I am REALLY tired of journalists criticizing Nader for running again. Finally, I lost it when the High Country News blog posted this letter to Nader
http://blog.hcn.org/goat/2008/02/26/dear-ralph/
You can read my comment on the blog--or I have pasted the text here
Dear Marty,
I am sorry that your decision in 2000 troubles you because you obviously made it without firmly understanding or firmly believing in your actions. It is clear that you did not listen or comprehend the message of Ralph Nader's candidacy, but only got caught up in the frenzy of your peers--much like you seem to be caught up in the current rhetoric of the Democratic Party. Your letter to Nader evokes for me the image of a scorned college student who is embarrassed "the morning after" passion got the best of them. Hindsight, as they say, is 20/20.
Al Gore had the benefit of hindsight when he created "An Inconvenient Truth". I wonder if his hindsight included the fact that the Clinton administration refused to outline a timetable to reduce U.S. carbon emissions while Gore was in the Whitehouse. I wonder if his decision to hold his tongue while promised public land use reforms fell by the wayside keeps him awake at night just as your 2000 presidential vote.
Meanwhile, it certainly wasn't hindsight that impelled Ralph Nader to take on the automobile industry to fight for tougher safety standards, and drive the creation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. It wasn't hindsight that made Nader question the use of DDT on Princeton campus only to be told that Princeton had some of the world's best biologists and if they didn't feel that it was DDT killing the birds, then who was Ralph Nader to question them. It wasn't hindsight that caused Nader to question mortgage lending practices back during the 2000 election--no, not hindsight. Nader has an incredible ability to identify a problem before the rest of the country even recognizes it. His major downfall is that once that problem is identified, he won't rest until he has made progress toward fixing it. Nader's message in 2000 was that the American people were being sold to the highest bidder by corrupt politicians nestled deep in the pockets of big business. His message was that the two party system is leaving us with effectively no choice. His message was that we shouldn't feel that we "owe" our vote to anyone, but rather, that they should earn it. That was his message in 1996, 2000, 2004, and now in 2008. He is running for president because he believes in what he says. He is not swayed by whiners who can't make a decision without the media telling them how to make it. He is not swayed by lawsuits by the Democratic Party. One only needs to look at Nader's record to recognize that he isn't easily swayed.
I only wish journalists like you had the same courage of your convictions.
If you do not want to Vote for Nader, by all means, do not. It is exactly that right for which he is fighting.
1 comment:
You're right, Rita, it sucks that many of us are bullied out of voting for who we would really like to be president.
I saw Nader speak during his 2000 campaign, and he proposed seemingly real solutions to problems that are extremely pertinent today--most notably, climate change and defense spending. I'm pretty sure that during the 2000 election even Gore was talking about climate change less than Nader.
Also, I appreciated this point from An Unreasonable Man--why weren't the other third party candidates from the 2000 elections accused of winning the race for Bush as well (and subjected to the same public scrutiny)?
That being said, what would it take to sway all of the people who really want a change to actually vote for a third party candidate who could deliver it? Until then, I suppose it's true that you are "throwing away" your vote if you vote third party. So, how does that mindset get changed?
Post a Comment