August 31, 2008
Nader on the DNC
If you’re like many rank and file Democrats, you actually loathe the DLC. In this Real News Network interview, Ralph Nader talks about theDemocratic Party as represented by the DLC. I’m actually watching television again - but only on the net. I check the Real News Network every day for a rundown on current issues in video format. Since their funding model is strictly from viewers and no one else, I made a small donation, I hope you will too. I'm not a fan of some of the things Nader’s groups have been involved in in the past, but I do have respect for Nader and he makes some valid points in this video interview.
Posted by Buck Batard at August 31, 2008 11:53 AM
Ralph is right again, as usual. That's why he will never be elected to anything. What so many people are unwilling to admit, George Kenney states clearly in a recent post on
"There are, I think, three issues or perhaps more accurately clusters of issues that we must address. First is to get control of military spending, reducing it promptly by half with an eye towards further cuts. Second is to switch from a carbon economy to clean, renewable energy. And third is to tax the rich severely. If even one of these things cannot be accomplished we risk losing everything."
If you take a look at these three issue, you can see that the Dems will do nothing on #1, they will do not nearly enough on #2, and I rather doubt they will make much progress on #3. Sure the Repugs are worse, but is that the basis on which we should choose leaders?
I think this being right thing is what really pisses off the Democrats about Nader.
To begin with, they know he's right on the issues, and especially right on the biggest issues. Which is pretty much the opposite of their candidates. But they vote as true believers, and either (1) their candidate wins and produces squat, or (2) their candidate is so wooden he can't even beat a weak Republican. So, in true Democratic (and, realistically, American) fashion, they kick the dog. Do they complain about the rigging of the election, or attack the people who stole it? Do they explore ways of nominating better candidates? No, they look around around the playground for the kid they're sure they can beat up, and take out their party's failures on him.
If they chose instead to adopt some of his policies, as he continually asks them to, they would win the elections and enter office with significant popular support. But that would upset the War Machine.
In 1992 I voted for
Ron Daniels for President. The main plank of his platform was to cut the DoD budget in half immediately, then spend half the savings on retooling the factories and retraining the workers displaced by the cuts, and the other half on infrastructure. That would have worked, and the country would have been better off at this stage. We would have in place the tools needed for a truly growing economy, not one based on the kinds of bubbles that line the pockets of Wall Street and oil speculators.
Instead, we got Clinton, whom the ACLU (then) considered the worst civil-liberties President since Nixon. Plus, the thrills and chills of the internet and housing bubbles. And NAFTA, but no health care.