Oh goodie. He's (maybe) baaaaack!:
Ralph Nader is scheduled to appear on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, sparking speculation that he is planning another third-party run for the White House.
The consumer advocate announced the appearance in an e-mail message today to supporters of his exploratory committee, formed in January, encouraging them to watch and donate money to his effort."Who will pick up these issues and put them back on the table?" the message asks, after listing causes like single-payer health care and impeaching President Bush that have been "pulled off the table by the corporatized political machines in this momentous election year."
"We're not in the position to really be able to say anything until after 'Meet the Press,'" said Chris Driscoll, the interim media director for the exploratory committee.
When I first heard about this, I thought I was going to have to put together a long post detailing the foolish stupidity of this man who wishes so desperately that he were still relevant, but then I read that bit I highlighted above and realized it wouldn't be necessary. A much, much shorter post will do. Let's take those two points in reverse order...
Impeaching President Bush. Nader wants to run a campaign for the presidency to make sure that impeachment gets put back on the table during "this momentous election year." Never mind that the point - the entire point - of this election is to select the man or woman who will replace Bush. Never mind that by definition this process is designed to do one thing, and only one thing. No no. This must be put back on the table as part of the political debate.
Call me crazy, but if your goal is to get the current president impeached, why would you pick this way to go about it? It's not just that this particular means is ill suited for your particular ends. Its much worse. These means cannot possibly achieve those ends. By definition these means are predicated entirely on Bush remaining in office until the next president is sworn in.
Worse - and yes, it can and does get worse - precisely what ends Nader believes the impeachment of Bush will achieve? How specifically would this impeachment in any way, shape, or form, end the control of our political system by the "corporatized political machines" he apparently despises so much? Who, I would love to know, does he think will replace Bush should this impeachment quest find success? Cheney is next in line. Is he an improvement? Should we impeach him, too? That would transfer power to Pelosi. Is she an acceptable alternative to Bush and Cheney? If not, how far down the line of succession do we carry this quest? And given that congress is responsible for all impeachments, we must work through them. Are they not part of the "corporatized political machine?" Or should we perhaps just hold a constitutional convention, allowing us to dodge these question entirely? Except who will we nominate to this convention, and how will we ensure that they too have not been corporatized? When and where will this end? And does any of this get us any closer to his desired ends?
Second, single-payer health care. Notice here, not "universal health care," but "single payer." Why specifically is it that this is specific end that must be met? And by specifically, I mean what specific and relevant measures of public health and well-being make his proposed single-payer system better than others that have been proposed. General measures of well being are fine, so long as the methodologies for their creation are fully defensible. What I want to know is, why single payer and not some other mechanism?
We live in the real world, not some alternate universe of own own imaginative construction. Short of a total and complete revolution, we cannot begin our political world anew. It may be painful for this man to admit, but we must do the best we can with what we have. There are no "Single payer" magic wands that will transform our currently disastrous health care system into a wholly unified utopia. Single payer, in abstract, has some enormous advantages. But we do not live in abstract. We live here in reality. So specially, how will and Nader and his quixotic quest for the White House get us from this point in reality to that so deeply longed-for point where single-payer becomes a reality. I don't want rhetoric - because apparently neither does he. I want a specific and detailed plan describing how he would simultaneously transform our political and economic systems to get from here to there. No "we just need the will and the people and it will happen" nonsense. I want specifics.
You know, on second thought, a longer post is needed. But sadly, I'm not a member of his "exploratory committee," so I don't have a copy of that aforementioned email to supporters that would allow me to go through his nonsensical points one by one. So....
Hey Internet: Mr. Nader hasn't seen fit to post this email on his website. Can you send it to me? Thanks.
UPDATE: Check out what's running at the top of Nader's site:
Awake From Your Slumber.That's one thing we're exploring this election year.
Is it mere words that we're hearing?
Or do the words promote action?
Poet, musician, and Rock and Roll Hall of Famer Patti Smith and citizen activist Ralph Nader have for years used music and words to promote action - for a change.
And we've just come across a remarkable newly released DVD.
It's called - Awake From Your Slumber.
The DVD brings together two visionaries - Patti Smith and Ralph Nader - in a powerful dialogue on war and peace.
Together, through words and music, Patti and Ralph make the case against the Iraq war and against the corporate takeover of our democracy.
The DVD - produced by the Hudson Mohawk Independent Media Center - is history lesson, poetry reading, and rock concert rolled into one.
Patti sings People Have the Power, Mother Rose, Blakean Year and Gandhi ("Hey little man Awake from your slumber, Get 'em with the numbers.")
Patti reads her epic poem, Radio Baghdad - "in the realm of peace, city of Baghdad . . .we created the zero, but we mean nothing to you."
Ralph speaks on the need to impeach Bush and Cheney, cut the bloated military budget, and end the illegal war in Iraq.
All for the low, low price of $100! Power to the little people! The poor, huddled masses yearning to drop a Benjamin on a bad "epic" poetry reading! Awaken from your slumber, little man, so that you might a c-note on the concert to end all concerts. History awaits! Awaken and go for to claim your destiny!
Words, not action, he says.
OK, I'll bite:
Here's the second post on his fabulous site:
Maybe we're wrong.
Maybe the Democrats and Republicans will nominate Presidential candidates this year who will stand up against the war profiteers, the nuclear industry, the credit card industry, the corporate criminals, big oil, and the drug and health insurance industries.We doubt it.
But hope springs eternal.
In the meantime, take a few minutes and explore with us an idea.
The idea is this--1,000 citizens in every Congressional district.
Each and every one committed to challenging the corporate powers that have a hammerlock on our political and economic systems.
Organized citizen power facing off against corporate power.
In this election year - 2008.
Instead of spending this election year sitting back and watching the corporate candidates spin their vapid mantras - hope, experience, change.
Instead of spending the year complaining about inertia, exhaustion, and apathy.
Let us instead weigh the possibility of pulling together half a million dedicated citizens collectively rising up off our couches and organizing a ground force in every Congressional district in the country.
A ground force of citizens who are informed, committed, tenacious advocates for a just future.
This is what we are contemplating.
Something new.
Something big.
Something bold.
Something that works.
Something that will prod young and old alike.
To join in a mass push back against the corporate powers that are dictating our future.
No one person can get us there.
But one person is ideally suited to lead this grassroots force - if he chooses to do so and runs as the citizens' candidate for President in 2008.
And that one person is Ralph Nader.
In the 1960s, Nader brought together a group of young people who challenged the corporate status quo.
The press dubbed those young people Nader's Raiders.
And the rest - as they say - is history.
Here's the idea--1,000 active and informed citizens in each Congressional district ready to take on the corporate political structure in this 2008 election year.
Half a million citizens - mobilized, informed and powerful, organized for a common cause - facing off against corporate power and corporate control.
Half a million people. That would be historic. Something big. Something bold. Something new.
Oh, wait...
Obama's already got double that. 1 million people, each of whom have donated less than $100 each, have stepped up and committed to his campaign. Millions of new voters brought out to the polls - almost as many during the first half of this primary season as Nader collected in total votes (new and old voters alike) in 2000.
And yet Nader is somehow the only person "ideally suited to lead this grassroots force."
Nader wants a half-million. Obama's got a million. And yet Nader is the only one. Wow.
Unless... wait a minute. I got it! 1 million is too big. He wants the little man, but not that many little men. There is an upper limit to the grassroots army that Nader can command, an upper limit that Sen. Obama sadly refuses to recognize. Too big, Sen. Obama. And too bold. If only you had stopped to listen to the wise words of this noble and selfless citizen activist. If only you had heard sooner that you should not mobilize so many of your fellow citizens. Why, Sen. Obama, why must you be so unreasonable?
But perhaps I'm underestimating the power of Ms. Smith and her epic poetry reading. Perhaps they will be able to accomplish things that none of us have ever seen before. Perhaps....
Know Hope, Mr. Nader. Know Hope....
UPDATE: Here's the relevant part of the text of the email I wrote about above:
Answer: Cutting the huge, bloated and wasteful military budget, adopting a single payer Canadian-style national health insurance system, impeaching Bush/Cheney, opposing nuclear power - among many others.
Now that's really funny. It's not just single payer, but "a single payer Canadian-style national health insurance system." Erm... OK.
Canada's system, for those who don't know, isn't a unified, national single payer system. Each province is responsible for managing their own system, and within each province there is often a multiplicity of programs. The national government sets the standards and provides a good part of the funding, but the provinces play a lead role in implementation and design. Here's an overview from wikipedia:
Canada's system is an example of single-payer health care. The national government provides part of the funding, provincial governments manage the hospitals (and provide the brunt of the funding), and doctors in private practice contract with the government for fee-for-service payments. Many Canadian citizens have supplemental health insurance, which covers expenses not covered by Canadian Medicare. Fees for doctors, hospitals and other providers are set by negotiations among doctors' associations, provincial or regional governments, and the national government. Global budgets eliminate the cost of billing individually for huge numbers of products and services.
So Nader wants to replicate this in the US? A 50-state program? I can't help but ask: Why this and not a truly national system? What would be the benefits of this over other potential system? And why should Canada be our model? Wouldn't copying either the French or Swiss systems make more economic and political sense? To the point: Do you even know what you are talking about here, Mr. Nader?
As for the military budget, let me say that I tentatively agree here, but that I'll nee to see more specifics from him before I can say that for sure. Again, we must work from where we are, and not from some better, hypothetical version of the world that only lives in our imagination. Slashing the defense budget willy nilly would have serious and far reaching consequences for millions of Americans, and although we absolutely must reduce the amount we spend on defense, we must be smart about how we do it. Actions, not words, right Mr. Nader?
UPDATE II: A question: How would Ralph Nader and Denis Kucinich's campaigns differ? This list of issues provided here sounds like a Kucinich stump speech. Didn't Kucinich put these issues on the table already? And weren't they ignored? Just a question....
Subscribe to this blog's feed
