So it's official, Nader will run for President: see the interview here announcing his run, his formal and eloquent campaign declaration here, and a longer statement and then interview at the National Press Club here.
The suggestion, common among the Democratic apparatchiks, that Nader is doing this for ego reasons strikes me as both silly and insulting. (See Nader's sharp reply to the pathetic Terry McAuliffe of the Democratic National Committee here.) Nader's substantive criticisms of the political system and the current situation in the U.S. in the interviews and various statements are all surely correct (notwithstanding an embarrassingly large contingent of academics and alleged "intellectuals" blogging otherwise)--the stuff he says is uncontroversial among educated folks outside the United States, as everyone not trapped in some parochial black hole knows.
Still, we're at a moment in American history when electing "the lesser of two evils" is important, not only for the citizens of the United States, but the world. As Chomsky puts it in a recent interview:
"We know who the two candidates are going to be...it’s an interesting snapshot of American political culture. The two candidates both come from backgrounds of great wealth, extensive political connections. Both went to Yale. Both joined the same secret society at Yale. That’s the range of choices that we have! But there is some difference between them – I don’t think a very great difference, just as there is very little range within the corporate-run political spectrum altogether. But there is some difference, and in a system of tremendous power, small difference can translate into large effects. So those small differences do matter. But the real problem is to dismantle and undermine the entire system of completely illegitimate nomination.
"The people around Bush happen to be an unusually fanatical, extreme, arrogant and incompetent group, and they’re very dangerous. But it’s a small group, and they barely hold political power. And they’re frightening people, including the traditional conservatives, because they’re such extreme, radical, nationalist fanatics. And Kerry doesn’t come from that background, he leans more towards the normal center. But they’re very dangerous. I think that with another four-year mandate, they might do not only severe, but maybe irremediable damage to the world."
Which is why I'll vote for the dreary and patrician Kerry if he is the Democratic nominee (of course, in Texas, it hardly matters whom I vote for!). I just hope he has the sense to pick Edwards as the running mate (actually, I wish the Democrats would have the sense to pick Edwards as the nominee...the more I hear Kerry, the more I am convinced the Democrats are doomed with this wooden Bostonian at the top of the ticket. As Senator Edwards said correctly, the way not to lose votes to Nader is for the Democrats to address the issues on which Nader is, correctly, running. Senator Edwards has the great virtue, too, of being the first candidate for President in my lifetime running openly, and of course correctly, on the theme of class domination. For simple reasons of numbers--95% or more of the population would benefit from an end to class domination--this ought to be a winning pitch, but it has to be sold in an upbeat manner, amply supported by meaningful human anecdotes. Who better than a great trial lawyer to make the case? Obvoiusly this makes the many closet Republicans in the Democratic party nervous.)
UPDATE: Left economist Max Sawicky has a more credible "Nader shouldn't be running" statement here.
Recent Comments