53 Comments so far

1. Jaded Prole February 26th, 2007 2:52 pm

   Great article! I’m sick of the DLC/liberal myth about Nader (and any other independent) as “spoilers.” It is this rotten spoiled system that is the problem and it is doubtful that national elections are even possible anymore beyond the media sham. Nader may not be perfect — no one is but he has principles and he sticks to them. The only candidate running that has principles and integrity is Kucinich and we all know the Dims won’t choose him as front runner. The rest of them make me want to Ralph.

2. JTGardens February 26th, 2007 3:24 pm

   Thank you Chris Hedges.

   I’m glad to hear someone as respected as Hedges telling the truth about Nader. I thought about forwarding this to some of my liberal Democratic friends, but threats of retribution for supporting Nader have nearly ended those friendships in the past. That’s how threatened people are by Nader, or at least by what they have been told of him through the corporate lens. For some pundits, like Eric Alterman of the Nation magazine, the ultimate goal seems to be the survival of the Democratic Party, right, far-right or wrong.

3. Poet February 26th, 2007 3:44 pm

   Right on Jaded Prole!

   If the Democratic Party wants Ralph Nader to vanish, they need to stop running the same old military-industrial DLC drones like Biden, Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Richardson, and maybe (oh be still my beating heart)possibly Al Gore (who if he did win would continue lineage of oil company connected presidents.

   Howard Dean came along and was skewered, Dennis Kucinich in all liklihood is going to get the same treatment.

   So, okay, you think 8 years of Bushco sucked, how about McCain/Lieberman or Romney/Brownback, or maybe even Giuliani/Thompson? Sooner than later the two-headed monolith that masquerades as a two party system has got to be fixed and nothing attracts more attention than indifference. So let the fun and games begin and if Ralph for some reason doesn’t run try writing in Mickey Mouse, Daffy Duck, or maybe even Magilla Gorilla.

4. leobixby February 26th, 2007 4:14 pm

   Finally, an article written by one of the many respectable writers, activists, scholars, and advocates who know better than to follow the leader right over the cliff in oblivion. The days of fear-based voting need to be over, even if it does mean the downfall of America as a the “world’s only superpower”. I for one am fully prepared to deal with my karma as an American. We have been exporting our deadly division between the rich and the poor - the largest gap in the world - to other countries under the guise of globalization for the past thirty some years.

   As a result the very Earth the human race collectively depends upon is in peril beyond anything we ever imagined. I don’t necessarilly agree with others who say that Barack Obama is just another corporate crony, in that I think he has evolved dramatically in many ways. I think he also is smart enough to grasp what the people really want, which is equality of condition, not a false sense of equality of opportunity. That said, I would work on Ralph Nader’s campaign in a heartbeat. If voting for Ralph, because that is what our conscience as Americans tells us to do, causes another warmonger to become president, we deserve it. It is, after all, still a Democracy.

   We can collectively make the decision to put these chumps out on their asses by not buying their products and by refusing to vote for clowns who do not represent our deepest ideals. There have been revolutions in the past, and there will be revolutions again. The question is, how much pain and humiliation are we going to have to endure before we are ready to participate in direct democratic action.

   The world is looking to the people of the United States to rise up against the hypocrisy, the inequality, the fear, the terror, and the tyranny of the corporate bottom line. They will have our back, because they don’t hate us, they hate what has been done in our name.

5. John F. Butterfield February 26th, 2007 4:54 pm

   military-industrial-political complex

6. Nannie February 26th, 2007 4:58 pm

   I will vote for Ralph Nader every time he is on the ballot.

   He is honest,trustworthy,thoughtful,and very intelligent. All the characteristics of a fine President.He is a formidable debater. [Newt found that out in California.]

   I hope he runs. We need him now more than ever.

   “Ralph Nader 2008 Presidental Candidate.”

   Sounds great. Let the parties begin…

7. nomorewar February 26th, 2007 5:43 pm

   Thank you Chris Hedges. The system corrupts everyone who runs for a high-profile office–everyone, that is, except Ralph Nader. Ralph doesn’t care about money, and he doesn’t care about offending the high and mighty. He offers us nothing but honesty, integrity, and passion for the people. As a society, we value fluff over substance, which is why we’ll never elect someone as decent and deep as Ralph Nader.

8. opeluboy February 26th, 2007 5:52 pm

   I’d vote for Nader in a heartbeat and have never bought the lie that he is responsible for the murderous moron now holed up in Washington.

   There is an easy out for the Dems: represent the people. Doing this would eliminate the need for a Nader campaign, as he himself has stated many times.

   Of course they will not be doing this, so I look forward to another Nader run.

9. lagemac February 26th, 2007 6:24 pm

   As a seminary graduate, I appreciate the way Chris Hedges has made good use of his training at Harvard Divinity School. His keen ethical sense and perceptive understanding of both the positive and frightening aspects of American religion makes him one of our most valuable commentators on the state of our nation. Thanks, Chris! Keep talking and writing!

10. PJD February 26th, 2007 6:30 pm

    Thie “Nader the egomaniac” characterization by the Dems. is, frankly, the most, false and slanderous accusation I’ve ever heard. Nader is the most tireless and selflessly dedicated person I’ve ever met, and I feel fortunate to have met him. One needs to reach for religious icons and saints like Rev. Tutu, Archbishop Romero, or Thomas Merton, to find persons of comparable integrity.

    Is the egomania accusation a reflection of the useless, disgusting, vain, power hungry nature of the Dems themselves?

    They can go to hell.

11. Stephen V. Riley February 26th, 2007 6:50 pm

    Thank you Chris Hedges for your many writings, addresses, and your great democratic mind.

    Yes Ralph Nader is truly prophetic on the abuses of unregulated capitalism, but caution to Chris Hedges, Ralph Naders’ ideas are powerless without the transformational power of spirituality.

    In due time, it will most certainly be ascertained that corporate capitalism is an intrinsic evil, based upon the following:.

    1. Global corporate capitalism is destroying democracy because it denies the spiritual dynamics of democracy. The practice of democracy is as much an exercise of the human spirit as in the practice of religion.
    2. Madison Avenue marketing is in truth a form of witchcraft that alters human consciousness.
    3. American Christianity has succumbed to a materialistic culture that denies the inherent spirituality of our humanity.
    4. With diminishing spirituality, America seems no longer capable of higher thoughts, a higher consciousness that pursues the common good.

    Until this nation understands that the increasing chaos we are facing in the world is not due to a clash of civilizations but a clash between the forces of materialism and the forces of spirituality. One of the most powerful forces of spirituality is a deep hunger for justice.

    Peace can only come from justice. Violence only creates more violence. Terrorism is the weapon of the poor and oppressed. War is the terrorism of the imperialistic oppressor. History is not to be denied, war is proving now to be obsolete.

    As citizens of American Empire, we choose not to know how we affect other people and other nations. Until American citizens make a conscious decision to choose to know, we as a nation are at a loss for solutions.

    Stephen V. Riley

12. ezeflyer February 26th, 2007 8:10 pm

    I am happy to see that I am not alone in my appreciation of all the times Nader has saved our lives and the lives of our friends and loved ones. I hope he runs for the Green Party again. Regardless of whether he does or runs as an Independent, I will work for him and support him any way I can. Even if he doesn’t win, it will be the only time the corporate MSM will give him some airtime. Would’nt it be something if all the people disenchanted with the corporate duopoly turned out to vote for him in mass?

13. Rhite February 26th, 2007 8:25 pm

    I have voted for Ralph in the past. Last time around I was a Kucinich supporter who also liked Howard Dean. I knew Kucinich could not win the nomination, but I wanted his messages to get to as many people as possible in hopes of making an impact on the Democratic Party Platform

    Then, somehow, the Nominee was “decided” about 6 months BEFORE the National Convention, before most states had even voted or caucused or held a state convention. Then the Party Platform was decided a month before the Convention, so there was no opportunity for debate on the platform.

    This is Democracy? The fix was in.

    When Democrats in my State broke the law to keep Nader off the ballot, everything became quite clear. It was the subsequent legal battle that nearly bankrupted Nader.

    I’m still registered as a Dem, but I don’t think of myself as one anymore. I’m not likely to vote for a Republican, and there are some Dems I will vote for, but whenever I can I vote for a third party candidate.

14. optimismwill February 26th, 2007 9:01 pm

    I voted for Nader in 2000 and I have tremendous respect for Chris Hedges, and his critique of those who, in charging Nader with betrayal, have only themselves to betray. However, I am not planning to vote for Nader in 2008. This is not because I wish to vote for a Democrat. My critique is from the Left, not from the Right.I don’t agree with Nader or with Hedges that are problems lie simply with “corporatization.” That’s not the basic problem. The basic problem is capitalism, which inevitably gives rise to corporatism and to corporations and politicians who are completely unscrupulous and will destroy the planet if they are not stopped. But to stop them, we me must overturn the entire system. To think, as Nader does, that we can have capitalism without evil corporations, that we can tame “our” corporations and make the respect the rule of law and human decency, is a pipe dream. As Marx argued in a riposte to a similar argument made by his rival Proudhon, “That’s like wanting Catholicism without the Pope.”
    I’m going to vote socialist in 2008. If my candidate is not “the winner,” why not at least vote for a candidate who promotes the truth about capitalism and war? Rather than a pipe dream peddler?
    The only way to save the planet is to galvanize the working classes of all nations to struggle. Nader and the Green Party, with their middle class message and base, will not do that. So why waste time on them? It is especially frustrating to see “socialist” groups who used to know better–the Socialist Party USA, Solidarity, ISO, Socialist Alliance–waste time on them, under the guise of “building independent politics.” Yea, sort of, except when David Cobb supports the Democrats anyway, and Nader says he won’t run UNLESS Hillary Clinton is the Dems’ candidate. Is that independent? Even if they were, independence for what? Pipe dream capitalism? or working class socialism?
    Take it to the factory gates, not the ballot box. That’s where our antiwar message belongs. Nader, with his superrallies and his inside outside the Dems strategy, just sows illusions in the existing system. He doesn’t really offer an alternative.

15. clyde paige February 26th, 2007 9:13 pm

    Nader cost Al Gore the presidency and he knew it would happen if he ran.If you like Nader you must like the moron who is president.

16. commonwealth1234 February 26th, 2007 9:17 pm

    Okay, okay, Nader’s fine . . . as far as he goes. But even he doesn’t rail against flat out economic rent (examples: land rent, radio frequency spectrum rent). Take the economic rent out of corporations and they’re mostly efficient, market-driven, consumer-friendly cooperatives. But let’ em keep their unearned income from resource or location values, and they shift taxation onto mere business and labor. Let ‘em keep their grip on location, location, location and they’ll compel farmers to give it up for work on corporate farms or in corporate factories.

    Don’t get me wrong, Nader’s all right . . . as far as he goes; however, he too conflates corporate actual productive life with corporate mere ownership of nature (urban, rural, and resource sites). Think the game of Monopoly: owning the Board (Nature) is the key. Give me the Board ans you can have all the factories and money; but just try to place your capital and money on the board without paying economic rent. Checkmate!

17. rkymtnwest99 February 26th, 2007 11:22 pm

    The true modern day American hero. He has no reason to worry what the fascist press will write or produce about him. H e d o e s n ‘ t c a r e.

    If he runs, I’ll vote for him again — just as I did in 2000 and 2004.

    As far as the name-calling and slanderous words by Michael Moore and the rest, at least it showed them for what they are: fake progressives — trying to keep their powerful democratic leeches in power — at any costs. They’ve gone just as mad as the right. Its almost funny.

    Nader ‘08!

18. Thebigkate February 27th, 2007 12:10 am

    I am a great fan of Chris Hedges! However, I must bring to his (and everyone’s) attention the point that had Ralph Nader dropped out of the Presidential contest in 2000, Al Gore would have won the Presidency–no going to the Supreme Court or nattering about chads. This is not to say he is not a worthwhile candidate, but to point out that he was a “spoiler”–both for Gore and Kerry. Were either man in office today, I do not think we would be in this horrible, sorry situation in Iraq–and getting ready to attack Iran!!!

    Kate Madison
    Depoe Bay, Oregon

19. blessthebeasts February 27th, 2007 12:30 am

    Why should Nader have dropped out in 2000? Gore was a lame vice-president and a lame can-
    didate for president. If he had run a progressive campaign, he would have earned the
    votes that went to Nader. After all that has
    happened, he seems to have seen the light, but
    who knows? Meanwhile, Nader is the same prin-
    cipled progressive he has always been. He’s
    not a hypocrite or by any means an egomaniac.
    In fact, he has the least ego of any politician I can think of except Dennis Kucinich. The two of them would make a great
    ticket.

20. rtdrury February 27th, 2007 12:38 am

    With Gore or Kerry in office today we would only be spending 1 billion a month instead of 8 billion a month supporting our oil addiction will military violence.

    That’s an improvement but it falls far short of our potential. Let’s cut our healthcare and defense bills in half, eliminate our consumption of foreign oil, have a great renewable energy boom, build strong local economies based on small local enterprises, close down K Street, give civic responsibility back to the American people, and rebuild international laws, treaties, and institutions.

21. annika February 27th, 2007 12:41 am

    Right on Chris Hedges. Nader 08. I hope more Dems lose their in-group mentality and join the popular resistance!

22. NotOneMore.US February 27th, 2007 3:23 am

    I voted for Nader in 2000, 2004, and will in 2008 if he runs.

    I was at Ralph Nader’s Madison Square Garden event in 2000, and I have never met as many positive, open hearted, forward thinking people as I did that night. They came from all walks of life.

    And Nader predicted on stage that there would not be one word printed the next day in the supposed ‘liberal’ New York Times. And there wasn’t. Two days later the Times managed to run an article in the entertainment section (where they talked about Patty Smith, Bono, and some of the other performers).

    I talked briefly to Nader that night, and not only did he listen to my issue on the destruction of the redwood forests here in Humboldt County, CA, he was very aware and offered some relevant comments. This is a person who not only cares, but is knowledgeble. Nader has done more positive things for this country than anyone else.

    When the media and democratic party shut down Nader, they also shut down his message. That was their intent. If our elected officials has 1/10th the integrity of Nader, we would all be better off, and we wouldn’t be in Iraq.

    Unrepentant Nader Supporter
    AG

23. walt February 27th, 2007 7:41 am

    I would like to tell you my Ralph Nader story. It was around the time he announced his 2000 candidacy and he was appearing on a sensible talk show like Charlie Rose’s. I was enthralled by his perspective on the politics of the time. Clinton had just brought Democratic Party stock to an all-time low and the Republicans had more or less decided on GW Bush. What Nader spoke about was the prevailing political dialogue, but of what his reasons were for running. I wish I had a transcript so I will paraphrase what I recall. Nader said (more or less) “I am running for the people without health care, the people who have lost their standard of living due to their jobs being moved off shore, the people who have lost the protection of O.S.H.A., the people whose property has been devalued and whose health has been damaged by environmental pollution, the planet left unprotected by a crippled E.P.A. … etc.”

    The list wasn’t long, but it was concise. The man who had challenged the auto industry and given rise to the consumer protection movement was ready to turn his focus on government.

    The campaign wore on. Even if not physically present, his ideas were included in the political dialogue. He had done what he was best at … keep the concerns of the average, unprotected American, on the table.

    In the latter days of the campaign, it became clear that he would not secure consideration for the Presidency, but he was still a force to be reckoned with. He had the power to barter his support with the Democratic candidate and affect the platform in ways that would do the very thing many people on this comment stream talk about, moving the Democratic party back to its traditıonal roots – the working person, minorities, the disenfranchised. But he didn’t. He ran.

    Was he egotistical, or merely stubborn? Was he a spoiler or an idealist? You can spring to his defense or condemn him, but the net result is that those least considerd in his decision were in fact “the people without health care, the people who have lost their standard of living due to their jobs being moved off shore, people who have lost the protection of O.S.H.A., the people whose property has been devalued and whose health has been damaged by environmental pollution, the planet left unprotected by a crippled E.P.A. … and we were soon to learn bitterly, the Army Reserves, National Guard and their famıilies and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.” Not a small group to betray.

    It seemed to be that Nader and his followers put their ideals ahead of the American people. There was little doubt then and absolutely no doubt now that we as a nation would have been better off with Gore than Bush. So if it is about the quality of life of those most vulnerable who live their lives in suffering right now, how can I be asked to support him? He is someone who was intentionally sacrificing the worst off for a “vision” of revolution – which common sense and a meager knowledge of history tells me is quite unlikey. I felt it was an appaling act of self centeredness but not one without historic precedent

    Nader in an interview that same year said that the nation must put itself in the hands of elitists (like him). He definitely used the word elitist and definitely implied that there was a class of people who knew better than the rest of us. Again consulting my meager knowledge of history I was reminded of the Marxist concept of a “Vanguard Party” – a proxy group standing in for democratic participation run by intellectuals and (ahem) elitists. We all know how that turned out.

    I know I am completely out of phase with all of you who have written comments on this article and of course Chris Hedges himself. I know my spirituality is rooted in basic moral responsibilities for others, particularly the most vulnerable. What’s more, I neither believe in nor long for the revolution. I belive a social democratic evolution is in process perhaps moving too slowly for the political elite, but at the pace of common people. I don’t believe the battle begins at the factory gates, because there are too few damned factories left in America. Traditional Marxists (in their predictable 19th Century perspective) ignore the white collar class which numbers in the millions, is a largely unprotected and viciously exploited segment, close to the process of service sector “production”, better educated and more amenable to activation than the few remaining highly paid manufacturing “workers.” I don’t believe in Leftist Utopias at all. They have a poor record of keeping all people protected and become havens for totalitarians as readily as Right wing cabals. I don’t finally believe I am any smarter than the average American despite my education, or at least as dumb as most Nader-ites believe them to be. Capitalism? It’s just an econimic system and just like Communism, if it is run by scoundrels it screws the people.

    Most Americans, including most of you writing into this article see politics as a kind of Consumerism. Everyone, right, left and center seems to be looking for the Brand that you most prefer (Coke vs. Pepsi, Apple vs. Microsoft). Worst, you seem to see the political process as one that will ensure that your particular brand of ideology is the dominant ideology (as if we haven’t had eough of that over the past 7 years!)

    I believe in Democarcy. So who would I / will I vote for? The one that has the best chance of reaching out to independents and Republicans, as well as Democrats. The one with the best chance of steering the Democratic Party back to its traditional roots. The one most responsive to political pressure from morally valid constituencies. I frankly don’t care if it is Clinton, or Edwards, or Obama, or someone else, who will come riding in at the last minute. As long as they can win and pull america back away from the Right. And as long as they can be held to the fire by Democrats who are disciplined and orgranized enough to do so. It’s not hard. The Republicans did it.

    Democracy is about engagement. It’s about choosing a politician and holding their feet to the fire, whıch means voting and voting and voting some more. It means community participation. It means involvement.

    By the way I read a lot of complaints here about The Democrats. The Democrats are not only the politicians. They are the party. And not only the machine. But us. You. Me. The total of those registered or voting democratic. If there’s something wrong with the Democrats, its not just in Washington.

    I grew up in a factory family, am the first to enter and graduate from college and grad school and got there on the GI Bill. I have empathy for the poor, minorities, the weak, the uninsured and the veterans. At one time or another, I or some one in my family has been one of them. I think they, the people, are more important than Leftist ideals and utopias.

    Despite all the commendable moral abstractions cited in this piece and the attached commentary, and considering the closeness of these elections of late, I have consider support for Nader a moral outrage.

24. Gore2008 February 27th, 2007 9:12 am

    Has Chris Hedges no shame? Nader is as big a liar as Bush the thief. Sorry Chris but your efforts to re-write history just don’t cut it. Nader repeatedly said that there were NO differences between Al Gore and Bush. You’re really delusional if you think Al Gore would’ve put this country in the disaster that Bush has put it in. Nader’s silence about Bush’s theft of the 2000 election and the disaster Bush has put the country in since speak volumes about Nader. The ugly truth will always be that Nader made it possible for Bush to be able to get close enough in Florida to be able to have brother Jeb illegally steal the election for him by disenfranchising many thousands of mostly african american voters. Nader got 90,000 votes in Florida with his lies about Al Gore. Those votes would’ve gone to Al Gore had Nader not been in the race. Let’s also not forget the fact that the republcan party spent $5 million funding Nader’s tv ad campaign that repeatedly repeated Nader’s big lie. Let’s also not forget that a big part of Nader’s money is invested in Fidelity Investments which invests in many of the multi-national corporations that Nader pulically claims he hates like Occidental. Nader is the worst kind of hypocrit. Nader helped end democracy in America with his behavior in 2000 and our country will pay for it forever. Nader threw away everything he ever worked for in 2000. Nader is an out of control, self absorbed egomaniac. No amount of effort to try to re-write this ugly history in the manner the former Soviet Union used to try to do will change the ugly truth about the damage Nader has done to our country. Nader deliberatly divided the progresive majority in 2000 and that made it possible for Bush to be illegally installed against the will of the people. No less than Martin Kilian, one of the founders of the Green Party in Germany warned that Nader staying in the 2000 race would result in Bush in the White House. Hitler also got into office with a minority of the votes and Nader made it possible for Bush to do the same. I guess Chris isn’t aware of the saying, “united we stand. divided we fall”. Dividing the progressive majority only helps the republicans. Nader proved that in 2000. Another ugly truth is the fact that Nader NEVER attacked Bush during the 2000 campaign. Nader only spread the big lie that there were no differences between Al Gore and Bush which is as big a lie as Bush’s claim that Iraq had weapons of mass desruction. Chris Hedges should be ashamed for wanting to continue to help the republicans destroy our country. Al Gore told the truth about Bush in 2000 and everything Al Gore said would happen if Bush was in the White House has happened. It’s a trgedy for our country that the truth wasn’t a priority for Nader in 2000 and it clearly isn’t a priority for Chris Hedges now.

25. wrbolle February 27th, 2007 9:28 am

    Chris
    Good Book, Bad essay. In the summer of 2000, it was not prescient given the press treatment of Gore (which amounted to a mugging of lies and smears at the behest of the Rovian propagandists) that Bush had a better than even chance of winning or stealing the race. For sober observers, Gore was not the least worst choice - he was the only choice that had a chance of defeating Bush. Nader’s comment was that there was NO difference between Bush and Gore. This was a lie and anybody but a selfserving egomaniac or their enablers would understand that by his lie - Nader undercut his entire career in the ‘good fight’. Bush has done more damage in the intervening years than Nader will ever be able to clean up. The cost of this Corporate Cabal will continue to be paid by many generations to come. And Nader could see this. Nader could have stopped it. And Nader didn’t. Nader is relegated to a caricature of himself, a joke. And ironically this is just what corporate kingpins wanted too. Nice work Ralph. Please disappear.

26. walt February 27th, 2007 9:29 am

    Dear Gore 2008
    Thanks for this one. I completley overlooked the fact that “… Nader NEVER attacked Bush during the 2000 campaign.” Not once.

    That speaks volumes about his allegiances and his ego. What surprises me about people’s comments in this stream is that they all readily accuse Clinton and the other Democratic hopefuls of being corrupted by the power of being in the public arena … but completey fail to see this is the very thing, the only thing, that can explain Nader’s unconscionable behavior in ‘00 and ‘04. He literally turned his back on those he once lived to protect and became a “rock star” to the Left. I can’t wait for Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins (True Revolutionaries they!) to come out and endorse him. They can swap “war stories” with David Geffen and Mimsy Dowd at the John McCain inaugural.

27. duchaspa February 27th, 2007 9:55 am

    Thank you Chris Hedges for a very balanced view.
    The whole world sees that USA and Canada democracies have become “caduc”. They are plutocracies run by corporations.Most countries have elections on a Sunday or Holiday so working people can vote. Most countries have multiple parties and treat them fairly.The Progressives in USA and Greens in Canada are excluded.Conclude yourself.

28. lucretiamott February 27th, 2007 10:07 am

    Dear Chris,

    Thank you for your article. It is right on the mark. I voted for Mr Nader in 2000 and 2004 and because I could not bring myself to support the Democratic nominee’s. Mr. Kerry, especially, chose to continue to support the war in Iraq, even after evidence concluded that there were no WMD’s, and advocated the destruction of Falluja and more troops in Irag. It was Mr. Kerry who changed my mind and I voted for Ralph again.. Mr. Nader’s run in 2004 demostrated for me how rigged the system is in favor of these two parties who do not represent me, nor people I know and work with.

    Many Democrats and others continue to blame Nader for Gore’s loss and Kerrry’s loss in 2000 and 2004. It doesn’t explain the 30 million Democrats who supported Bush in 2000 and even 2004? It doesn’t explain why Mr. Gore lost his own home state of Tennessee in which Mr. Nader wasn’t a factor. I agree that Bush has managed to cheat, twice now, but Nader wasn’t a factor in 2004, and Mr. Kerry chose to throw in the perverbial towel before all the votes were counted. I know many people in California who supported and worked for Kerry and felt betrayed by his choosing to concede so early. It is the same reality in Caliornia, where Democrats chose to support Arnold S. and not Phil Angelides, a good progressive Democrat. What is the story here?

    The reality is if Mr. Nader hadn’t run I would have written in someone else. Mr. Gore and President Clinton had presided over 1/2 million children’s deaths in Iraq through UN sanctions and bombing, a murderous war on Yugoslavia, NAFTA/GATT, balancing the budget on the least of these, the loss of real healthcare reform thanks to Hilary and on and on. Because of my religious belief, I cound not endorse either candidate because it was my vote indicated my support of a muderous policy.
    I do not feel the current leadership of the Democratic Party represent me and question why good Democrats, like Barbara Lee, John Conyers and Russ Feingold don’t run for president? If Hilary is chosen , and the money’s on her right now, I will not waste my vote. She supports this murderous policy on Iraq and the other Democratic candidates have endoresed the “all options on the table” approach to Iran. That is insane. At least Wes Clark has gotten his act together to petition congress to stop the impending war on Iran. But no other Democratic nominee, including Obama, has endorsed it.

    Now that the Democrats have control of congress, Speaker Pelosi is endorsing the surge by not crafting a strategy to end the war in Iraq, , a larger military, more money for war and the possible assualt on Iran by not pushing Murtha’s plan. What is the deal here?
    Who is the hypocrit?

    I am not buying the it is all Nader’s fault again. Ralph has been a scape-goat for too long and a conveinent tool to bring us more of the same bad candidates for our nation’s highest office. God help us and our nation. No wonder, most people are no longer joining political parties anymore.

    Keep writing Chris and challenging this “Inconvenient Excuse” that it is all Nader’s fault and not the leadership in both these political parties who care more about their party and less and less about our nation and its people.

29. fpal February 27th, 2007 11:48 am

    The threat to the U.S. political system is a lack of voices and prospective in political discourse.

    Nader’s presidential runs strengthen America. Those that argue for a 2 party only system weaken it.

    Thank you Mr. Hedges and especially Mr. Nader.

30. PJD February 27th, 2007 12:10 pm

    Has everyone forgotten that a subsequent media survey showed the Gore did in fact win the the Florida popular vote? The democrats only lost in Florida because of their own spineles waffling and, for some mysterious reason, not pursuing a complete statewide recount

    The democrats lost the 2000 election all by themselves.

    And as far as the US not attacking Iraq if Gore was president, this is far from certain. Let us recall that Bush’s attack on Iraq was largely a continuation of Clinton/Gores low-level war on Iraq, and had the full suport and encouragement of the left-of Clinton British PM Blair. Likewise, Bush’s fake justifications for attacking were just refinements of Clintons similarly fake justifications for his Yugoslavia bombing.

    The democrats represent US imperialism and capitalism with a smiley yuppie face - taht’s the only difference.

31. voxclamantis February 27th, 2007 12:15 pm

    Mr. Hedges is right. 2008 is the year to vote for Nader, as 2000 should have been. Considering that the bus of state went off the cliff some time ago, it is hard to be optimistic about the future. But some of us might do the right thing finally and at least enter with open eyes and clear minds the nightmare century our corporate-military lords have prepared for us.

32. Amos February 27th, 2007 12:52 pm

    E – 3

    Bill Buckner – Old Billy Buck – I always stuck up for him but to no avail. He got excited and let that ball go right through his legs. His team went on to lose the biggest prize in their field – the World Series.

    Now Ralph Nader is a lot like ol’ Billy Buck only different. You see, after Billy Buck let that ball go between his legs back in ’86 the Red Sox still had another game left to play the next day. So they still could have won. They came out the next day and promptly lost all by themselves without the help of Bill Buckner or anyone else. They just lost.

    Now ol’ Ralph, he come out in 2000 and his game just blew away the chances of anything remotely good happening to the Democratic side and therefore the people. There was no tomorrow. There was no next day to regroup. (The recount was more of a hockey shootout than extra innings) The Democrats lost and we now have what we have for a leader. (A dry-drunk frat boy with a cowering smirk on his illiterate face; wanting desperately to be a shooting star while armed with only firefly capabilities)

    So thanks, Ralph. All of that hard work offset by helping to enable the worst president in the history of the country. In Nader’s defence he probably woefully underestimated the damage that one man could do to the country. But it’s not just the man but also the man’s machine. And the Bush machine was a juggernaut at the time; one that would do so much damage here in just six short (long) years.

    But that’s neither here nor there. Ralph has done his damage. The question is, will he do more harm than good once again in 2008. Thank the high heavens that there are term limits and the ‘Bush’ regime has run its course. Although I do fear Jeb Bush as another White House resident. Though Jeb is head and shoulders above his leg-stain brother he is still a Bush and therefore not to be trusted with the people’s welfare. Another four or eight years of this kind of ‘leadership,’ and the people will be indentured to the state.

    I could live with Bill Buckner’s error. A game is a game is a game. Ralph Nader’s error cuts to the bone and is a lot harder to live with every day. But then again Ralph Nader could only vote for himself once. So I guess there are errors to go all around. I’m not even a Red Sox fan but you get to feeling like one with the fools in which we have entrusted our well-being just battering our sensibilities on a daily basis.

    Poor ol’ Billy Buck, he actually was a very good baseball player. He just made that one little mistake. Ralph Nader, George W. Bush and the rest of us should be so lucky.

33. Jeff Steinmetz February 27th, 2007 2:26 pm

    “Pariah or Prophet?” The phrase is akin to “Your either with us or against us”. Ralph Nader has done great things, but nobody should be put in the situation to agree with everything he has done or cast him out as a pariah. I think Ralph Nader and people like him should run in every political race, because it is the only way to shift the political debate to the left. However, the last 6 years have shown us how destructive staying with our favorite but unelectable candidate can be. Simultaneously, one can not rest all blame for the 2000 election on Ralph Nader. Many democratic Florida voters were prohibited from voting, the vote counting was flawed, and interrupted by out of state Republicans staffers flown in to stop the recount. I believe Ralph Nader should have told his supporters to vote for Al Gore, but that does not erase all his good deeds and make him a pariah. Progressives need to stay focused on the real issue George Bush. Isn’t it ironic our current “Pariah” president believes he is a “Prophet”?

34. chris in sacto February 27th, 2007 2:56 pm

    No thank you Chris Hedges. My father worked with Ralph Nader in the 1970’s, when he had an organization called People’s Lobby. I can only imagine my parents are rolling over in their graves over Nader. If after all of these years, Nader hasn’t mastered the art of politics, now is not the time to indulge his need to destroy another election cycle, propelling the worst of two evils into the White House.

35. Marfa February 27th, 2007 3:05 pm

    Chris Hedges is an intelligent journalist and great writer of books.
    He misses the point of Nader. Votes for Nader are votes taken from the Democrats. This, in fact, gave the presidency to Bush in 2000 re: Florida. This gave us and the world a monomaniacal brain lacking killer as a president. Richard II with a Messiah complex mixed with angry runt-of-the-litter Mommie’s boy has thrown the world into chaos (the neo-con theory of exercise of power re: Stalin). Yes, on a lot of fronts the Dems and Reps are the same but I really don’t think going to war in Iraq would have been on Gore’s mind. We have a two party system. Change it or embrace it but don’t play games with “sending messages” by throwing tantrums and voting for the spoiler. If Nader was real he would have been grassroots organizing for the last 8 years instead of coming in at the last to beat his breast of righteousness. A vote for Nader now would be just silly if so many weren’t dead or maimed because of the last silly vote in 2000.

36. jc February 27th, 2007 3:53 pm

    Many who voted for Nader in 2000 have said that they regret it. He ran knowing that he could not possibly become president, and that his candidacy may well help elect a man (moron) who would have only mionority support. Nader took advantage of the weaknesses in our election system in order to prove a point, and I do hold him partially responsible for the tragic results of the Bush years…a presidency which may prove to have disasterous consequences far beyond what we have seen so far.

    The only thing positive that I can say, is that Nader’s candidacy clarified the weaknesses in our election process for many of us who hadn’t given it a lot of thought. Obviously we need to reform our election system to accomodate third party candidates, with some kind of runoff, as well as other changes, so that we do not end up with a president who has very little support. If Bush were in his first term now, he could become president again even with his terrible approval ratings, with a third-party candidate in the race.

    If Nader wants to do something positive for the country, he should focus on getting election reform now that the Democrats have a slim majority, in the same ways that he has fought for change all of his life. He should still have some leverage with the Democrats…but every time he runs for president he’ll get fewer votes, making it ever more pointless.

37. blessthebeasts February 27th, 2007 4:09 pm

    I don’t recall anyone warning Nader supporters in 2000 that W was a homicidal maniac who would bring the world to the precipice we have arrived at. I don’t think anyone would have predicted what has happened. Gore was such an uninspiring candidate, he certainly wasn’t talking about global warming. I remember his debate with Perot about NAFTA; he was incredibly condescending and flat-out wrong. Nader offered a clear vision of an alternative to corporate-controlled politics. And here we go again–we’ll be stuck with a Democrat who really just wants to maintain the status quo. It’s a very sad commentary on the state of our democracy.

38. RichM February 27th, 2007 5:43 pm

    There are some loud Dem Party apologists here — a real shame, because it’s not possible to have a serious discussion when Dem Party apologists are in the room.

    Our situation is that 99% of R’s are corrupt, and 96% of D’s are corrupt. The net effect of this is to ensure that no one in Washington dares to challenge Bush, US militarism, or the corporate corruption of politics. Dem Party loudmouths arguing that their pathetic spineless party is a few percent “less evil” and that Nader therefore “owed” it to Democrats to withdraw in 2000, so that Washington could continue refusing to face up to corporatism & mililtarism — this is just too dumb for words.

    If any of you big Gore fans remember 2000, recall the 2nd debate. Gore was virtually unable to find an issue on which he & Bush disagreed. I watched the whole 90 minutes, almost screaming at the TV, “For crying out loud, Al, go after him on something!!” He was unable to find a single issue on which to attack Bush. This is why the election got close enough to steal. Gore was so terrified of offending corporate Democratic backers, that he was unable to sound like a serious Bush opponent — because in effect, he wasn’t.

39. BillCannon February 27th, 2007 6:07 pm

    I have voted for Nader every time he has been on the ballot, and even when I could only do so as a write-in. He’s the only candidate who grasps the essential truth of the times we live in and offers the kind of leadership that we need. Every time I vote for him I do so proudly. The only choice that exists at all on election day is because of Ralph Nader. The only right choice that exists at all on election day is Ralph Nader.

40. RichM February 27th, 2007 6:22 pm

    To BillCannon, & those who feel similarly: I admire Nader, but he’s not “the only candidate who grasps the essential truth of the times we live in.” He’s just the only well-known political figure who speaks (let’s say) “substantial truth.” But there are plenty of lesser-known ones who are as good or better — usually socialists. Socialists are well aware of all the issues raised by Nader, and see them in a generally deeper & more comprehensive perspective. There are of course different flavors of socialists — some better, others not so good.

    Capitalist politicians systematically refuse to recognize the issues pointed to by socialists (and by Nader) because their job is not really “making society work better;” it’s just serving corporate interests. Since this often entails lying & screwing the public, that’s what you get from both capitalist parties.

41. concerned citizen February 27th, 2007 7:02 pm

    OK people, it does not matter whether an article is right or wrong; the seriousness of our situation concerning our American way of life and our constitutional rights is at stake. The latrine is full of Democrat and Republican excrement and the hand is on the flush handle. What are we going to do about it??????

42. steve.abeles February 28th, 2007 9:53 am

    The claim that there was no significant difference between the Republican and Democratic candidates in 2000 is bogus. There is only one question voters have to ask today: Where would the country be today if Gore had been elected in 2000? If 9/11 had happened under a Gore administration and a Republican-controlled Congress would we be in Iraq? Definitely not! Would the Kyoto accords have been signed by the US?

    The imperative is to vote for someone who can win-someone whose views approximate ours.

    The fate of our country is in the balance. We cannot afford to make a statement of principle by voting for Nader and contribute to another Republican victory.

    Those that fail to remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

43. Coyotita February 28th, 2007 1:15 pm

    Walt and Company:

    Ralph Nader is a prophet and we know what happens to prophets — they are hated. Not just by the ones who commit the dirty deeds, but by those who do not want change! Because it takes a little more faith in truth, love, goodness, whatever you call God, than they have. A prophet — and we do have them, even in this day and time, knows what this world can be; knows that working together, everybody can have what they need. Knows that, because he is connected to that greater power that is called God. So before you throw out that tired old epithet — Commie — remember that Jesus and the prophets in the Old Testament said the same, believed the same, and were treated the same. It would behoove you to listen, save your tirades for the greedy corporate heads and the big investors. It might also help you to remain silent and listen to your heart for just a minute or two — find your humanity, compassion, and maybe a little bit of love. Ask for the faith that tells you of it’s incredible power.
    To Ralph Nader:
    Thank you for saying, “If Clinton gets nominated, I will run.” And I, will work for your campaign, and so will others who want a true democracy.

44. wrbolle February 28th, 2007 2:27 pm

    re/ blessthebeasts

    Your comments: “I don’t recall anyone warning Nader supporters in 2000 that W was a homicidal maniac who would bring the world to the precipice we have arrived at. I don’t think anyone would have predicted what has happened.”

    My comment: My wife and I and our family and our church, and our associates had a pretty clear idea of what would result from a Nader vote. We continue to cuss the fools who enabled Bush to run the country in the ground. It didn’t take a genius to realize that a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. Or that if Bush got in - there would be enormous damage to our security and our future. When I was in school, I worked with a Nader affiliated group Colorado Public Interest REsource Group. And we dedicated a lot of effort to improving the odds that Constitutional rights would be recognized and people in power would be held accountable. It was a good group of people. Today I am disgusted by Nader’s continued inability to face the damage his lie about Gore and Bush being no different has wraught. I wouldn’t contribute spit to any enterprise Nader is associated with. Again. Ever.

45. Coyotita February 28th, 2007 4:03 pm

    Those still blaming Nader for the, “homicidal maniac who would bring the world to the precipice we have arrived at,” should take heed:
    “When you protect the power of others, you protect your own.”
    Had those that were “let in,” protected the right of those who were, “kept out,” because they loved democracy more than the win, we wouldn’t be putting up with the forementioned homicidal maniac.

46. bildad February 28th, 2007 9:10 pm

    I can’t believe there are still so many people who can’t do a little research and find out for themselves the truth about the 2000 election instead of regurgitating the same old canards put out by the Democratic Party Scapegoat and Slander machine. Watch An Unreasonable Man and see a Democratic statistician (who voted for Gore himself, by the way) put the statistics of the Democratic Lie to the test. But isn’t it better to look forward than to remain fixated on the past?
    Nonetheless,a few points:
    1. No one I know who voted for Nader would have EVER voted for Gore or Kerry, or any other corporate Democrat. To a person they would have voted Peace & Freedom, Socialist, or they would not have voted at all. The idea that anyone who shares Nader’s views on the duopoly would turn around and support it is preposterous!
    2. This is NOT a two-party system, it is a system HIGHJACKED by two parties, and it is engineered to keep insiders in and outsiders out. There is nothing in the Constitution that limits our choices to evil and lesser-evil. And Marfa, the only way to “change it,” is to CHALLENGE IT within the electoral system.
    3. To say that Nader never criticized Bush in his campaigns of 2000 or 2004 is an outright lie so ridiculous that it barely deserves comment.
    4. Nader never said there was no difference between Gore and Bush. He said that there is LITTLE difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. For more information, go to http://www.therealdifference.org.and compare the parties on the issues. See for yourself. Once again, it seems that most of the Nader-haters have never heard him speak or read any of his writings, and they spew forth about the Green Party when they haven’t read the platform or paid attention to any of our candidates.So Optimsimwill, if you think that the message of the Green Party platform is “middle class” you haven’t read it. Admit it. You haven’t, have you? And the fact is that the base of the party is expanding daily, as people of color and outspoken African American and Latino leaders realize that the Democrats’ attempts to keep selling them the old line that “you have nowhere else to go” really means “you have to go somewhere else to be heard.”

    Now we know, from some of the comments above, that the War Party in its Democratic guise is going to pull out all the same dirty tricks to keep progressive competitors off the ballot and away from the debates. Not that I can blame them. Obama or Clinton would melt like the wicked witch of the west if they had to debate Ralph Nader. Whether he runs or not, he represents the views of his supporters, and WE have a right to be heard and to participate in the civic discourse and the electoral process. And no amount of whining by milquetoast liberal corporate Democrats is going to stop US from exercising our rights and replacing the the entrenched duopoly with a multiparty democracy!

47. wrbolle March 1st, 2007 9:53 am

    “4. Nader never said there was no difference between Gore and Bush.”

    If I had Nexus/Lexus I could bombard you with multiple examples of this lie … remember Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum references? or Bore and Gush references? Nader stated on several occasions that there was NO difference between Bush/Gore Rep/Dems. Nader set the 3rd Party movement back at least 50 years with his self-absorbed 15 minutes of fame. The attempt to paint Nader as blameless in the Bush ascendancy is to deny the facts. It is also pathetic. Nader could have stopped the GOP and Bush - but chose not to. He accepted $$MONEY from the GOP to fund his efforts. I expect to see him on FOX any day now, telling all those underserved FAUX progressives about the evils of the Democrat party. I’m sure FOX will give him all the time he requires to make his case.
    Nader could have stopped the GOP and Bush - but chose not to. Nader’s legacy: Environmental degradation, Constitutional erosion, Tax Cuts for the Rich, Stacking the Courts with 8 years of god-awful appointments, Iraq. These will remain Nader’s legacy long after he and his apologist have gone on to collect their rewards.

48. TR Knoblauch March 1st, 2007 1:01 pm

    So much vitriol from the Nader haters. The Democratic Leadership lie machine is gearing up indeed.
    Would any of you Nader Haters/Pissed Off Democrats please tell me exactly where Nader cost Gore the election. In which state whose Electoral Vote count made a difference did Nader’s votes make a difference?
    Florida you say with fingers pointing righteously.
    Please Florida was stolen from an incompetent Gore campaign in many ways. Then, so little effort or resources were put into the post-election day fight it was laughable. The Republicans were ready and took the initiative when the Democrats stumbled and fumbled the ball in their grasp.
    New Hampshire? Yes, the four votes there went to Bush in a sqeaker influenced by Nader and the other “third party” candidates.
    Other than that NO OTHER STATE’S ELECTORAL VOTES WERE INFLUENCED BY NADER!
    In fact, an analysis of the votes state by state reveals that Buchanan was the difference between Bush receiving the electoral votes that Gore received in 5 states.
    Thats right Buchanan would have been Bush’s “spoiler” if the count in Florida went the other way.
    Why did Gore continue to campaign aggressively in safe California the last month of the campaign? He wasn’t campaigning against Bush, he campaigned against a Nader whose votes would not have made a difference. If he had put even 25% of those resouces he used to campaign against Nader into Florida AND been more assertive in Florida we would have had a different result.
    Face it guys, his campaign strategy was poor.
    To those complaining that Nader took money from (gasp!) Republicans please note the $50,000 he received was paltry compared to the tens of millions that Gore (and Kerry) received from (gasp!) Republicans. This argument is disengenuous at best.
    To say that Nader stole votes from Gore makes me ask, “Which votes did Gore buy or have title to?”
    I never heard Democrats complain about the Spoiling Effect of Ross Perot in ‘92. He received 19% of the vote (as opposed to Nader at 2.5% in 2000.) If Perot wasn’t in the race we would never have had a Clinton presidency.
    I won’t respond to all the ad hominum attacks on, arguably, one of the greatest Americans in history. (Without Nader there wouldn’t have ever been an EPA, OSHA, Clean Water Legislation and several other dozen other consumer/community protections we grew accustomed to in the 60’s and ’70s. The Dems along with the Reps turned their collective corporatist backs on consumer/community protections and decided that corporate protection was more appropriate. In other words, they sold out. Even today they are still selling out. There is no grassroots left in the hierarchy of the Democrat(ic) Party. The “leadership doesn’t want to hear what you think about an issue they will tell you the way they want you to think. You see it, don’t apologize for it.
    I (and the country) would appreciate a little sober analysis of the facts instead of relying on the DLC (and others) Rovian style propaganda you have come to regard as truth.
    The truth of the election of 2000 is, Gore lost all on his lonesome. He had lots of advice and counsel avaiable to hime to change tactics and strategy. He took none (or little) of it.
    In any other country the Democrat(ic) “Big Tent” would be at least 5 separate parties ( the Republican would be 3 or 4.) Don’t be fooled that “bi-partisan” means “non-partisan” it doesn’t. It means the two wings of the corporatist war party are deciding how to divide the spin so their fan clubs will accept the propaganda each spews out daily. This is not to say there aren’t many good people involved or even elected who are members of one wing of the party of the other, there are. They get so little of the support ($$$) from the PACs that their voices are effectively stifled.
    I don’t see a solution to this dilemma in the Democrat(c) Party I’ve been looking since ‘68. If you have one, please, let us know.

49. blessthebeasts March 1st, 2007 3:15 pm

    The solution is a wholesale overhaul of the entire corrupt system. Dare I say revolution?

50. Apochoa March 8th, 2007 8:14 am

    Our current system is set so that it favors two political parties. Voters who vote for any third party are simply wasting their votes at the national level. For third parties to have a chance, we need to change our US Constitution making run-off elections mandatory whenever no candidate receives more than 50% of the votes in the general election. There are several ways of doing this and, let me say, that I too would love to vote for third candidates but I will never waste my vote. Lets first work at amending the US Constitution and make third parties viable in future general elections.

51. bncuwywivovi December 11th, 2007 11:24 pm

    titwyxikyreva…

    exwaxapusepo…

52. bnpiryxokiry December 12th, 2007 9:00 am

    titvuriroreho…

    exceryzuceta…

53. bnhihypexazy January 1st, 2008 5:59 am

    titnacywawita…

    extucatihahi…

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)