Now
Available!
Dime's
Worth of Difference:
Beyond the
Lesser of Two Evils
Order Here!
Today's
Stories
Septemeber
17, 2004
Ray McGovern
Gossing
Over the Record
Patrick Cockburn
The New Iraqi Economy: Baghdad's Thriving Kidnapping Industry
Greg Bates
Nader's Victories: a Mid-Campaign Assessment
September 16,
2004
Landau / Hassen
Meet
the New Villain: Syria
Joanne Mariner
Inside
Darfur: a Photo Essay
Patrick Cockburn
US
Offers Conflicting Accounts of Baghdad Bloodbath
Greg Moses
Four Million Children Might Be News
Joshua Frank
Nader in the Battleground States
Christopher Brauchli
The Bush Drug Lottery Flops
David Himmelstein
Folke Bernadotte: a Rosh Hashonah Remembrance
Website of the Day
The Abu Ghraib Index
September 15,
2004
Patrick Cockburn
Hell
on Haifa Street
Ron Jacobs
Oppose War, Not Just Bush
David Lindorff
Blanking Out Dissent
Joanne Mariner
Talking About Darfur: Is Genocide Just a Word?
Angela Godfrey-Goldstein
An Open Letter to Madonna: Please Don't Support Israeli Apartheid
Dave Zirin
Is the NFL Ready for Us?
Yigal Bronner
"They
Are Building Walls Around Us"
Sex,
Drugs & the Blues!
Serpents in the Garden
CounterPunch's
Sizzling New Book on Culture and Sex is Now Available
Click here to purchase
September 14,
2004
Gary Leupp
The
Problem of Chechnya
Jennifer van
Bergen
What's
Wrong with Torture?
Stan Goff
Wake Up and Smell the Jungle Rot
Patrick Cockburn
The
Punishment of Fallujah: US Precision Strickes...on Ambulances
Anis Memon
Nader
in Michigan
Michael Donnelly
The Nuance Comes Off: Former Naderites Beg for Kerry Votes
Werther
Zell Miller: the Peckerwood Pericles
Website of
the Day
Osama Bin Forgotten?
September 13,
2004
Gabriel Kolko
Elections,
Alliances and the American Empire
Phillip Cryan
How Do You Say "Death Squad?": Language in Colombia's
War
Patrick Cockburn
One of Baghdad's Bloodiest Days: "I'm a Journalist! I'm
Dying! I'm Dying"
Noah Leavitt
The War on Civil Liberties
Robert Jensen
Highjacking Catastrophe: Bush, the Neo-Cons and 9/11
Mike Whitney
Alan Greenspan: Fed-Master to the Wealthy
John Chuckman
Stop Talking About the "Election"
Mike Burke
Kerry/Edwards Website Censors Discussion of Israel/Palestine
Issues
CounterPunch
Wire
The Quotations of David Cobb: "I Don't Care How Many Votes
I Get"
Website of the Day
Keep It In Your Pants: the Bush Plan to Combat Teen Promiscuity
September 11
/ 12, 2004
Alexander Cockburn
Swatting
at Flies
Fred Gardner
Yet Another Prozac Scandal
Saul Landau
When Our Assassins Go Free
Jennifer Van Bergen
How to Beat Bush: a Simple Strategy for the Average American
Roger Burbach
/ Jim Tarbell
The Real Dead Enders: Iraq and the Crisis of Empire
Christopher Reed
9/11 in an Historical Context: a Minor Event When Compared to
Worldwide War Casualties
Francisc Catalin
An ABC of American Interventions
Carl Estabrook
Big Science and Government Terror
Bernard Chazelle
Anti-Americanism: a Clinical Study
Sharon Smith
Third Party Blues
Dave Lindorff
Perhaps This Time We're the Silent Majority
Mike Whitney
Fallujah: an Iraqi Beslan?
Frederick B.
Hudson
Their Sons Perished in the Flames, But Not Their Faith
Mickey Z.
Round Up the Usual Suspects: a Look Back at 9/11
Ron Jacobs
Redneck Music for the New Century
Greg Moses
Soap Opera Moments in Texas School Funding Trial
Benjamin Dangl
/ Andrew Kennis
An Interview with Leslie Cagan
Poets Basement
Del Papa, Albert, Gelman
September 10,
2004
Patrick Cockburn
Disappointment
at Samarrah?
Michael Donnelly
Democrats v. Democracy
Alan Farago
Mosquitoes in a Hurricane
Doug Giebel
Karl Rove's Terror Playbook
Mike Whitney
Bob Graham's Political Tsunami
David Domke
God's
Will, According to the Bush Administration
September 9,
2004
Joe Bageant
Karaoke
Night in Bush's America
Ed Kinane
Abducted in Baghdad
Peter Bohmer
The Cuban Revolution: Present and Future
Todd May
The Emerging Case for a Single-State Solution
Jeremy Scahill
The New York Model: Indymedia and the Text Message Jihad
Joshua Frank
Green House Party Gasses
Fran Shor
The Crisis in Public Dissent: When Protest is Considered a Terrorist
Act
Patrick Cockburn
Welcome
to the Dirtiest City in the World: Despair in Baghdad
Website of
the Day
Liberty Street Protest: No to War at Ground Zero
September 8,
2004
Patrick Cockburn
This
Doesn't Smell Like Victory: A War on Two Fronts in Iraq
Dave Lindorff
Bush Confuses; Kerry Mute: Spinning 1000 Dead
Bulent Gokay
Russian and Chechnia After Beslan
Lisa Viscidi
Land Reform and Conflict in Guatemala
Niranjan Ramakrishnan
Byrd's Eye View
Mike Whitney
Afghanistan: American's Drug Colony
Stan Goff
Body
Count: 1001
Website of
the Day
Bush and the Love Doctors
September 7,
2004
Diane Christian
Hostage Tactics: a Game of Mortal Poker
Joshua Frank
Greens
Unravel from Within
Patrick Cockburn
Fallujah
Erupts Again: US Death Toll in Iraq Nears 1000
Ron Jacobs
Bush and Putin: "We're Not Girlie Men"
Chris Floyd
Cry Havoc: Bush's Own Personal Janjaweed
Dr. Carol Wolman
No Blood for Oil at Paul Bunyan Day Parade
John Ross
The
Politics of Darkness North / South
September 6,
2004
Alexander Cockburn
An
Anti-Labor Day That Lives in Infamy: How Many Democrats Voted
For Taft-Hartley?
Ralph Nader
The
Cruel Legacy of Taft-Hartley: a Labor Day Call for Rights for
Working People
Lee Sustar
What's Driving the Attack on Pensions?
Kathleen and
Bill Christison
Dual
Loyalties: the Bush Necons and Israel
September 4-5,
2004
Alexander Cockburn
Elephants
and Gramsci
Ted Honderich
The
Way Things Are
Sasan Fayazmanesh
The
Holy Empire: Who We Are and What We Do
Douglas Valentine
What the World Should Know About Guantanamo
Patrick Cockburn
New Iraqi Police State Flexes Its Muscles
Gary Leupp
Neo Cons Under Fire
Fred Gardner
Pot Shots: the Hempstead T-Shirt
William A.
Cook
The
Day of the Lemming
Dave Zirin
Kobe Bryant and the Price of Freedom
John Chuckman
The Day the World Ended
Karyn Strickler
God Save the Endangered Species Act
Vanessa Jones
Bad Day with an Ikea Cup
Mike Whitney
Kerry: the "Better" War Candidate
Mark Donham
Dear John (Kerry): Start Explaining and Fast
Mickey Z.
McBypass Nation: Feeling Clinton's Pain
Alan Farago
Can the Everglades be Fixed?
Poets' Basement
Landau and Albert
September 3,
2004
Jeffrey St.
Clair
High
Plains Grifter: Jesus Told Him Where to Bomb
Rahul Mahajan
Bush's RNC Speech: an Annotated Response
Carl Estabrook
The
Book of Slaughter and Forgetting
Joshua Frank
The Florida of the Northwest: Oregon Dems Sabotage Nader Again
Gary Leupp
Music to My Ears: Sunday's March
James Hollander
Deja Vu in Manhattan: Assisted Political Suicide?
Mark Engler
Republicans
Among Us: a Week at the RNC, Inside and Out
Jesse Sharkey
Making Students and Teachers Pay for the Crisis in Education
Jane Stillwater
Calling the Cops on Your Own Kid
Stephen Green
Serving
Two Flags: the Bush Neo-Cons and Israel
September 2,
2004
Jeffrey St.
Clair
High
Plains Grifter: Part 3: More Pricks Than Kicks
Max Gimble
Et Tu, Menchu? Extrajudicial Killings and Clandestine Graves
in Guatemala
James Petras
President Chavez and the Referendum: Myths and Realities
Christopher
Brauchli
Bush and the Afghan Electoral Model: "If They Want to Vote
Twice, Let Them"
Todd Chretien & Jessie
Muldoon
Will the Democrats Expel Zell Miller?
Jack Random
Spite and Venom Day: the Turncoat and the Profiteer
Alan Maass
The Real Vietnam
Christa Allen
Contre Bush
Website of
the Day
[Redacted]
September 1,
2004
Alexander Cockburn
The
Stench of Doom
Kathleen and Bill Christison
Poor Larry Franklin
Dave Lindorff
Kerry's Litmus Test
Josh Frank
Protest in White: Not All of New York Rises Up
John L. Hess
Moles, Scoops and Flip Flops
Mike Whitney
Deconstructing Arnold
Jack Random
Kindergarten Night at the RNC
Andrew Wilson
War on the Pachyderms: Why Do Elephants Hate Us?
Jeffrey St.
Clair
High
Plains Grifter: Part Two: Mark His Words
August 31,
2004
Joseph Nevins
Escapism
and Global Apartheid: The Dominican Republic & the NYTs
Matt Vidal
Beyond
Bush's Rhetoric on the Economy
Neve Gordon
Kerry and the Middle East
Dave Lindorff
Bush
the Peace Candidate?
Mike Whitney
NPR Leads the Charge for War Against Iran
Jack Random
Opening Night: Playing the War Card
Jeffrey St.
Clair
High
Plains Grifter: the Life and Crimes of George W. Bush (Part One)
CounterPunch Photo of the Day
Pete Seeger in NYC
August 30,
2004
Justin Podhur
The
Disappeared Mayor
Shaun Joseph
The
Hypocrites at TheNaderbasher.com
Mike Whitney
Israeli Moles in the Pentagon: What More Could They Possibly
Want?
Ron Jacobs
Live, From New York: the Majority of Protesters Claimed No Candidate
David Lindorff
Sunday in Manhattan: the Sound of Marchin', Chargin' Feet, Boy
Dave Zirin
USA Basketball: The Team White America Loved to Hate
Sam Husseini
Israeli Spying on the US: a Long History
August 28 /
29, 2004
Alexander Cockburn
Zombies
for Kerry
Patrick Cockburn
Najaf Ceasefire Good for Iraq, But Weakens Allawi and US
Ray McGovern
Blowing Smoke on Intelligence
Dr. Juan Romagoza
From El Salvador to Abu Ghraib: Reflections of Torture Survivor
Ray Hanania
An Israeli Spy in the Pentagon? Ridiculous!
Fred Gardner
Eddie Lepp Busted by DEA: Facing Life for Growing Medical Pot
Diane Christian
Big Men: the Better Leader Lets You Live
William S. Lind
The Desert Fox
Paul D'Amato
The Left Takes a Dive for Kerry
Joshua Frank
Greens at the Crossroads
Mickey Z.
Media Declares War on Anti-War Protests
Winslow T. Wheeler
Sen. McCain's Pork Chops: an Exchange
Justin E.H.
Smith
The New Age Racket and the Left
Thomas St. John
Burning Slaves at the Stake: On "Sinners in the Hands of
an Angry God"
Ali Tonak
Help the NYPD?
Mark Engler
New York Says "No"
Justin Felux
Haiti: the Attica of the Americas
Poets' Basement
Gelman, Albert, Ford and Hamod
August 27,
2004
Gary Leupp
Neocon
Musings
Robin Cook
The
Ghosts of Abu Ghraib
Diane Christian
Disarming
Michael Donnelly
Situational Democracy: the Show Me the Green Party?
Jack Random
4F and Other Heroes: an Army of War Resisters
Mike Ferner
"To the Swift Boats!"
Mazin Qumsiyeh
7000 Palestinian Political Prisoners
Veronza Bowers, Jr.
"You Won't Be Leaving Tomorrow"
August 26,
2004
M. Shahid Alam
The
Clash Thesis: a Failing Ideology?
Diane Christian
War
Rules: Bush is No Sun Tzu
Derek Seidman
"They're As Bad As Wal-Mart:" Starbucks Workers Get
Organized
David Lindorff
Court to RNC Protesters: Drop the Rally
Christopher
Brauchli
Signs of Dissent: the Bush in the Bubble
Stew Albert
Reporting Suspicious Activity
Mark Donham
Judgement in Athens: Give the Koreans Their Day in Court
Saul Landau
Pinochet:
the Al Capone of the Southern Cone
Website of
the Day
The Kerry 527 Ad You'll Never See
August 25,
2004
Amelia Peltz
Can
I Have 9.8 Seconds of Your Time?
Noah Leavitt
Defining and Redefining Torture
Ron Jacobs
Takin' It to the Streets: It's Not About the Election, It's About
Democracy
James Brooks
Coronado Crosses the Jordan
Akiva Eldar
How to Win the Jewish Vote: Turn Gaza into a "Mini-Afghanistan"
Gemma Araneta
Chavez's New Brand of Populism
Philip Cryan
Uribe's Boys: the Death Squads of Colombia
CounterPunch Wire
Cheney Opens the Closet Door
August 24,
2004
Jeremy Scahill
John
Kerry: the Warchurian Candidate
Gary Leupp
"We
Want Them to Go Away"
David Domke
God
Willing: an Echoing Press and Political Fundamentalism
William Loren Katz
The Meaning of Hugo Chávez: Black and Indian Power in
Venezuela
Jonah Gindin
With Chavez? Reading the International Private Media
Fran Schor
Denying Atrocities: From Vietnam to Fallujah
Joe Bageant
Driving
on the Bones of God
Website of the Day
The Great America Lockdown: a Primer for the RNC
August 23,
2004
Winslow Wheeler
Don't
Mind If I Do: Porkbarrel and the War on Terror
John Pilger
Bush
May Be the Lesser Evil
Stan Goff
Swift
Boat Dogfight
Bill and Kathleen
Christison
Notes
from the West Bank: Build, Demolish, Rebuild
Mike Whitney
The Unraveling of Afghanistan
William Blum
Brave
New World of Iraqi Sovereignty
Ralph Nader
A Letter to the Washington Post: a Shameful and Unsavory Editorial
August 21 /
22, 2004
Cockburn /
St. Clair
"They
Want Blood:" The Bi-Partisan Origins of the Total War on
Drugs
Landau / Hassen
Failing
the Mission? Form a Commission
Brian Cloughley
The
Bush Team in Iraq: Moral Cowardice, as Practiced by Experts
Josh Frank
Nader as David Duke? The ADL Wants You to Think So
Mike Whitney
Reincarnating Mengele: the Torture Doctors of Abu Ghraib
Ron Jacobs
Day Labor Blues
Mickey Z.
Shooting at Whales: 40 Years After Tonkin
Fred Gardner
Dr. Wolman Comes Out: The Cannabis Consultants
Dave Zirin
Uprising in Athens: Iraqi Soccer Team Gives Bush the Boot
Josh Saxe
Witnessing Police Brutality in LA
Yanar Mohammed
Letter from Baghdad: a Democracy of Killings and Bombings
Helen Williams
Ali's Story: a Taste of Reality from Baghdad
Michael Donnelly
Elemental and NaturalForests, Fire and Recovery
Elizabeth Schulte
The Crisis in Affordable Housing
Poets' Basement
Adler, Albert, Virgil, Ford and Krieger
Hot Stories
Alexander Cockburn
Behold,
the Head of a Neo-Con!
Subcomandante
Marcos
The
Death Train of the WTO
Norman Finkelstein
Hitchens
as Model Apostate
Steve Niva
Israel's
Assassination Policy: the Trigger for Suicide Bombings?
Dardagan,
Slobodo and Williams
CounterPunch Exclusive:
20,000 Wounded Iraqi Civilians
Steve
J.B.
Prison Bitch
Sheldon
Rampton and John Stauber
True Lies: the Use of Propaganda
in the Iraq War
Wendell
Berry
Small Destructions Add Up
CounterPunch
Wire
WMD: Who Said What When
Cindy
Corrie
A Mother's Day Talk: the Daughter
I Can't Hear From
Gore Vidal
The
Erosion of the American Dream
Francis Boyle
Impeach
Bush: A Draft Resolution
Click
Here for More Stories.
|
September 17, 2004
How to Win
Enemies and Influence People
Nader's
Victories: a Mid-Campaign Assessment
By
GREG BATES
First in a series.
On September 14, 2004, nearly 80 leaders
out of 113 who backed Nader in 2000 signed a petition urging
people to vote for John Kerry. Many are luminaries of the left-Noam
Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Susan Sarandon, Studs Terkel and many others.
But contrary to initial appearances, I believe this signals a
major coup for Nader. His efforts may be losing him some friends,
but a close analysis of this petition shows how he is nonetheless
altering the political landscape for the better. The petition
reads:
"We, the undersigned,
were selected by Ralph Nader to be members of his 113-person
national "Nader 2000 Citizens Committee." This year,
we urge support for Kerry/Edwards in all swing states, even while
we strongly disagree with Kerry's policies on Iraq and other
issues. For people seeking progressive social change in the United
States, removing George W. Bush from office should be the top
priority in the 2004 presidential election. Progressive votes
for John Kerry in swing states may prove decisive in attaining
this vital goal."
Calling this a Nader victory
reminds me of that joke about the Marxist facing the firing squad.
As the marksmen took aim, his last words were "This is just
a momentary setback for the revo-".
How could such a devastating
abandonment of Nader's efforts be seen as his victory?
The statement is interesting
both for what it says, and what it doesn't say. It's a major
shift from earlier positions on third party candidates. Right
up through the time of Nader's announcement in February that
he was running, those asking him not to run issued blanket condemnations.
As the Nation put it, "Candidate Nader's request
for your vote is a dangerous distraction." A great articulation
of these views prior to Nader's run comes from columnist Norman
Solomon (also a signer of the petition above) who, writing in
a July 23rd 2003 Common Dreams piece, attacked the Green Party
for its "rigidity" in deciding to run a presidential
candidate. As he put it back then,
"Few present-day Green
Party leaders seem willing to urge that Greens forego the blandishments
of a presidential campaign. The increased attention -- including
media coverage -- for the party is too compelling to pass up.
"Green leaders are apt
to offer rationales along the lines that "political parties
run candidates" and Greens must continue to gain momentum
at the ballot box. But by failing to make strategic decisions
about which electoral battles to fight -- and which not to --
the Greens are set to damage the party's long-term prospects.
"Fueled by idealistic
fervor for its social-change program (which I basically share),
the Green Party has become an odd sort of counterpoint to the
liberals who have allowed pro-corporate centrists to dominate
the Democratic Party for a dozen years now. Those liberal Democrats
routinely sacrifice principles and idealism in the name of electoral
strategy. The Greens are now largely doing the reverse -- proceeding
toward the 2004 presidential race without any semblance of a
viable electoral strategy, all in the name of principled idealism."
Translation: Greens should
not run a presidential candidate.
Seven months later, Nader picked
up the campaign baton. By the end of June 2004, the Green Party,
having spent the year waffling on whether or not to run a presidential
ticket, nominated David Cobb and Pat LaMarche. One wonders if
the party would have done so if Nader hadn't paved the way by
declaring several months earlier.
Suddenly, activists started
making the distinction between voting for candidates in safe
states and swing states. Solomon shifted to endorse the strategy,
announcing in a column in June that he had registered as a Green
and didn't have to worry about voting for Cobb since he lived
in the safe state of California. 
Chomsky and Zinn, both arguing
that Kerry should be elected and strongly opposing Bush's re-election,
stated they planned to vote for Nader because they lived in the
safe state of Massachusetts. There's no contradiction between
voting Nader in a safe state and urging others in swing states
to vote Kerry. But these public statements of voting for independent
and third party candidates in safe states signaled to others
that what was once a uniform denouncement of voting Nader has
now incorporated a fundamental political reality. According to
Businessweek, 75% of voters live in safe states, giving
leeway to millions of voters. Where once there was no room to
pressure Kerry because the crisis is so dire that we just have
to hold our nose and vote for the guy, people are waking up to
the fact that most of us, even if we want to oust Bush, have
a choice other than Kerry.
Clarity over the difference
between safe and swing states, embodied in that petition quoted
above, has become so widespread that we forget how far we have
come. And many fail to acknowledge--and continue to attack--the
very person who helped get us to that realization.
But what about the fact that
Nader is running in swing states, or trying to? Shouldn't that
strategy be attacked? In his column announcing that it wasn't
so hard to be Green after all, Solomon issued just such a warning
to the Greens:
"With the swing states
all too close for comfort, activists should be emphatic that
the Green Party's presidential campaign this year ought to concentrate
its efforts on 'safe states' -- where the Bush-Kerry race isn't
close."
But here too, Nader's actions
have led the way for others. To put any effective pressure on
the Kerry campaign, a candidate has to run in the swing states.
By appearing on the ballot, a candidate exerts that pressure
even if voters later choose to vote Kerry for the simple reason
that they create an option: voters can threaten to walk. In fact,
if a candidate were going to follow the idea of conserving resources,
he or she should be concentrating on the swing, not the safe
states in order to provide the maximum force against Democrats
running right.
This insight of running in
swing states and the point that running is not the same as voting
for a candidate in that state is only just on the horizon of
today's political debate. But the idea has been firmly grasped
by the Green Party. It has fought a hard battle to get Cobb/LaMarche
on key swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. These are the
second and third largest swing states after Florida, where the
most pressure can be exerted. And that Green Party effort has
been strong; they missed getting on the Ohio ballot by being
shy just 500 names. They turned in over 7,000 signatures, more
than enough to qualify. Unfortunately, too many were ruled invalid.
As with every time Nader is shut out, when the Greens are kept
off a ballot it is the voters who lose.
In fact the Greens have struggled
to little avail to be accurately portrayed on this issue. After
I gave an interview describing Cobb/LaMarche as a "safe
state strategy," Scott McLarty of the Green Party Media
office, who demanded that I make a correction, brought me up
short. He wrote,
"David Cobb and the Green
Party agree that all voters, including those in swing states,
should enjoy a choice that includes Green candidates, other parties'
candidates, and independents."
Point taken--perhaps, I was
wrong. Because voter choice is a fundamental requirement for
democracy, I am delighted to be corrected, and delighted that
Greens are pushing into swing states.
As is well known, Nader has
received Republican support to get on the ballot. I save that
question for a future column. But, as Solomon shows, the swing
state strategy was denounced on principle prior to that controversial
support. It will be interesting to see if the condemnations of
Nader over his swing state strategy will now extend to a condemnation
of the Greens over their identical strategy, or whether the standard
will only be selectively applied.
Interestingly, the petition
above does not judge whether a swing state run is of any value
and concentrates-as it should-on dialoging with voters. In the
end, it is the voters, not the candidates, who should be approached.
In contrast to denouncing candidates for running (and thereby
trying to limit voter choice by pressuring candidates to step
down), such appeals to voters are the stuff of democracy.
Indeed I would count that as
another victory. Nader has stuck with it through unprecedented
villification by his former allies until they have finally focused
on the real issue: not who is running but who is voting for whom.
Having abandoned their efforts to get Nader (I hope), they are
now engaged in a mad scramble to get voters on their side-a wise
shift.
How should those of us inclined
to vote Nader respond to the petition's urging? That question
I leave for another column. Suffice it to say here that swing
voters are just as capable of figuring this out as the petition
signers, and need argument and discussion and dialog about what
many of us see as a difficult decision, instead of ham handed
urging. In any case, even if I were inclined to vote for Kerry,
I wouldn't delcare such intentions-that just gives Kerry support
to keep moving right relieveing the pressure of my threat to
vote for Nader.
There is a great deal of irony
in how that petition is being used. It is being touted by the
Progressive Unity Voter Fund, a group that has denounced Nader's
run because polls show that he is more popular with progressives
than with Republicans. The group is worried voters might split
from Kerry and by doing so throw a close election to Bush. Their
website, run by John Pearce and others, has relentlessly chided
Nader for claiming he will gain more votes from conservatives
than progressives. But the petition with its progressive signers,
and the efforts of Pearce and the legion of Nader's critics,
is aimed at exactly Nader's goal: make sure he gets more votes
from Republicans than progressives. We have come full circle:
the critics may not have realized it yet but they are pursuing
the goals of the man they have in the past denounced.
The critics' shift is for real.
I asked Pearce why his website no longer featured poll data on
how many progressive voters were likely to vote Nader and showing
Nader is wrong wrong wrong. Previous editions of the website
were packed with derision. Pearce replied, "I know there
are now more recent polls, and don't know how they break. We
haven't updated recently and don't have the map on our home page
at this time. We're instead focused on the Zinn/Chomsky/Sarandon/Terkel/Hightower
et. al statement," which is the petition quoted earlier.
It's interesting to note that
Pearce's whole earlier thesis, that too many progressive voters
may cost Kerry the election by voting Nader, and that Nader's
assertions to the contrary were ridiculous, may instead turn
out exactly as Nader has predicted all along. The latest Harris
poll, September 16, shows Nader support among likely voters is
waning, moving from 8% in April down to 2% now. Pearce other
critics may claim this as a victory for their efforts. But Nader's
prediction that this would happen is based on events in 2000:
as the election neared, the number of people planning to vote
for Nader shrank. It will be interesting to see if his critics
ever bother to acknowledge that, so far, Nader has called it
correctly.
Returning to Nader's accomplishments,
added to his victories of acceptance of running and voting in
safe states, of demonstrating that pressure comes from running
in swing states, and of egging the Green Party, Nader has had
a string of small victories as well as others that have also
altered the political landscape.
Among the smaller accomplishments
is the debate between Howard Dean and Nader, which registered
hardly a blip on the political radar screen. Yet this and other
factors have made it clear that Nader could not have been as
effective a critic without running. Without his campaign, there
would have been no debate with Dean.
During the debate, Dean carefully
articulated why the proposed constitutional amendment to ban
gay marriage was a step backwards. For the first time since prohibition,
he said, this is an amendment designed to curtail rather than
extend people's rights. Even though Dean omitted the point that
Kerry still opposes same sex marriage, there's nothing wrong
with that statement. But Dean might have acknowledged that the
point he did make comes directly off Nader's website. It's always
nice-and a sign of success-when your opposition starts adopting
your arguments!
Nader has also raised a number
of issues that might not have seen the light of day: the need
for electoral reforms such as instant runoff voting, an end to
the electoral college and so on, moves the Greens are also pushing.
He has attacked Bush more effectively than Kerry has, calling
for Bush's impeachment and an end to the war in Iraq. And he
has built an impressive political platform, one most progressives
would be proud to vote for if strategic considerations were not
in play. Perhaps chunks of it can be adopted by candidates in
the future, both those inside and outside the Democratic Party.
Nader has at least in a limited
way succeeded in pressuring Kerry, a pressure that would have
been nonexistent had Nader not declared his candidacy. He secured
a meeting with Kerry, and among other things asked him to push
for an anti-poverty program. Shortly after, Kerry announced he
supported raising the minimum wage to $7. Nader suggested Kerry
pick Edwards as a running mate. Who knows how much of a factor
Nader was in either decision, but I'm glad he was pushing.
Kerry has explicitly acknowledged
that Nader has forced him to alter his own campaign. During the
Nader/Dean debate, a tape of Kerry was played, stating that he
was running a campaign designed to win over Nader voters. He's
done a poor job of that, to put it kindly. But the pressure is
there.
Jeff Cohen, founder of the
media watch group FAIR and now working with the Progressive Unity
Voter Fund, has argued that such pressure is ineffective. Judging
by Kerry's pro war policies, Cohen will probably turn out to
be right. All the more reason to embrace the Green slogan, we're
not just out to pressure the Democrats, we're out to replace
them. Hopefully the Green Party has been invigorated to run presidential
candidates not just this time but consistently, so that building
toward an electoral win becomes possible.
Turning to another Nader success, he has had a profound impact
on how many view the Democratic Party. Chomsky has toiled for
decades to show the limits of acceptable political discourse
by examining the Democrats, and to help people see the limits
of American benevolence by exposing Democratic policies. In President
Jimmy Carter's case, to pick one example, Chomsky showed just
what Carter's slogan of putting "human rights at the heart
of our foreign policy," really meant: supporting the Shah
of Iran as he killed his own people, arguing that we don't owe
Vietnam reparations after bombing it into the stone age because
the damage was mutual, and other principled stands. In six short
months, Ralph Nader's campaign has also exposed the Democrat
Party leaders for what they are-a desperate group of corporate
hacks who will gladly weaken democracy by challenging Nader's
right to be on the ballot.
The Democrats had another choice:
take the high road and convince the voters by saying, "Okay,
we support Nader's access to the ballot, but because of the crisis
called the Bush presidency, we want you to vote for Kerry."
Instead, they exposed their own lack of faith in their candidate
by resorting to underhanded tactics to kick Nader off ballots
in several states. It may be disheartening for Nader's campaign
workers to be continually slugged by the "party of the people"
as it tries to keep voters from having a choice, but Nader and
his troops are doing important work in showing that the Democratic
Party has relinquished even the pretense of principle.
Nader's efforts are also aiding
and signaling an important shift in progressive voter sentiment.
Once we had to fight tooth and nail to convince people that the
Democratic Party, at least on the presidential level, is rotten
to the core. Back in the 90s, I proudly published Solomon's effort
on the subject, False Hope: The Politics of Illusion in the
Clinton Era. Many liberals and progressives considered opposing
and exposing Clinton a bizarre idea at the time. Today, criticism
of Kerry is all the rage. I have met many campaign workers for
Kerry but not one-not one!-who is excited by their candidate.
So many say Nader would make a better president. In fact criticism
of Kerry is so pervasive that those drafting the petition above
felt they had to throw in their own bit about Kerry and the Iraq
war. THAT is a sea change. It's not all or even mostly due to
Nader by any means, but is aided by his relentless hammering
nonetheless. Like some of his other victories, this wariness
of Kerry has become so widespread that we have lost track of
the distance we have traveled.
Nader has also revealed that
there is a growing constituency abandoned by the Democrats. In
response, many within the Democratic Party have started "progressive
caucuses," an acknowledgement that if Democrats don't move
left, someone-Nader, Cobb, who knows?-will move into the space
the Democrats have left behind during their march right. It is
unclear whether the caucuses have any chance at succeeding in
making the party progressive. But it is clear that Nader has
sent a warning shot, and some within the Party are listening.
It makes for an impressive
list:
1. Had a string of small victories
from debating Dean, to pushing for electoral reform, to pressuring
Kerry and ratcheting up the attack on Bush. Then Nader helped
to fundamentally alter the political landscape by accomplishing
the following:
2. Created a widely accepted
distinction between voting in swing and safe states;
3. Shown the importance of
running in swing states, a fact separate from what voters in
those states choose to do;
4. By example egged on the
Green Party to get in the harness and run;
5. Exposed John Kerry for who
he is and helped make criticism of his policies a pervasive part
of political discourse;
6. Exposed Democratic leaders'
opposition to democracy by showing they want to limit voter choice-and
in the process revealed how little faith Democrats have in their
candidate's ability to win an election by appealing to the voters;
7. By showing that the Democrats
are losing constituents as the party moves right, Nader is helping
to ignite reform efforts inside the Democratic Party that are
taking place after the primaries;
8. And has stood his ground
until some of his critics shifted focus to pursuing goals he
shared.
And there is room for a much
more important victory to come. Winning the battle for the presidency
could take a third party running consistently for 10 to 15 election
cycles over 50 years. Nader has shown it is possible to withstand
the natterings of those who would limit the field to just two
candidates, as well as fight against the limitless resources
of the Democratic Party trying to dictate that outcome. Such
an example could well inspire others to begin that cycle of running
consistently to capture the presidency.
That would be a truly great legacy.
Next time: Ralph's Right
Stuff: The Politics of Nader's Republican Support
Greg Bates is the founding publisher at Common
Courage Press and author of Ralph's
Revolt: The Case For Joining Nader's Rebellion. He can be
reached at: gbates@commoncouragepress.com
Weekend
Edition Features for August 7 / 8, 2004
James Petras
The
Anatomy of "Terror Experts": Meet the Mandarins of
Abu Ghraib
Fred Gardner
Run
Ricky Run: Football, Pot and Pain
Justin Delacour
Anti-Chavez Pollsters Panic: Fix Numbers; Reinvent Venezuela
Brian Cloughley
Persecuted by All; Supported by None: Who Would Be A Kurd?
Joshua Frank
The
Outsider: a Talk with Ralph Nader
Iain A. Boal
On "Shame": Warmed-Over Orientalism and Racist Projection
Chris Floyd
All About Eve: Open Season on Women in DC and Rome
Andrew Fenton
Fighting for Democracy and Justice in Haiti
Aseem Shrivastava
Saga of an Anguished Afghan
Neil Corbett
See Cuba: Sometimes a Cigar is Just a Cigar, Mr. Bush
Carol Miller
/ Forrest Hill
Rigged Convention; Divided Party: How David Cobb Won with Only
12% of the Vote
Tarek Milleron
Breaking the Principled Voter
Donald Macintyre
The
Battle of Najaf
Ron Jacobs
Spirits of The Dead: Why I Love My Petty Bourgeois Tendencies
Mickey Z.
Kid
Gavilan's Grave: Propaganda Scores a TKO
Poets' Basement
Adler, Ford and Albert
/
|