[Marxism] Nader vs The Liberal Intelligentsia

Tony Abdo gojack10 at hotmail.com
Tue Feb 24 01:47:30 MST 2004


This is the main part of the -Meet the Nation- transcript of Nader's 
Announcement of His 2004 Campaign....    In it, he remonstrates against 'a 
liberal intelligentsia', which he seems to say, runs across sections of not 
just the DP, but also through elements of the Green Party and its sometime 
supporters who flip-flop so often with their voting.

He sends the message that his campaign is not just for this 'liberal 
intelligensia' that essentially agrees with his politics, but against him 
running.    He states that his campaign is to be much broader than that, and 
will also appeal to allienated Republicans and nonvoters alike.    And he 
calls for the impeachment of Bush for having illegally led us into the 
invasion of Iraq with his lies.

Yony Abdo
-----------------------------------------

MR. RUSSERT:  Mr. Nader, as you know, this decision is going to upset a lot 
of people.  The Nation magazine, an institution that you have had a close 
relationship with all your life, wrote this editorial:  "Ralph, this is the 
wrong year for you to run:  2004 is not 2000.  ...  The contest for an 
independent presidential bid is completely altered from 2000, when there was 
a real base for a protest candidate.  The overwhelming mass of voters with 
progressive values ... have only one focus this year:  to beat Bush.  Any 
candidacy seen as distracting from that goal will be excoriated by the 
entire spectrum of potentially progressive voters.  If you run, you will 
separate yourself, probably irrevocably, from any ongoing relationship with 
this energized mass of activists.  Look around:  Almost no one, including 
former strong supporters, is calling for you to run ... Ralph, please thing 
of the long term.  Don't run."

And we've been inundated with e-mails.  There's a Web site that actually 
says www.ralphdontrun.net, and I want to air this in its entirety for you to 
watch it, for the country to watch it, and then give you a full chance to 
respond. Let's watch:

(Videotape):

Announcer:  The 2000 presidential race was the closest in American history, 
a swing of just three electoral votes anywhere in the country and George 
Bush would never have become president.  You can blame Gore's mistakes in 
the campaign, the Florida recount debacle, the Supreme Court intervention, 
but after all those events, one fact remains:  Ralph Nader's candidacy 
tipped the balance to Bush.  With just 1 percent of the votes cast for Ralph 
Nader, Gore wins Florida and the election.  Netting a third of Nader's 
votes, Gore takes New Hampshire as well.  The simple fact is if Nader had 
not run, Gore would be president, not Bush.  Today, Ralph Nader is thinking 
of running again, and he says he'll announce his plans in the next few 
weeks.  This time, in 2004, the stakes are far too high.  This time, we need 
Ralph Nader with us, not against us.  Here's how you can help.  Visit Ralph 
Nader's Exploratory Committee Web site and send the message:  Ralph, please 
don't run.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT:  There's real passion in that.  What do you say to those 
people?

MR. NADER:  That's the liberal intelligentsia that agrees with almost all 
our positions.  That is a contemptuous statement against democracy, against 
freedom, against more voices and choices for the American people.  You'd 
never find that type of thing in Canada or Western democracies in Europe.  
It is an offense to deny millions of people who might want to vote for our 
candidacy an opportunity to vote for our candidacy.  Instead, they want to 
say, "No, we're not going to let you have an opportunity to vote," for our 
candidacy.

There are conservatives who are furious with Bush over the deficit, over 
corporate subsidies, over corporate pornography directed toward children, 
over the Patriot Act, over many other issues.  And they may be looking for 
an Independent candidacy.  There are liberal Republicans who see their party 
taken away from them.  They may be looking for an Independent candidacy. 
There are a hundred million non- voters that no one has figured out how to 
bring back into the electoral system, which I want to try to do.

So I think the liberal intelligentsia has got to ask itself a tough 
question, Tim.  For 25 years they have let their party run away from them.  
For 25 years they've let their party become a captive of corporate 
interests.  And now they want to block the American people from having more 
choices and voices, especially young people who are looking for idealism, 
who are looking for a clean campaign, who are looking for the real issues in 
this country instead of the sham and the rhetoric that masquerades for 
political campaigning.

MR. RUSSERT:  Democrats will say, "Ralph Nader, in the end, it's a choice 
between George Bush and a Democrat, and you have to make a decision as to 
who would be better for this country."  They point to Florida, and you heard 
the Internet ad, and I'll show you the exact vote.  Bush won by 537 votes, 
and you got 97,488.  In New Hampshire, Bush won by 7,211, you got 22,000 
votes.  When you were on the program in January of 2002, I asked you a 
question, and here's your response.  Let's watch:

(Videotape, January 13, 2002):

MR. RUSSERT:  Having watched George W. Bush for a year, do you believe an Al 
Gore presidency would have been any different?

MR. NADER:  Well, it wouldn't have been any different in terms of military 
and foreign policy.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT:  Do you believe that Al Gore would have invaded Iraq?

MR. NADER:  He would have.  I think he was a hawk.  He may have done it in a 
different way.  He and Clinton got through Congress a regime-change 
resolution as a pillar of our foreign policy.  But let me answer the points 
you made. They're quite provocative.  Any number of third-party candidates 
in Florida could have affected the equation the way you just described.  
Libertarians got thousands of votes, Buchanan got thousands of votes, 
Socialist Workers Party got votes.  The Florida campaign was won by Gore.  
It was stolen by Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush and their cohorts from 
Tallahassee to the Supreme Court. Two hundred and fifty thousand registered 
Republicans in Florida voted for Bush.

Let's not play the what-if game because when they pick one what-if, my 
candidacy, the candidacy of Nader-LaDuke, what they're doing is basically 
saying that third parties are a second-class citizenship.  And the civil 
liberties crisis affecting third parties and Independent candidates, Tim, is 
very serious.  Historically, that's where our reform has come from, in the 
19th century, against slavery, women's right to vote, trade union, farmer, 
populist, progressive.

Seeds have to be given a chance to sprout in nature.  We call it springtime. 
Entrepreneurs have to be given a chance in the marketplace.  Somehow it's OK 
to have a two-party duopoly that is converging more and more, where the 
towering similarities dwarf the dwindling real differences that the 
Democrats are willing to fight over.  Democrats better look at themselves.  
They'd better brag a little bit more, which they hardly do, about bringing 
Social Security and Medicare and environmental laws to the country before 
20, 25 years ago they turned into a corporate paymaster minion.

MR. RUSSERT:  Do you believe that there would be a difference between a 
George Bush administration...

MR. NADER:  Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT:  ...and a John Kerry or a John Edwards administration on 
judicial nominations, on tax cuts, on environmental enforcement?

MR. NADER:  Yes.  The problem is that the corporate government remains in 
Washington, whether it's Democrats or Republicans.  The military industrial 
complex, as Eisenhower pointed out, is getting bigger and devouring half of 
the federal budget's discretionary expenditure.  And we have no major enemy 
left in the world, no Soviet Union, no Communist China.  The corporate 
lobbyists are still swarming over Congress.  Money is still pouring in from 
corporate interests.  Washington is corporate-occupied territory, and the 
two parties are ferociously competing to see who's going to go to the White 
House and take orders from their corporate pay masters.  So they may be 
different in their mind, they may be different in their attention, they may 
be different in their rhetoric.  But in the actual performance these 
corporate interests and their political allies are taking America down.

They're taking our country apart:  massive poverty, massive child poverty, 
massive consumer debt, environmental devastation.  That didn't occur, that 
didn't get worse under the Democrats?  So, basically, it's a question 
between both parties flunking, Tim:  one with a D-, the Republicans; one 
with a D+, the Democrats.  And it's time to change the equation and bring 
millions of American people into the political arena, so that the civic 
groups are not shut out when they try to improve their country.

MR. RUSSERT:  You had said when John Edwards announced his candidacy that it 
was a good idea that he run for president.

MR. NADER:  Yes.

MR. RUSSERT:  You like him?

MR. NADER:  I think the more organized the citizens are, the better a 
politician he's going to be.  He's like an expanding accordion, unlike 
President Bush, who is really a giant corporation in the White House 
masquerading as a human being.

MR. RUSSERT:  If it got down to the final days of the election and you saw 
that your presence on the ballot could swing the election to George Bush, 
might you consider stepping out and saying, "I endorse the Democrat"?

MR. NADER:  First of all, there are 40 slam-dunk states where either the 
Republicans or Democrats are going to win handily; that's number one.  
Second, I think there's a very good chance that President Bush is going to 
start declining in the polls.  He's making a lot of mistakes.  People are 
beginning to realize that he doesn't care about the American people, 
although he says he does; that as a conservative president, he's presiding 
over and encouraging the shipment of industries and jobs to the despotic 
Communist regime in China; that he fabricated the basis for the war in Iraq, 
which is now a quagmire. And if President Bush doesn't trust the American 
people with the truth, why should the American people trust George W. Bush 
with the presidency?

Now, you gave me a hypothetical, all right?  You know how Arnold answered 
that hypothetical.  When that and if that eventuality occurs, in the rare 
event that it occurs, you can invite me back on the program, and I'll give 
you my answer.

MR. RUSSERT:  The Green Party has said that they wish you had run this year 
with them, some members of the Green Party.  You have said, "No, I want to 
run as a true Independent."  The Green Party forces have now have said, 
"Forget it, Nader.  You'll never get on the ballot in 50 states.  You'll be 
lucky to make 40."  How uphill will your battle be, and how many state 
ballots do you think you can get on?

MR. NADER:  There's a tremendous bias in state laws against third parties 
and Independent candidates bred by the two major parties, who passed these 
laws. They don't like competition.  So it's like climbing a cliff with a 
slippery rope.  And anybody who doubts it can look at a list of all these 
signature barriers and all the obstacles a number of states, not all of 
them, put before third-party candidates on our Web site, VoteNader.org.  
Now, let me just say this is going to be difficult.  We're asking for 
volunteers to log into our Web site, VoteNader.org.  We're asking for 
contributions because this isn't just our fight.  This is a fight for all 
third parties:  Libertarian, Green Party, other third parties, other 
Independent candidates, all the way down to the local level, who want a 
chance to breathe politically.  They want a chance to have a chance to 
compete.  This is not a democracy that can be controlled by two parties in 
the grip of corporate interests.  I don't think America belongs just to the 
Democrat and Republican parties.

MR. RUSSERT:  In terms of what you stand for, this is what you said in July 
of last year about George Bush:  "[Nader] said Mr. Bush was not only 
`beatable but impeachable,' for deceptions and prevarications on national 
security matters..."  Will part of your platform be the impeachment of 
George Bush?

MR. NADER:  Let me put it this way.  When a president misleads, if not 
fabricates, going to war and sending our sons and daughters to war with no 
exit strategy, with a quagmire over there, that is very serious, Tim.  If 
there's any better definition of high crimes and misdemeanors in our 
Constitution, then misleading or fabricating the basis for going to war, as 
the press has documented ad infinitum, I don't know any cause of impeachment 
that's worse.  So what is an impeachment?  It's a hearing to see whether the 
House of Representatives is going to accuse or charge the president with 
high crimes and misdemeanors.  And then it goes to the Senate for a trial.  
Our Founding Fathers gave the Congress the right to fire the president.  It 
shouldn't be a big deal.  For far more trivial reasons, you know, Clinton 
was impeached.

I think this country deserves a serious explanation of why, how, when this 
country was plunged into war against a brutal dictator tottering over an 
antiquated, non-loyal army, surrounded by hostile neighbors who, if he made 
one move against, would have obliterated him.  It was oil.  And oil has 
ruined so much of our foreign policy and antagonized so many people in the 
Third World, when we should be converting to renewable energy and solar 
energy and energy efficiency, all of which creates jobs in this country.  So 
I think it is very important for the American people to take what happened 
last year very, very seriously.

MR. RUSSERT:  So there should be an impeachment hearing and trial?

MR. NADER:  I think Congressman John Conyers is going to file such a 
request.

MR. RUSSERT:  What would President Ralph Nader do today about Iraq?  Would 
you pull all our troops out immediately?

MR. NADER:  We owe a responsibility to the people of Iraq.  We entrenched 
Saddam Hussein in 1979 along with the British.  We armed them, we gave them 
credits, we sold them onto U.S. export license by corporations--sold 
materials for chemical and biological warfare in the 1980s under Reagan and 
the first Bush administration.  Can you imagine that?  And, of course, then 
he invaded Iraq and he was no longer our boy, he was our adversary, and one 
day President Bush number one could have overthrown-- with all the 
international support that he had, he could have overthrown Saddam Hussein.  
Instead he told the Kurds and the Shiites "rise up and overthrow the 
tyrants."  They got about 75 percent of the country under their control, and 
President Bush number one held back our military forces while Saddam Hussein 
slaughtered these people.  So we owe...

MR. RUSSERT:  Well, what would you do now?

MR. NADER:  I wanted to give you a little history.

MR. RUSSERT:  OK.

MR. NADER:  Here's what we do now.  We need to get out of there as fast as 
possible because we are the magnet for increasing guerrilla warfare and 
increasing entry by al-Qaeda and others, just the opposite of what we were 
told was going to happen.  So we need to get the U.N. in there with properly 
funded and trained peacekeeping troops from a whole variety of countries, 
number one.  We need to provide well-supervised elections with perhaps 
suitable autonomies with the acquiescence, of course, of the Shiites, 
Sunnis, and Kurds.  And we need to continue humanitarian assistance to those 
people in Iraq.  That's the way to get it done.

MR. RUSSERT:  And what--who will run--who will rule Iraq?  It might become 
an Islamic fundamentalist extreme regime.

MR. NADER:  Iraqis will be ruled by Iraqis.  It will be ruled under fair 
elections by Iraqis.  They're very creative people.  And we have no business 
being there.  We have no business diverting hundreds of billions of dollars 
over there while our schools, clinics, public transit, libraries are 
crumbling for lack of repair.  We need to cut--get rid of that tax cut for 
the wealthy, which is increasing deficits, and have a massive job-producing 
public works.

MR. RUSSERT:  You would repeal the entire Bush tax cut?

Mr. NADER:  Yes.  Yes.  And have a job-producing public works to repair 
America.  These jobs can't be shipped to India and China.  They're there; 
they're in every community.  They're well-paying.  A lot of them are union 
jobs.  There are so many ways to move this country forward, Tim.  And we've 
got to have more voices and choices.  We just can't sit back like The Nation 
magazine and betray its own traditions, and the liberal intelligentsia, and 
once again settle for the least worst and watch both parties get worse every 
four years and then the liberals who come back to us and complain about "Oh, 
those Democrats are caving into these corporations, they're letting the 
Republicans run roughshod over them."

_________________________________________________________________
Find and compare great deals on Broadband access at the MSN High-Speed 
Marketplace. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200360ave/direct/01/





More information about the Marxism mailing list