Nader's Stubborn Idealism By William Greider

[Better Believe It]

Nader's Stubborn Idealism
By William Greider
The Nation
October 25, 2008

National affairs correspondent William Greider has been a political journalist for more than thirty-five years. A former Rolling Stone and Washington Post editor, he is the author of the national bestsellers One World, Ready or Not, Secrets of the Temple, Who Will Tell The People, The Soul of Capitalism (Simon & Schuster) and--due out in February from Rodale--Come Home, America. Greider has also served as a correspondent for six Frontline documentaries on PBS, including "Return to Beirut," which won an Emmy in 1985.

--------------------------------

Ralph Nader is a man of political substance trapped in an era of easy lies. He pierces the fog of propaganda with hard facts and reason, but the smoke rolls over him and he disappears from public view. A lesser man might go crazy or get the message and give it up. Nader instead runs for president again, as he is doing this year, campaigning in fifty states and addressing crowds wherever he finds them, smaller crowds this time but still eager to feed on his idealism. Ralph is not delusional. He knows the story. He is stubborn about the facts and honest with himself.

"The hypocrisy of liberals, which may in some ways be unconscious, is empowering the forces that are destroying our nation," Nader asserted in an even-tempered voice. "The left in this country has been successfully cowed by the Democratic Party," he continued. "The votes of progressives are taken for granted by Democrats.... By allowing ourselves to be manipulated, we have demonstrated that we have no moral substance. We have no line that can be never be crossed, no stance so sacred and important that we are willing to stand up and fight back."

This kind of talk from Nader drives some people to rage against him. He returns the favor by discussing "the rage that many in our nation feel towards liberals." Barack Obama, he insists, does not intend to alter anything fundamental about the causes. "This rage is a legitimate expression of very real betrayal," Nader explained. "The working class, most of whom do not vote, watch Democratic candidate after Democratic candidate run for office promising to support labor and protect jobs and then, once elected, trot off to Washington to pass the corporate-friendly legislation drawn up by the 35,000 lobbyists who work for our shadow government."

Whatever you might think of Nader's jeremiad, it is exceedingly timely. Democrats are on the brink of losing their old excuses for timidity and retreat. If the election produces stronger majorities in Congress and a new president who has promised big change, Nader's analysis will be tested in the clearest terms. For the first time in thirty years, the Dems will have nobody else left to blame. If Obama does not turn the page as he promised, if the Congressional majority does not step up forcefully, then we may fairly conclude Nader was right. The decay of democracy is deeper than we wished to believe.

The hard warning Nader poses is not about himself but about how the left and other elements of the old Democratic coalition will respond to their new situation. Nader is not optimistic. "I see a lot of anger around the country, but I don't see it organized," he said. "Anger that's unorganized has no power." The rationale behind his serial campaigns for president was always about this vacuum in politics. His conviction was that third-party campaigns could help mobilize a popular counter-force to leverage the Democrats and break up the two-party monopoly. For many reasons, he failed in this, as he frankly acknowledges.

Please read the entire article at:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081110/greider

[LWolf]

1. I'm a defiant idealist myself,

which is why I've never warmed to Obama, and why I'm bracing myself for a term or two of hard-core battle to accomplish anything not on the centrist agenda during his tenure.

Obligatory disclaimer: I have never voted for Nader for any office in my lifetime. Including this election, which I voted in last week.

And now, I think I'll put on a triple-strength flame suit, and

:popcorn:

[Better Believe It]

2. So Am I!

Don't worry. Lots of people who support Obama also respect Nader and don't engage in "swiftboating" smears against Nader.

It's OK to disagree with Nader on strategy, or tactics or issues as I often do, however, that can be don't without mud slinging.

[PSPS]

3. Nader would have made a great politician if he had started in Congress.

Like it or not, we're a two-party system. If one party is closer to your ideals than the other, you need to run for office under that banner in Congress and use your voice to move the party. Running for president from nowhere, politically speaking, is a dead end. This isn't a monarchy, so being president doesn't grant you the power to rule by fiat. Nader in the whitehouse would be meaningless without a party's support in congress.

[blues90]

4. we only have this two party system because people are

to damn afraid of this sort of real change. Even if Nader was in congress or the senate he would never be able to break this old dried out two party corporate owned system without the peoples support and open minded temper.

You cannot build a party without support and now millions of dollars to hand over to the corporate owned networks.

I always voted dem but this time I may just vote my conscience even if it means no more than that. Look just how both parties have either ruined this country or enabled it to be ruined by doing nothing other than follow corporate orders.

I think 2006 really did it for me.