am forever grateful for that=20
and, more importantly, for the fine public interest work he has done for=20
decades. It is a clich=E9=97because it is true=97that Ralph has achieved =
more=20
for Americans than most members of Congress. It has saddened me to watch=20
him destroy his legacy (which is shared by the many who have toiled with=20
him) by mounting a fool=92s errand of a campaign. Thus, I have avoided=20
this painful topic. There is, after all, much else to write and think abo=
ut.

Reason No. 2: Nothing I could write would change anything. That is, it=20
would not persuade Ralph to abandon his bid. Earlier in the year, I=20
watched=97and kibitzed=97as his closest and most loyal friends and=20
colleagues attempted to convince Ralph it would be a huge mistake to=20
launch another presidential campaign. None thought that whatever=20
benefits might be derived from such a campaign would be worth the=20
potential cost: being a factor in a Bush victory. None found Ralph=92s=20
logic=85well, logical. He insisted that he could help John Kerry by makin=
g=20
a strong case against Bush, that he would draw conservative voters from=20
Bush, that he would place important issues neglected by the two main=20
candidates in the spotlight, that he would help break the=20
corporate-funded duopoly that controls power in Washington. But it was=20
fanciful for Ralph to believe that he could cause Bush voters to jump=20
the GOP ship because he provided an alternative other than Kerry. Or=20
that he could coax the media to focus on his issues rather than his role=20
as a possible spoiler. Or that another 3 percent or less finish would do=20
much to improve the prospects of multi-party democracy in America. He=20
hasn=92t even been running this year to boost the Green Party.

Yet run, he thought, he must. Imagine a scenario in which practically=20
all of your pals and supporters tell you an idea you have is absolutely=20
foolish and self-destructive and still you pursue it. No, there was=20
nothing I could do to stop this one-man runaway train. It even seemed=20
that the more opposition he received from his own crowd, the more=20
defiant he became. (And I don=92t relish the phone call from Ralph this=20
column might spur.)

My third reason: I thought the odds were low that Ralph could affect the=20
2004 outcome. There are lefty voters out there totally alienated from=20
the Democratic Party. These people sincerely=97if wrongly=97believe there=
 is=20
little difference between the Ds and the Rs. They will vote for Ralph,=20
and no one can count their votes as votes swiped from Kerry. But after=20
the fiasco of 2000, it seemed fair to assume that not many of those few=20
swing-state voters who do find themselves on the Kerry-Nader fence would=20
opt for Ralph. I=92ve been traveling to college campuses for speaking gig=
s=20
this fall, however, and I have encountered students who say they have=20
friends=97I suspect they mean themselves=97who are considering voting for=
=20
Ralph over Kerry. And Ralph has been drawing enthusiastic crowds while=20
stumping (though nothing like his super-rallies, MCed by Michael Moore=20
in 2000). In a tight contest in a key state or two, maybe, just maybe,=20
Ralph might make an unfortunate difference. Political observers in=20
Minnesota=97where Ralph bagged 5.2 percent of the vote in 2000=97wonder i=
f=20
he might tilt the balance there this year.

What to say now? It is absolutely pointless to urge Ralph to change=20
course. Stubbornness was one of the assets that helped him survive=97and=20
surmount=97the difficult times of his life. Tragically, it has become his=
=20
downfall. So why write about Ralph=92s errant campaign? Just to register=20
profound disappointment. Not just with his continued obstinacy but also=20
with how he has campaigned. He has accepted more than $100,000 in=20
campaign contributions from Republican funders and consultants,=20
including people who have financed the political action committee run by=20
the anti-Kerry Swift Vets. This places Ralph in the same bed with=20
supporters of the policies he despises and with the big-money fat cats=20
who have underwritten one of the sleaziest political smears in years.=20
And he has been willfully blind to the ugliness of this alliance. His=20
spokesperson Kevin Zeese dismissed the news of the Swift Vet-linked=20
contributions: =93It proves nothing=85.These are individuals, these are n=
ot=20
contributions from the Swift Boat PAC.=94 Ralph is understandably pissed=20
off at the Democratic Party apparatus that has tried to keep him of=20
ballots and has aired ads attacking him. But what did he expect?=20
Pointing to the bare-knuckled tactics of a foe does not excuse Ralph for=20
his own strategic miscalculations and for forging momentarily useful=20
relationships with the forces he has opposed his whole career. Does=20
Ralph, who argues his campaign does not pose more of a threat to Kerry=20
than to Bush, really believe that he knows better than his GOP partners=20
who obviously believe the Nader campaign is mainly a problem for Kerry?

And Ralph has not played it straight. When he entered the race, he=20
maintained that his presence could help Kerry. Yet he now actively seeks=20
to undermine Kerry. He has been campaigning in swing states. He recently=20
proclaimed =93a vote for John Kerry is a vote for war.=94 And how many=20
important issues has he been able to raise? This month, he took his=20
campaign to the headquarters of Skull and Bones at Yale University to=20
protest that secret society. Much of his campaign seems to be about his=20
right to have a campaign. When challenged by pro-Kerry voters on the=20
stump, Ralph says he is expressing his right to free speech by running:=20
=93We should never say to each other not to run because that means do not=
=20
speak, do not petition, do not assemble.=94 He is dead wrong. Telling=20
someone not to run for office because his or her candidacy might be=20
tactically unwise is not denying that person his or her political=20
rights. Ralph could have spent the year speaking out=97as a=20
non-candidate=97and have reached larger audiences more effectively. In=20
fact, when some of his colleagues and supporters were desperately trying=20
to dissuade Ralph from entering the race, they floated the idea of=20
establishing an outfit or road show that would enable Ralph to travel=20
the country and assail Bush. But he was not interested. A presidential=20
campaign was hardly the only avenue for Ralph to express his views.

Has he been able to have an impact on the national discourse? No. That=20
has been predictable. It=92s not Ralph=92s fault that the mainstream medi=
a=20
are not eager to devote much attention to the policy pronouncements of=20
an independent candidates who draws 1 to 3 percent support in the polls.=20
But Ralph had to know this would be the reality he would encounter. Any=20
responsible political actor has an obligation to recognize what=20
opportunities truly exist. In some years, paying no attention to reality=20
in order to challenge the dominant paradigm might make sense. (I wrote=20
neither in favor nor in opposition to his run in 2000.) But in a=20
non-parliamentarian, winner-takes-all system, one cannot ignore the=20
oppressive rules that render it so difficult for an independent or=20
third-party candidate to have a positive impact on the campaign and the=20
final outcome.

At first, I thought that the Dems overreacted in their response to=20
Ralph, and I told people that perhaps it would be best to ignore him.=20
But like many other past admirers of Ralph=97whom he now bitterly=20
derides=97I worry that the election might be close enough for Ralph to en=
d=20
up in the same place as 2000: either as the actual spoiler or as the=20
widely accused spoiler. In either case, Ralph will be remembered more=20
for this misguided campaign than the decades of his public do-gooding. I=20
wish he saw it this way=97for both his own sake and for the sake of the=20
country he has cared so much about.

David Corn writes the Loyal Opposition twice a month for TomPaine.com.=20
Corn is also the Washington editor of The Nation and is the author of=20
The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown=20
Publishers).
_______________________________________________
heads mailing list
[email protected]
http://your.ballistichelmet.org/mailman/listinfo/heads/
http://ballistichelmet.org/donate/