Run Ralph Run?
I'm confused. Ralph Nader announces on national television that he's running for President. Some news accounts say he's running on a Green ticket. Well, nobody seems to have told the Greens yet, as the national Green party web site is still busy reporting on Green primary races, let alone the Green convention. More Green internecine warfare? Organizationally, Ralph does not seem to be bringing much to the table.
Then there's the question of what kind of policy choice Ralph offers. Assuming the main choices are Obama vs. McCain (and not Hillary vs. Huckabee or the other possible permutations), why would anybody want to lodge a protest vote for Ralph? (I confess, I've voted for him twice now, though I have very mixed feelings about the second time.)
I could see making a run for president in order to get a broader platform to talk about issues, except that for the past several years whenever Ralph's written on anything — and I think I've read most of what he's written — it's generally been faintly boring, though no doubt worthy: he hasn't been beating the drum consistently on the real priorities. Corvair-genre pieces. Contrast his writing, for example, with Paul Craig Roberts, who has fearlessly and with great determination attacked the most wretched excesses in U.S. policies again and again, covering the same ground repeatedly in imaginative and compelling ways. I'm sure that Craig has a far greater impact on public opinion than Ralph has had. What, then, does the presidential candidate platform add to the equation??
And, finally, though Ralph can crack a smile occasionally, his usual persona is dour and preachy. No "happy warrior" he. Do people who agree with progressive policies really want those personified by a Grinch? I'm not so sure I do, and I wonder, moreover, whether at this point Ralph's running for president has more to do with ego than politics. Dunno. But I'll be voting for Obama, thank you very much.
Posted by George Kenney on February 25, 2008 4:50 AM 
« Save the Menhaden | Main | The Taming of Hillary »
Comments
Obviously Ralph Nader is not the candidate best suited to get progressive ideas into the Presidential debate. But who else is there?
There is no nationally known progressive spokesperson who can better represent progressive views. While there are a few Democrats who would be far better than those currently in the running, they are unwilling to get into the race, probably due to the enormous cost of running as a Democrat.
Given the kind of advisers around Obama, and the dramatic changes in his positions since his days in the Illinois Senate, it's hard to believe he will do much more than improve the tone in Washington.
There is no political party committed to breaking the two-party monopoly on power, now that the Greens appear to have abdicated.
It leads one to have the pessimistic attitude of a Morris Berman or Chamlers Johnson, and just wait for the inevitable fall.
Posted by: Democracy Lover
|
February 25, 2008 9:23 AM
Deja vu: Yes, Obama is probably better than McCain, but as Mr. Nader has pointed out in the past, that is not the question.
'Is he good enough?' is the question, and for starters, no one who cannot identify war crimes (Iraq, Lebanon as two), who funds and approves continued slaughter of human beings (Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine, Pakistan as some) and who votes for constitutional violations (Patriot act II as one) is good enough.
Leaving Mr. Nader, Mike Gravel, Cynthia McKinney (and Ron Paul in a pinch) to vote for.
Posted by: jp | February 26, 2008 2:49 PM
jp, my thoughts exactly.
Obama gives a great show, but really, who wants somebody who voted for the patriot act? Twice.
Voting for the lesser of two evils, is still voting for evil.
Posted by: Kevin M. | February 26, 2008 6:11 PM