Ralph Nader replies to an open letter in the Nation: Whither the Nation? Go Ralph Go!!

The Nation ^ | 2/21/04

[areafiftyone]

The following letter is a response to "An Open Letter to Ralph Nader," which appeared in the February 16 issue.

Washington, DC

As I reread slowly your open letter, which kindly started and closed with your demand "Don't run," memories of past Nation magazine writing, going back to the days of Carey McWilliams and earlier, came to mind. I share them with you.

Long ago the The Nation stood steadfastly for more voices and choices inside the electoral arenas, which today are more dominated than ever by the two-party duopoly trending toward one-party districts:

"Don't run."

The Nation's pages embrace large areas of agreement with the undersigned on policy matters and political reforms, especially the abusive power of Big Business over elections, the government and the economy:

"Don't run."

The Nation has been sharply critical of the Democratic Party's stagnation, the corporatist Democratic Leadership Council and its domination by Big Money. This is the same party that has just ganged up on its insurgents and reasserted its established forces:

"Don't run."

The Nation has urgently reported on a tawdry electoral system--ridden with fraud and manipulation--that discourages earnest people from running clean campaigns about authentic necessities of the American people and the rest of the world:

"Don't run."

The Nation first informed me as a young man about the deliberate barriers--statutory, monetary, media and others--to third parties and independent candidates for a chance to compete, bring out more votes and generate more civic and political energies. This led me to write my first article on these exclusions against smaller candidacies in the late 1950s:

"Don't run."

The Nation has often encouraged the longer- run effect of small candidacies (civil rights, economic populism, women's suffrage, labor and farmer parties), which have pushed the agendas of the major parties and sown the seeds for future adoption:

"Don't run."

The Nation has dutifully recorded the hapless state of the Democratic Party, which for the past ten years has registered more and more losses at the federal, state and local levels. The party even managed to "lose" the presidency in 2000, which it actually won, even with all other "what ifs" considered, both before (Katherine Harris's voter purge), during (the deceptive ballots) and afterward (recount blunders by the party):

"Don't run."

The Nation has editorialized about the spineless Democrats who could have stopped the two giant tax cuts for the wealthy, the unconstitutional war resolution, the Patriot(less) Act and John Ashcroft's nomination (to mention a few surrenders). Yet you have not pointed to any external ways to stiffen the resolve or jolt the passivity of Jefferson's party, which lately has become very good at electing very bad Republicans all by itself:

"Don't run."

The Nation believes this cycle is different and that the Democrats have aroused themselves. This view is not the reality we experience regularly in Washington. Witness the latest collapse of the party's opposition to the subsidy-ridden, wrongheaded energy and Medicare drug-benefit legislation--two core party issues:

"Don't run."

The Nation's venerable reputation has been anything but conceding the practical politics of servility, which brings us worse servility and weaker democracy every four years:

"Don't run."

The Nation has intensely disliked being held hostage to antiquated electoral rules, from the Electoral College to the winner-take-all system that discounts tens of millions of votes. Such a stand would seem to call for candidates on the inside to highlight and help build the public constituency for change over time:

"Don't run."

It doesn't seem that The Nation would disagree with the conclusions of George Scialabba, who wrote last year in The Boston Review, "Two-party dominance allows disproportionate influence to swing voters, single-issue constituencies, and campaign contributors; it promotes negative, contentless campaigns; it rewards grossly inequitable redistricting schemes, and it penalizes those who disagree with both parties but fear to 'waste' their votes (which is why Nader probably lost many more voters to Gore than Gore lost to Nader)":

"Don't run."

The Nation's open letter does not go far enough in predicting where my votes would come from, beyond correctly inferring that there would be few liberal Democratic supporters. The out-of-power party always returns to the fold, while the in-power party sees its edges looking for alternatives. Much more than New Hampshire in 2000, where I received more Republican than Democratic votes, any candidacy would be directed toward Independents, Greens, third-party supporters, true progressives and conservative and liberal Republicans, who are becoming furious with George W. Bush's policies, such as massive deficits, publicized corporate crimes, subsidies and pornography, civil liberties encroachments, sovereignty-suppressing trade agreements and outsourcing. And, of course, any candidacy would seek to do what we all must strive for--getting out more nonvoters, who are now almost the majority of eligible voters:

"Don't run."

The Nation wants badly to defeat the selected President Bush but thinks there is only one pathway to doing so. This approach excludes a second front of voters against the regime, which could raise fresh subjects, motivating language and the vulnerabilities of corporate scandals and blocked reforms that the Democrats are too cautious, too indentured to their paymasters to launch--but are free to adopt if they see these succeed:

"Don't run."

The Nation has rarely been a hostage to prevailing dogma and electoral straitjackets. Its pages have articulated many "minorities of one" over its wondrous tenure and has watched many of its viewpoints today become the commonplace of tomorrow.

I have not known The Nation to so walk away from those engaging in a difficult struggle it champions on the merits, in a climate of conventional groupthink--much less with a precipitous prognosis of a distant outcome governed by a multitude of variables. Discussions and critiques from a distance, after all, are a dime a dozen in an election year. O apotheosis of the exercise of dissent inside and outside the electoral commons since 1865:

"Don't walk."

RALPH NADER
www.naderexplore04.org

---

THE EDITORS REPLY

Dear Ralph,

We agree with your characterization of The Nation and what it stands for--and has stood for since 1865. But we disagree with your characterization of why we appealed to you not to run for President this year.

Please don't run.    --The Editors

[dandelion]

I'll say it, and I MEAN it - I'd rather see Ralphie in the White House than Kerry. At least Nader isn't bought and paid for by the Clintons...

[sauropod]

Just heard on FNC, Ralph's in.

[Paradox]

This is the same party that has just ganged up on its insurgents and reasserted its established forces:

He's talking about Dean. The way the Democrats and allies destroyed Dean, Ralph is going to make them pay..

[areafiftyone]

I have to agree.

[cripplecreek]

The party of inclusion is getting a wake up call.

[JohnGalt]

I had heard rumors that Nader might run to the right of Bush on immigration.

[areafiftyone]

I don't think so. More scare tactics from the democreeps trying to get him not to run by appealing to the Repubs.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Whoa.

Did Ralph just tear The Nation a new one, or WHAT...?!? :)

[sauropod]

LOL! That's so true!

Better whisper that. You might wake up the Star Chamber.

[areafiftyone]

Snicker Snicker!! Ralph is one straight shooter. Good for him!

[Salman]

I want Ralph to run and come in second.

[zencat]

GO RALPH GO!

You know Terry McAwful's heart just skipped a beat.

[AD from SpringBay]

Nader - Dean ?

[areafiftyone]

Nah I think Nader-Kucinich

[BobS]

YEE-HAA!

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

You're both wrong: Nader/SHARPTON. :)

[areafiftyone]

LOL OMG what a ticket!

[Fee]

Nader several months stated that if Dean is the Democrat nominee he will not run. Since Dean is out, Nader is in.

[abclily]

Nation magazine is a Communist publication. And they want Nadar to not take votes from Kerry? The Communist publication wants the Democrat to win? Whoda thunk it!!!

[Eldorado431]

Nader/Hillary. Go Ralphie Boy!!!! lol

[areafiftyone]

I always wondered about this but if you put a black beard on Ralph Nader who would he look like? Lincoln!! Not that he is in any way like Lincoln but the man is as funny looking as Lincoln was.

[areafiftyone]

Nader is not being cowed by any magazine or democreep. Good for him!

[areafiftyone]

HEY I'M DRINKING COFFEE HERE!! I ALMOST SPIT IT ALL OVER MY KEYBOARD!

[blackie]

I'll bet the lunatic left at DU are having seizures.

[geedee]

Piss on 'em, Ralph. Run, baby, run!

[areafiftyone]

They are believe me. I have been lurking and they are livid at Ralph. They are writing to him, sending petitions, trying to now support Roy Moore of the Constitution party so they can play tit for tat with Repubs. They really are a bunch of children aren't they?

[trek]

What are you talking about!? Osama Bin Laden is a "straight shooter" too. He says exactly what he intends to do. Does this candor change at all what he is?

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

I'll bet the lunatic left at DU are having seizures.

Oh, they are, they are! There's one thread over there advocating (in perfect seriousness) that any/all Nader supporters be rounded up and assassinated!

Go! Stare! Giggle! :)

[blackie]

They are very childish ~ I wouldn't have it any other way. :)

I think I'll send Ralphie a couple of bucks. :)

[areafiftyone]

Wow that is pretty crazy. I think this is the year we see Democreeps get carted away to the funny farm one by one!

[blackie]

"Rounded up and assassinated" ~ you gotta be kidding ~ they've really flipped ~ how sweet it is!

hohoho!

[David Isaac]

Last night I talked to a man I hadn't seen in some time. I've known this guy for many years, having worked with him occasionally in the masonary trades. He is a very conservative person, almost a throwback to a century or more, ago.

I have always known him to be unhappy with the direction taken by our political leaders, educators, and entertainers, over the past few decades. He mentioned that perhaps people would be able to protest some of the things that have been happening, if only they had the means to communicate effectively. I had to tell him about the internet and particularly this web-site.

He was quite amazed that such a thing existed, but computers are a completely alien thing as far as he is concerned, having just mastered the telephone answering machine.

He startled me by saying that, given the choices in the upcoming election, he might give his vote to Nader. That took me completely by surprise. But, coupled with what I am reading here, this morning, that surprise is diminishing somewhat.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Look for the DU thread entitled (in part) "let's kill their independent @sses!"

(I can't type out the entire title, I'm afraid, as Jim -- thankfully -- doesn't allow that sort of language on this site. You'll know it when you see it, I assure you.) :)

[Porterville]

The Nation has dutifully recorded the hapless state of the Democratic Party, which for the past ten years has registered more and more losses at the federal, state and local levels.

Finally a democrap that can understand why they are such losers....

[camas]

maybe it stopped!! his heart that is.

[trek]

I don't want to spoil the party, but the way Bush and the Republicans are governing the Nader candidacy is not good news. With Nader in the race Rove et. al. will figure that they can take an even bigger dump on the base and still win(if that is even possible).

I am not one who just wants "Republicans." I want things done. I want gay marriage stopped. I want the borders secured. I want the First Amdendment to be respected. I want Federal spending under control. What good is it to have Republicans if they abandon us on the core issues? Sadly, Limbaugh is revealing himself to be one who only cares that Republicans rule over us. I like his show, but he is very very wrong on this very fundamental point.

The best situation for us would be for the Republicans to be in panic. Only then will they govern in a way that will energize the base. If the Republicans think they are going to win in a cake walk this fall bend over and grab your ankles because the politicians will feel free to screw the base big time between now and November.

[Snardius]

If Ralph were to have his way and there were viable alternatives to the political "duopoly" now in existance then this election might feature Bush vs. Kerry vs. Nader vs. Buchanan. Electoral power would swing to the fringes as the majority will of the country is fractured by fringe special interests.

Imagine where Nader/Buchanan would take this country and why...

The objectives of Nader, Buchanan and their ilk are to act the spoiler, serve as a martyr for their extremist views and to feed their egos.

[clyde260]

I was sitting here with tears rolling down my face, LMAO, then, I read your post. Sobering thought! I'm afraid you are terribly right, but, lets get through the election first.

[reformedliberal]

If you don't mind, could you post the links to the DUers who are supporting the Constitution Party? I think our true conservatives need to read those posts.

[blackie]

I've never been to DU ~ maybe I'll break down just to see the grief. :)

[Snardius]

He startled me by saying that, given the choices in the upcoming election, he might give his vote to Nader.

Nader's diatribe contains some truth. And many conservatives will agree with many of his points about money corrupting the political system and both parties dividing up the country into "safe" districts.

But just because we start down the same path with the Naderites doesn't mean we are still with them at the end of the journey.

[blackie]

You can't spoil my party, trek ~ I'm the only one that can do that!

Whine and cry all that you want about what isn't so ~ I'm only interested in what is so.

We're at war and GWB is the very best leader we could have in war!

We are winning ~ the bad guys are losing ~ terrorists and the democrats are sad ~ very sad!

~~ Bush/Cheney 2004 ~~

[ShandaLear]

"maybe it stopped!! his heart that is."

Terryfied McAwful has no heart.

The Nations letter to Nader showed one thing. They are frightened to death on him.

[ShandaLear]

Nader's real impact will be to continue to pull Edwards and Kerry to the left. He is pro-gay marriage, they are not. He is anti-Nafta, Kerry voted for it, etc. Nader will get press and those two dummies will be forced to react to his liberal views. The further left they are pulled, the worse it will be for them. If they run toward Bush, that's a whole other can or worms for them. They are hosed either way.

It's not about how many votes Nader gets. Not at all.

[Snardius]

They are frightened to death on him.

They're scared because they know it's going to be close. They know they can't win without splitting the conservative vote. That's how the two worst presidents in the last century were elected.

[trek]

Let me reiterate. I really don't want to spoil the party. I had a good laugh myself (thanks to those who put the links up to the DU).

But as it says in the bible (you know the part made famous in "turn turn turn.")

To everything there is a season

A time to reap, A time to sow,

A time for war, A time for peace,

A time to laugh hysterically at the Dims, A time to kick the lazy corrupt asses of our own worthless party,

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

It's not about how many votes Nader gets. Not at all.

DING DING DING! And we have a winnah -- ! :)

[ShandaLear]

Kent, I'm trapped in Kirkland! LOL!

From what I've been reading, the Deaniacs are hopping mad and Nader is just the medicine they're looking for. The McDermott/Kucinich nutballs will embrace Nader as well. This will be enough support to keep him in the news. This is much worse for Kerry than it is for Edwards, but it's bad for him too.