Is it possible that Nader is taking a cue from I, CLAUDIUS?

[DerekG]

I was watching the BBC miniseries the other day (the best thing to ever come out of television, BTW) and a piece of thematic material reminded me of Nader:

"Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud come out."


I don't wish to spoil the story for many who may not have had the pleasure of watching said production, but this quote points to a gambit made by a certain character. This person is so disgusted with the Empire, which devoured his beloved Republic, he would do anything to ensure its destruction--even if he had to initiate catastrophe himself. Like paving the way for the ascension of a depraved emperor, for instance.

Unlike many on this board, who foam at the mouth at his very mention, I think Ralph Nader is a moral man (probably a better man than John Kerry). I agree with him on many counts: the Democratic leadership is comprised of neo-liberal cowards, abandoning the dreams of FDR and LBJ in their eagerness to gorge on the corporate trough. I suspect that Nader sees the writing on the wall, which was written a long time ago, by the likes of imperialists like T. Roosevelt, Hearst and Mahan; cold-warriors like Truman and Acheson, who destroyed the Republic with the National Security Act; fascists like Luce and the Dulles brothers; and men like Scaife and G.H.W.Bush, who, throughout the 70's, saw to it that the 60's would never happen again.

Many of you find fault with his hubris (how many humble men run for the office of presidency, folks?). But it may not be about ego; rather, it's possible that Nader fears a Democratic administration will preserve the corruption that existed well before George W. ever got into office. It's possible that Nader thinks the only way for things to get better, is for things to....


Do I agree? NO. My vote for Kerry is to forestall doom--I think his election may save many lives.

Nevertheless, there's something I admire about Nader (I can just hear some of you going rabid). And it's possible, not likely, but possible, that he may be correct.

Nader finally has his Nero.


Edit: I changed emperors.

[aquart]

1. A moral man would not do so much harm.

The blood of over 1000 Americans is as much on his hands as it is on Bush's. Nader's lie, or delusion, that there is no difference between the parties gave BushCo an advantage.

If Nader was once a moral man, he isn't anymore. All whores were once virgins.

[DerekG]

8. Not true

Moral men are capable of bringing about great evil, in their desire to right wrongs. Hence the maxim: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

Are you familiar with Tolkien's LORD OF THE RINGS? It is a mature story, men like Boromir intend to use the Ring for good purposes, not realizing the true nature of power. J.R.R. Tolkien once wrote that Gandalf would be a worse ringlord than Sauron, because he would corrupt the notion of goodness.

[aquart]

17. Very true. Moral men CAN do great evil.

But how can a flaming hypocrite be a moral man?

[DerekG]

19. Most of us operate on varying degrees of hypocrisy

*If* Nader's plan is to let the house of cards fall, I don't see anything egregious about accepting money from Republican donors, who harbor an ideology Nader wants to see go the way of the dinosaur.

Huey Long did it with businessmen, and turned on them.

John F. Kennedy did it with the mafia, and turned on them.

They were both moral men.

[Vincardog]

2. Nader makes some good points. Both parties are sucking Corporate a$$

But I do not believe we need to destroy the country to save it.
That is too much like the war is peace crap out of the * camp.

[Mr_Spock]

Hmmmm, that is his angle isn't it? Destroy the country to prove you are

correct. He is a very selfish man.

[Mr_Spock]

14. Duploid

Silly DU.

[jpgray]

3. Thalmann argument back again for more

Ernst Thalmann headed up the German KPD in the late twenties and early thirties. His strategy was to focus on the Social Democrats as the main enemy as opposed to the Nazis. Now Thalmann had much more justification than Nader could ever dream of having for purposely splitting the left--KPD leaders had been assassinated by a SocDem defense minister, and when the SocDems led the government, there were some brutal crackdowns on revolts. Not only this, but the country had an astronomical unemployment rate, and the people were ready for a significant change.

However, his arguments are Nader's arguments. His slogan was 'first Hitler, then our turn', because he believed the terrible Nazis would rally the public wholly behind the leadership of a true leftist party. Thalmann later died in Buchenwald. Another of his slogans regarded people 'refusing to see the social democratic forest for the national socialist trees.'

Nader has repeatedly said he prefers Republicans be elected. Why? Because he has the mistaken belief that it mobilizes the populace. The Reagan and Bush administrations have not mobilized anyone--Nader still gets the same lousy numbers he has always received, and all the progressive candidates have lost in the primaries. This strategy is as ineffective as the Democratic leadership's 'Third Way'. The populace and dialogue can be mobilized gradually, as is evidenced by our SLOW shift to the right from the days of FDR. Nader is just a politician with terrible strategy and all-too-familiar hypocrisy. Ask him why he invests in Halliburton, General Dynamics and Raytheon while he takes money from dumb college kids who oppose the war--this way he profits both ways. He lambasted Gore in 2000 for Occidental Oil stock, but guess who has some himself? Nader is a hypocrite and a horrible strategist who had a great past in consumer advocacy.

edit: We can make a change, but it takes years of hard work, not a series of failed presidential candidacies. And Nader's method is ends justifies the means strategy at its worst--I prefer to prevent a disaster rather than work towards one for my own political gain.

[JohnKleeb]

4. Thats interesting man

What I didn't get when I saw some of Nader's acceptance speech, I didn't get why he didn't realize how much of a dangerous time this is, and he named all the problems that have happened under Bush-Cheney so that confused me. I don't get Nader, I have more respect for David Cobb than I do Ralph Nader honestly. Nader does as you said have a great past but he does have stock too so it's hypocrtical of him to do that. Kerry ain't perfect but he will make improvements, and that's what we need, we need to rebuild after these four years.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpgray]

7. Democrats have no right to be elected

But a strategy predicated on creating a disaster is morally and strategically corrupt. Bush is already detaining Green Party leaders in airports, consolidating our media and merging state and corporate power. And Ralph wants to get on this train and ride it to its end? I say that is a bad strategy--one that seeks to aid the elite in causing suffering to effect change.

It's great to have progressive stances--I wish Kucinich had won the primaries, for example. But a series of failed candidacies aren't going to move the public--the right did it with long years of toil and power consolidation. We can do it, but we have to abandon the idea that we can copy their route and woo the elite. If we beat them at that game, it will be a pretty hollow victory anyway--we have to find our unique way through our traditional strength--the working class.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpgray]

10. Did you even read my post?

I find it interesting that you find no compromise in a man who is profiting from the very war he claims to oppose. How many cruise missiles do you suppose Nader has made a profit on with Raytheon? Why do you suppose he himself denounces Boeing and General Dynamics while owning stock in each? Why own stock in slave-labor clothiers like Gap and the Limited? If you're looking to avoid compromise, Nader isn't your ticket.

"The idea that someone should compromise their principles in whole, only to defeat a greater compromise is intellectually dishonest."

First, I'll ignore your logical confusion of there being a 'greater compromise' than a wholesale compromise. If you admit Bush requires a greater compromise, than clearly Kerry is not a complete compromising of principles--there wouldn't be any left for Bush to trump him on in that case.

But even taking your argument at face value, this describes a vote for Nader as well--Nader requires compromise. If you are against investing in the war while being against it, or investing off slave labor while being against it, or lambasting others for investments you yourself hold, or if you are against hypocrisy, you are compromising for Ralph.

His only virtue as compromises go is that he requires less than Kerry. So when you say the idea that a lesser compromise is better than a greater is intellectually dishonest, perhaps you can let me know why you are making the same argument?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[camero]

12. How can anyone vote for Bush?

Anyone with integrity, anyway. See below,heh.

[jpgray]

13. Of course Kerry is a compromise--more of one stance-wise than Nader

My take on Nader and Kerry is this:

Nader has the policies I most agree with. His take on such obscura as the Taft Hartley Act, etc. appeal to me greatly as a loony leftist. But he is about as hypocritical as your average politician, and I don't care for his strategy of making things worse before making them better at all. It has a history of failure, and working towards making things worse isn't something I can accept.

Kerry made some lousy votes in the Senate, particularly with the IWR. The IWR in the hands of a responsible president COULD have been used effectively. As Roosevelt said, 'speak softly and carry a big stick', and if the president had intended to speak softly, a yes vote on a resolution as flawed as the IWR may have been excusable, but clearly this was not the case. Bush didn't want to speak softly, he wanted to bash someone over the head. As for the resolution, it was not constitutional in spirit, and was so vague in its rules for application that Bush may have the legal ability to use it as an authorization for other imperialist wars in the region. A terrible document with a terrible president in power that should not have received so many 'yea' votes.

Between the two I have to pick Kerry, though his stances on the issues are considerably less in tune with me than are Nader's. In my view, the long-term benefits for people everywhere of getting more sympathetic people in the FCC, DoD, DoJ, SCOTUS and in all of the Executive Branch is worth more to me than the moral comfort I would have voting for Nader or Cobb. Personally, I would prefer Cobb to Nader, but then too I would have to make a strategic decision on whose candidacy my vote would do more good with.

[jwirr]

15. So it won't matter

which candidate is elected just as long as nader gets to run? Just pretend for a minute that bushie wins - nader assumes that bushie will do such a bad job that it will bring about real change in 2008. Nice scenario. However it is very likely that the president elected in 2004 will be appointing 3 or more Supreme Court Justices. bushie would appoint men of his stripe and they would then control the Senate, House, Presidency and Courts.

What is to keep them from doing what Hitler did and just plain abolishing the Republic in favor of a repug dictatorship? What makes you think that once they control power that they would be willing to have another election? To give up power? Once in power Hitler ignored all laws but his own. bushie is already doing that - do nader and his supporters really think that this skunk is going to change his stripe?

This is the danger many Democrats fear - that we will not have another chance to right the wrongs that have been committed. That is why I and many others have begged nader to help us instead of hurt us. One other thing - from what I read in your message, you actually think that the Democrat Party is worse than the Repugs. God where have you been??

[aquart]

18. Try not using the Republican version of our name.

We are the DEMOCRATIC Party.

Never let them set the language.

[Placebo]

5. "What life gives with one hand, it takes with the other."

My favourite I, CLAUDIUS quote! :)

[DerekG]

20. There are hundreds of them

The miniseries is as breathtaking as Coppola's first two Godfather films.

"Is there anyone in Rome who hasn't slept with my daughter?!?!"

[agincourt]

16. Nader thinks if it gets bad enough,

from years of electing RW toads, that people will start taking matters into their own hands for reform. It will never happen though, because we have a corporate press.