Get the Feed
Ralph Nader: Life Outside the Political Narratives
The dominant narratives of this election year have nothing to do with Ralph Nader — and most Democrats are pretty darn happy about that. We’re more concerned about race/gender, Barack/Hillary and Bush/McCain stories.
The only time we’ll hear about radical leftist politicians will be when the Democrats are reminding us that Barack Obama isn’t one of them.
So as I’ve soured a bit on the mainstreaming of presidential politics (and of the media that covers them), I couldn’t help but follow a link to a conversation that Ralph Nader had Monday at Google’s Mountain View, CA headquarters.
I must say, I’m one of the few people planning on voting for Obama who is actually glad Ralph Nader is still around. I personally always need to be reminded of the compromises I’m making (as is Obama) by participating in the two-party, money-driven election machine.
Nader never fails to take a shot at the private corporation that is the “so-called Commission on Presidential Debates” — which prevents him from being on the stage with the Democrat and Republican candidates. But, in the end, he’s not really interested in debating an Obama or McCain. Nader is working on the margins intentionally, because the system itself is the problem.
And he’s right. It’s hard for me not to agree with the claims of Nader’s running mate, Matt Gonzalez, as he picks apart Obama’s record. For all of Obama’s talk of change, it’s a change that doesn’t touch the system itself — that will not fundamentally alter the way that corporate power — in material and symbolic ways — places the great majority of Americans in the dehumanizing positions as mindless “workers” or “consumers.”
If I’m going to vote for Obama, I need to do it honestly, self-consciously. I’m not voting for the revolution. I’m voting for a kindler, gentler, slightly more progressive same old American plutocracy.
Having said all that, once Nader starts talking about how the Internet isn’t revolutionary and how he still writes on a typewriter, I have to tune him out again.
Posted at 2:05 PM | Permalink | | 
Email
| 
Print
To be fair, he said the internet wasn’t revolutionary regarding helping to build grass-root efforts in government. And this is tied to his still writing on a typewriter. The ‘addiction period’ which almost everyone getting a computer for the first time falls victim to can last from 6 months to several years depending on your ‘type-A’ factor. Even though these darn things have been around for decades now the technology to human factor is still in its infancy, it takes people a long time to understand it, longer to get good at it and few master it. We spend most of our time performing simple tasks and trying to learn the new bits of programming that come along so there is yet little time to find join or form groups for grass-root efforts in the numbers that are required. Even I find myself losing an hour trying out a new photo morphing site that turns my friends into Xmas elves, or two hours figuring out a new bookmark service when the five I use now should be enough. While the internet has certainly been ‘A’ revolution in many respects, it’s possibilities as a national unifying entity have yet to be realized, and the time being taken up by frivolity online could be used to meet with people, discuss issues and make real change.
So, I really hope you take the time to reflect on your words in the above article, because if a dissenting view on the current use of the internet and use of a typewriter are the only reasons you are considering not voting for Mr. Nader no wonder this country is in the mess it is today.
Vast differences in major policy issues, that is a reason to sway your vote. Questionable personal integrity, another pretty good reason. Demonstrated politics as usual, voting record contrary to campaign promises, more good reasons, but a TYPEWRITER? Really?
Posted by Morgan Mghee on May 14th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Ralph Nader should join the Green Party ticket as Cynthia Mckinney’s Vice President.
Otherwise he misses the ballot in at least 12 to 15 states.
On the Green Party ballot with Mckinney - guarantteed in about 30 states…Nader could wisely use his funds to put the Green Party team on the ballot in 40 plus states.
Perhaps equally important, Ralph could finally show some humility too long missing.
This would give Green Party an excellent opportunity to getting above 5% and the funding nationwide to grow.
Posted by Jed Clancy on May 14th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Morgan, thanks for your very thoughtful comment. And I just wanted to let you know that Nader being somewhat of a Luddite is not the reason I’m voting for Obama. It has more to do with making a statement to the world and protecting some basic civil and reproductive rights, among other things. But that’s an argument for another day.
And you and Ralph both make good points about the power of the Internet to lure us into being mere consumers of information — and not critics and builders of a better world.
But even way back in the late 18th century, parents fretted over young women wasting their time with the latest media craze: those lurid Fielding or Richardson novels. When faced with media, we always have a choice.
And, if you ask the many activists who have had success online, whose grassroots movements wouldn’t have gotten off the ground in the pre-online age, if the Internet isn’t useful for making change …. well, the answer is obvious.
Posted by Bernie Heidkamp on May 15th, 2008 at 6:33 am
Hmm. Voting for Obama for reproductive rights and civil rights, was that a joke. It seems those are two areas he is willing to compromise most. If you look at Obama’s votes in the Senate, civil liberties was not his strong suit.
If elected, history will put him and Bush together as a historical epoch.
Posted by henry dubb on May 15th, 2008 at 7:14 am
To learn more about Nader, read the new biography “What Was Ralph Nader Thinking?” available only at http://thewomandirector.com
Posted by Jurgen Vsych on May 15th, 2008 at 9:13 am
I disagree with Ralph Nader that the internet has had little impact on organizing. Starting with the Howard Dean campaign it has had HUGE impact. The real issue of progressive movements has to do with the people, not the technology. Just like the term “liberal” was hijacked, now the corporate Democrats are doing the same with the word “progressive” when in fact none of their candidates are progressive. The most progressive person in Congress is actually an independent. Infiltration of progressive movements by those trying to destroy them and keep their power is nothing new. And progressives lacking backbone and caving to the “fall in line” meme, voting for the lesser of evils is also nothing new. What needs to change is the people. The technology is just a tool.
That said, I will vote for Ralph Nader and no, not on a Green Party ticket (they have a host of their own issues) but as an independent. Ralph has never been part of a political party (a promise he made to his deceased father). The Green Party asked him to run on their ticket in 2000 but he never became a Green Party member. His VP runningmate, Gonzales, has quite an excellent record himself. I am actually pretty excited about the ticket.
I have met many politicians in my life, including Obama. While I would take him in a heartbeat over Hillary, Obama is not a progressive, has a very non-progressive voting record, and the “compromise” he speaks of has a more accurate definition…selling out to the corporate powers. I have seen him morph quite a bit from who he was in 2003 when he first started getting national recognition to now. His staff has transformed him into someone who preaches in many ways the complete opposite of who he is.
With Nader, I know who he is, he has been a constant for 40 years and has not done the big flip-flop. I have never met a more intelligent person in politics, or one with more integrity.
I always find it interesting when people bring up the “ego” thing only in regards to Nader but don’t say anything about their corporate candidates being egomaniacs. Let me say, John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are ALL egomaniacs and I have known many. Obama and McCain can’t give you steady eye contact when you speak one-on-one with them. McCain is well known to throw people out of his office in Arizona. Hillary is so polished and prepared that you feel like you are talking with a Barbie doll and not a human being who is actually engaging you. If you are going to pull off artifice, you have to have the Julia Roberts brand of fakeness to be able to get people to actually believe you have some warmth and aren’t just manipulating them.
Nader? Even if he had an over-inflated ego, so what? He would fit right in. Why aren’t independents allowed to be egomaniacs like the Republicans and Democrats? The irony of it is, Nader has less ego than pretty much anyone I have ever met, is hilariously self deprecating and I think his unwavering integrity is the real issue people have problems with and it intimidates them. If he is an egomaniac, humility does not exist in this world.
As a registered Democrat, I am really hoping Nader is the ballot in my state so I don’t have to write him in again. Obama’s horrendous record on trade issues and his subsequent lying about it is enough for him to lose my vote. He voted in 2006 for the Oman trade deal (see link on my name), one of only a dozen or so Democrats (including Clinton and Kerry) to break with the Democratic majority and vote with the Republicans. That vote alone shows me he is willing to sell out, even his own party. Monsanto and Wal-Mart gained from that trade deal. India got our nuclear technology, so we can look forward to another country we will be labeling “terrorists” in a few years. Although I guess since one of their own stole technology and operating plans at the US’s largest nuclear power plant at Palo Verde in Arizona and the US government let him off, in the end it really doesn’t matter since the US loves creating terrorists only to then create wars with them under the guise of security when it is really about making the corporate rich wealthier and more powerful.
http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=5331
Posted by Chris White on May 16th, 2008 at 11:34 am