The Least Worst Trap: Talking with Ralph Nader

On Sunday, the War on Terror spilled into Syria, and the only people more surprised than the Syrians are Americans. See, the war has already spilled into Pakistan. It's unclear where the United States will be heading next, but I hear Kazakhstan is hunkered down and braced for an attack at any moment. Sure, they're a member of NATO and the UN, and have nothing to do with any of this, but their funny-sounding name and population of foreigners is working against their innocence. All it will take to gain popular support for an air assault is the presence of American ignorance regarding Kazakhstan's people, policies, and culture. Bad news Kazakhstan: we have no idea who you are. Head for the hills!

Even as the war expands, the definition of victory remains opaque. Though the Bush administration has no long-term vision of what a stable Middle East looks like (Bush has said something about an Iraqi 'Mickey D's being a 'sweet idea') several senior American officials simply expressed hope that the unwise war policies of preemption and perpetual, borderless war would "be embraced by the next president as well." And these policies will be embraced unless the American people demand something different from their leaders.

At home, people are losing their jobs and their homes, while their tax dollars go to bailing out corporate crooks who base their livelihoods on speculative lending, shady mortgages, and outsourcing American jobs overseas. The policies of corporate socialism (where tax dollars go to bailing out huge corporations) will also continue unless the American people stand up and say no more.

In desperate times, the American people have a history of embracing the least worst politician, but it's time they demand more from the next president of the United States. It's time to transcend pretty rhetoric and empty promises. The new president must aggressively embrace a Progressive agenda or it will be impossible to reverse the damage committed over the past few decades.

Ralph Nader, Independent Party presidential candidate, has been pleading with the American people to demand more from their leaders. Unsurprisingly, the corporately sponsored Commission on Presidential Debates did not permit Nader into the debates, even though a majority of the American people supported opening the debates to other party candidates.

Regardless of how one feels about his presence in the 2008 election, Ralph Nader is undeniably the leader of the last real Progressive wave in this country. It was because of his uncompromising vision that Congress passed the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Just during the 5-year period between 2002 and 2006, seat belts have saved over 75,000 lives (PDF). His list of Progressive accomplishments includes the Clean Air and Water Acts, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and the Freedom of Information Act.

Ralph Nader and his army of conscientious citizens were the last organized, serious movement that demanded accountability from Washington.

The so-called Progressives today are allowing Barack Obama to compromise on everything from FISA to the anti-war movement. But even as he votes for telecom immunity and talks about Afghanistan as the good war, Obama has never lied about being a Progressive. In fact, he seems rather confused that any of his followers think he'll be anything but a centrist in the White House. Progressive groups that score Obama with a 50% approval rating seem confused by this as well.

The Progressives have pinned their hopes and dreams to a man they have asked nothing of, and they're going to be sorely disappointed when he, in turn, does nothing for them.

When I interviewed Ralph Nader, he explained what will happen if Barack Obama is elected president:

You take the 20 leading groups supporting him in the liberal-progressive pantheon: labor, anti-poverty, civil rights, women's rights, gay-lesbian rights, environment, consumer - you name it - not one of them is putting any demands on him. Unconditional voting for the least worst of the two parties means that your vote has no political leverage whatsoever. It allows Obama to take it for granted, and not give the anti-war people anything because he knows he has the anti-war vote. Then they go to the right wing and slice off a few votes there by going more corporate and flip-flopping on offshore drilling. This is the same merry-go-round every four years. The liberal intelligentsia is doomed unless they solve this problem of unconditional voting for the least worst candidate.

Closed debates and apathetic, naïve voters will result in a continuation of Bush's policies, and Americans will be told to wait another four years for single payer health care, a living wage, the end of the Iraq war, cutting the bloated military budget, ending the death penalty, ending the wasteful War on Drugs, investing in solar power, and the end of nuclear power.

When neither party is talking about any of the above issues, the American people are screwed because they're at the mercy of a winner-take-all system. Nader explains:

The people are in a two party prison. There can be something like a Green Party in Germany because if you win 5% of the vote you get 5% of the parliament. Here, you've got to win 51% or a plurality, which is why people don't support small starts to make them build into larger movements because they think: well, they're only 4 or 5% in the polls and I don't want to waste my vote. It's time to break out of the prison.

A 4-5% Progressive voice won't be enough to create real change. And Americans are ready for real change. They don't want to triangulate and compromise. Compromise results in, as Nader puts it, "a macho competition" between Democrats and Republicans, who disagree on if abortion is a matter of killing babies, but agree on bombing foreign babies every chance they get. The 2008 US military cash-burning extravaganza is currently hovering around the $623 billion mark. That's more than the rest of the world's military budgets, combined.

It's time Progressives stop playing defense and start setting the agenda. They can do that by putting real pressure on Barack Obama if he is elected president. They must organize and demand a stop to the wars, and not settle for, as Obama is suggesting, the continued presence of U.S. bases and private mercenaries. They also must demand publicly funded elections, and an open system that allows the American myth that anyone can run for president to become reality.

Currently, the Military-Industrial Complex, which feeds on war and suffering, controls America. Progressives claim to be the blockade between greedy politicians and federal tax dollars, and yet they are continuing to let Obama get away with catering to the middle.

They make this unforgivable compromise because they're certain Obama is a radical Progressive simply spouting some centrist rhetoric until he can get into the White House. And then it's free health care and peace for everybody!

I'm paraphrasing what a California lawyer told me at the Nader-Gonzalez Wall Street bailout rally a few weeks ago. Michelle, the lawyer, and a minority Obama supporter (she came to the rally because she was curious,) said she was absolutely 100% certain that Barack Obama was a Progressive, and he is only saying he's pro-death penalty and for the bailout because he needs to get elected.

I asked her what evidence she had of this claim. She had none. She just felt it in her heart.

Progressives need to stop acting on what they feel in their hearts and look at what is happening to their leadership. If they don't collectively demand real, sweeping reform from the next president, then the president will bow to the only real pressure he feels - the pressure from corporations and war hawks.

The full transcript of Ralph Nader's interview can be found here: allisonkilkenny.com.

For more information on Ralph Nader, visit: Votenader.org.

Follow Allison Kilkenny on Twitter: www.twitter.com/allisonkilkenny

Comments

[nosuppertonight]

Splendid article, Allison-- just the right balance between idealism and realpolitik. I've just posted my own endorsement of Nader at http://www.nosuppertonight.com.

What shouldn't surprise us the list of Obama's top supporters, many of whom are also McCain's top supporters, and most of whom appear on the list of banks and investment forms benig handed 700 billion dollars of our money. Throw in the fact that both Obama' and McCain's top economi advisors have all made multi-millions serving as heads of Godman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, etc. and .... well, ya see where this is going. Full analysis at the aforementioned site.



From my own post at nosuppertonight:

This might be Nader’s last hurrah. I dunno. I don’t know where we go from here, either, to be honest, but I know that we the disaffected have to somehow unite. There are a lot of people in Boston trying to figure out how. I’m going to work with some of them. If you’re disaffected, it’s no time to retreat; you can probably find some like-minded people. But in closing let me say:

Thank you, Ralph. For keeping the flame, for making the Revolution relevant. For treating us like adults. And for always demanding that we act like adults. A thousand thanks; that, and my vote.

[LucyTBee]

"In line with some predictions, we find that the Nader voters had a tendency to come from privileged positions in terms of income and occupation­..." (Simmons & Simmons, New Political Science 28:2, pp. 229 - 244)

Demographic data suggests that people who have supported Nader as disproportionately upper middle class folks with specialized careers and/or post-graduate education-­--i.e., people less likely to be affected by McCain's destructive tax and education policies. I do respect any Nader supporters who truly believe that the most pressing issue facing U.S. citizens is the lack of a multi-party system; I just think that those who believe that are generally not those being hurt by foreclosures, layoffs, lack of health and unemployment benefits, and failing school systems. For those of us whose families are suffering disproportionately under GOP-instigated destruction, it is difficult to swallow arguments that there isn't sufficient difference between Obama and McCain. There absolutely is. And while I agree that we need to hold Dems accountable and prevent them from capitulating to corporate interest, I don't see how we can possibly do so without the full support of our wider communities. When the families in my old neighborhood have insurance, improved educational access, and non-predatory leases and mortgages they can sustain, they are remarkable participants in community activism. But though they'd like to demand accountability from the government, most are too busy working two jobs to have the time to do so.

[joebhed]

Thank you Allison.
Little needs to be added regarding the fallacy of the Dems in regurgitating their "blame-Nader" circling of the wagons.
Nor that Ralph Nader is NOT an "every-four-year" elective phenomenon.

I think it is important that voting truly expresses a person's political being.
I never vote for any candidate that I know is going to win.
There are a LOT of states out there now where no voters choice is really going to count for anything.
This is the Presidential election.
It's all about the disgusting electoral college system.
Blue or Red.
Winner take all.
Its another of those things that Ralph Nader wants to change, but the Dems do not.
Your vote doesn't count.

So, if you live in any one of those blue states, and you know who you are, you have a chance to make a real progressive statement when you get inside that voting booth and its between you and your conscience.
And, if you live in one of those red states where there ain't a prayer that a black man named Obama can carry the day, then there is no need to pull the lever or touch the screen next to his name.
Instead, make a difference.
Make a statement for progressivism and for populism and for true democracy.
Ralph Nader is on almost every ballot in the country, and you can write him in anywhere that he is not.
Do it !!
Nader Gonzalez 08.

[davidly]

Brilliant, Allison, and I thank you! Being who I am, however, I gotta nitpick and point something out:

You properly elucidate the senator from Illinois not making any progressive bones. Later, though, you kind of go slightly too soft, when you use the previous Democratic platforms' paradigm to point out the likelihood of various promises being postponed, included amongst these are single payer health care, cutting the bloated military budget, ending the death penalty, and the end of nuclear power.

In reality, his positions as stated are not even on the side of these goals. Quite the opposite, as you point out again later regarding his support for the death penalty, like his "new Democrat" supporter out of Arkansas, who not only supported the death penalty, but bombed innocents, and in 1999 signed into law the Phil Gramm sponsored Bliley Act, which should have gone down with his veto, in that he had all the Dems on that side, but instead enabled "financial services" to tighten the current rope around our necks.

[DebbieKat]

Excellent points!

[COCKROACHEXS]

Love your article Allison Kilkenny
It's about time ... better late than never
Thank you
Beautiful articulate smart and TRUTHFUL
Thank you

[Pdubya]

working with an illusion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igbBItLemsM

[betterthannader]

nice piece!

We need to start paying more attention to Ralph Nader. He's been warning us about the things that caused this economic crisis for decades and that's documented quite well. He also has solutions for the crisis now, but instead of listening to Nader we keep putting the arsonists in charge of the fire station.

When we're stuck in wars that have killed over 1.5 million innocent people, the economy is in shambles, and the Constitution is being gutted--well, I take that as a sign that it's way past time we need to draw a line and stop supporting either of the parties that got us into such a mess!

[PublicAdvocate]

Ralph's words and deeds have had fidelity for 40+ years. Have Obama's words and deeds even had fidelity for 1 year?
How is it that so many Democratic voters and Progressives do not take notice of the chasm of difference between Obama's words and votes?
Electing Status Quo parties to office only guarantees that the same power structures, relationships, political arrangements, and failed policies will prevail. If you are happy with the state and condition of our nation, Obama or McCain will be fine choices and largely preserve the current order without fundamental change. Yes. Everyone promises change, but looking at the record and history of these candidates and parties is a much better predictor of what is to come.

If you think America has gone astray or has tremendous untapped power and potential for good works, Ralph Nader is the proven candidate for positive change.

[egal]

Actually, as the OP said, Obama has never told us anything but the same things he has done. People made assumptions and projected. Obama's promises, actions, and political stances have been entirely in line with one another.

Facts tend to give complaints more weight. And every prognosticator looks prescient AFTER the fact, but Nader has his own rocky history and too little acted upon successfully, which should be the primary concern. Not much change is going to occur if we demand it of those not currently situated in a position to enact it, nor if we're too busy snidely putting down the current agents of change instead of assisting them in the endeavor.

[Pdubya]

Dear Allison! Thank you so much for bringing some levity to the political puking that has gone on in support of Obama and McCain. Or better put, McBama.

[BlueTidalWave]

"He was advocating a full-blown investigation of NBA referees after a poorly officiated game 6 in the 2002 Western Conference Finals. Incredibly, "

Wow, I am absolutely floored by this. After he stood silently by after the debacle of the 2000 election, when what he should have been advocating was a "full blown investigation" of the election rigging that went on during that time in many states (not just Florida). What he should have been asking for in 2002 was a "full blown investigation" of the attacks September 11th, the very incident that Bush and Cheney asked the congress *not* to investigate.

But he has the nerve to step in to advocate for investigating referees of the NBA? What could be more irrelevant to the public? Seriously, what?

I actually supported Nader when he was nominated to run for the Green Party because I believed in the party. I donated my time and my hard earned money to his campaign in 2000. Of course, as almost everyone else who made that mistake, I now regret the decision to vote for him. He has not done a single thing to advocate for progressive causes during the past eight years (that I can discern). Running for president has absolutely no value when you cannot win, and is actually destructive when you try and peel off progressive votes from the "least worst" candidate. This is how we ended up with the "most worst" administration in history.

[DebbieKat]

So, are you supporting McKinney then? She seems to be one of the only candidates running that is talking about voter disenfranchisement and voter suppression.

[PeaceCzar]

WOW. Talk about self-delusion.

Maybe you should be asking why GORE didn't challenge the 2000 Florida results. Or why he didn't win his home state, or Clinton's. Or the 3000+ butterfly ballots for Pat Buchanan that he readily admits were for Gore. Or the 250,000+ Democrats in Florida that voted for Bush. Or the SEVEN other candidates that "took" enough votes to tip the election.

And you're angry at Nader. Pathetic.

[gypsy508]

Democrats hate looking in the mirror. They need someone to blame.

[mbulungulu]

It's about exercising the right to choose the candidate that is most in accord with your personal beliefs. It's a constitutional right to run for president for that very reason.

The value is not in winning but in practicing democracy. The ability to make sure there is a voice for another point of view is the most important. What if the abolitionists or civil rights leaders in the beginning had just said 'aww heck we can't win so let's give up'?

[COCKROACHEXS]

Bluetidalwave
Let me get this straight
Let me just take this in for a second exactly what u r saying
Ralph Nader is how we ended up with the "most worst" administration in history ???
OK yeah
Did U demand or do anything at all to have a full blown investigation of the attacks on September 11th or for the election rigging ? ANYTHING AT ALL ???
IS all America to expect Ralph Nader to fight all our fights for us - every single one - while we sit back in front of the TV criticizing and judging him ?
Really Tell me What did U do about it ?
and
What have u done for your Country TODAY ?
I must admit I am curious to find out how that basketball game thing turned out
i guess the man is passionate about many things
What Mr Nader at 74 (really at any age) is doing is beyond admiral and truly something to aspire to A TRUE AMERICAN HERO - Y don't U STOP BLAMING OTHERS for whatever it is U R NOT DOING and get off the couch and DO IT ?

[COCKROACHEXS]

"What could be more irrelevant to the public ? Seriously, what ?"

Which drunken starlets are NOT wearing underwear

[shunt6712]

What would satisfy you?

[kathyvoxpop]

Thanks Allison, and Mr. Nader, for keeping it real.

I think it is important for each of us to imagine our own strategies - no matter how far-fetched or Utopian - for solving the problems America faces and allow our imaginings to inform our further participation in the political process. And after election day, we must continue to engage in dialogues with one another and with our public servants. The operative word here is servants. Elected officials are supposed to serve The People. We hire them. Well, in theory anyway.

It is irresponsible to imagine that one person can implement the sort of change that is needed at this time. Once, we were complacent, allowing rulers to dictate action to us. Now, we imagine we can elect one person who will magically erase everything bad and create a new America all glistening and pretty.

Likewise, we define and analyze the bad decisions of our leaders but do not offer real strategies for making the world a better place. We protest war but do not suggest how we may arrive at peace.

Many brilliant ideas have emerged as viable solutions to the grave ills plaguing America right now. But how do we implement them? It is imperative that we learn. Let's think of it as our on-the-job-training as American Citizens.

No matter who becomes our next president, The People must accept the responsibility of remaining active in the process of attaining peace, growth and prosperity for all Americans.

[tbone99]

Why haven't Kucinich and Nader got together to form a third party with Howard Zinn ,Cynthis McKinney and Chomsky?. I'm sure there are others with progressive ideas who would be willing to help push the idea forward and many to do the work on the ground.But corporate America wouldn't be willing to back it and the media wouldn't give them coverage. You can't have a party with only a figurehead.

[joelrosenblum]

newsflash, Zinn and Chomsky are hypocrites. they supported Kerry and now Obama.

[DebbieKat]

Yeah, that was very disappointing (Chomsky..­.). :-(

I think Kucinich has way too much integrity to stay with the Democrats anymore. The only thing is he's probably doing much more good by staying with the Democrats, even though more often than not, they don't bother listening to him. I love watching him kick ass on cspan in hearings. It's just great. :-)

[gypsy508]

I am quite certain Zinn voted for Nader in 2004. He lives in my town.

[DebbieKat]

Check this out... In this morning's email from the Nader campaign:

"Howard Zinn now says he's voting for Nader.

The famous historian lives in Massachusetts, where Obama is ahead by 20 points.

Zinn created a stir earlier when he said he was voting for Obama.

He legitimately took some heat for supporting the corporate Obama.

But late last night, Zinn admitted in an e-mail to our campaign that he made a mistake and now says he will vote for Nader.

And Zinn urges all people of conscience to vote for the true progressive in slam dunk states.

Of which there are now many.

(Zinn says that in non slam dunk states, he urges people to vote for Obama. We obviously disagree with that bit of advice.)"

[ritenow]

Can we let the last wave pass please.

It's what screwed us in the 2000 election.

[DebbieKat]

Um. False. You don't win more progressive policies by stamping out the progressive competitive voices. We all have the right to vote for whomever we think best corresponds to our views. Nader didn't screw us in the 2000 election, but the Supreme Court certainly did when it said to stop counting the votes. Stop blaming Nader for the ills of our system. He's the only reasonable choice for progressives now.

[PeaceCzar]

Sheer idiocy and ignorance abounds. The shortlist of reasons for 2000 that whiners like yourself seemingly refuse to acknowledge. ANY ONE of these would have given Gore the presidency:

1) Gore lost his home state
2) Gore lost Clinton's home state
3) 250,000+ Florida Democrats voted for Bush
4) 3000+ "butterfly ballots" for Buchanan were meant for Gore
5-11) SEVEN other candidates "taking" enough votes to tip Florida to Gore

...and many more.

OR, the simple fact that Bush stole the damn thing, and liberals are too cowardly and weak-willed to actually fess up to the real truth, that Al Gore was a crap candidate who didn't fully contest the 2000 results and assert the presidency that was rightfully his.

Please, enough with the scapegoating and intellectual laziness. It's really sad.

[COCKROACHEXS]

Thank you PeaceCzar

[Pdubya]

that is the paradigm accepted. do some research.

[COCKROACHEXS]

RIGHT ON Pdubya
Right on

[ThePeacemakers]

Continued.­...
Nader would (would have, he's what 90???) work his way up by being elected to some other office first.

[DebbieKat]

Nader has done more for this country WITHOUT being elected to office than most.

[COCKROACHEXS]

DebbieKat
Enjoy all ur comments
Thank you for all your substantive comments you seem to be exceptionally well informed

[ThePeacemakers]

But if Nader wanted to really make a difference, he wouldn't just pop up at election time. He would be talking up his third party ideas and "progressive movement" every day between Presidencies as well.
There's plenty of alt media around now....

[joelrosenblum]

Nader never takes a break. The media, however, pays even *less* attention to him when he isn't running for President. If you want to hear what Nader's up to sign up to his listserv at nader.org and buy his books that he comes out with every year. But more importantly, get off your own tukus and protest the war every chance you get. And don't bloody your hands voting Obama/McCain.