Cockburn
/ St. Clair"s Scorching New History of a Decade of War
Now Available!
Today"s
Stories
July
3 / 4, 2004
Stan
Goff
ABC of Opportunism: "Progressive"
Latin American Leaders Support the Coup in Haiti
July
2, 2004
Jeffrey
St. Clair
Suicide Right on the Stage: the Demise
of the Green Party
Douglas
Valentine
Fahrenheit 911: Mocking the Moral Crisis of Capitalism
Gary
Leupp
"Just Because I Could": On Obscenities and Opportunities
Lee
Ballinger
Illegal People: Kerry Opposes Immigrant Rights
Robert
Fisk
Saddam in the Dock: Confused? Hardly
CounterPunch
Wire
"What Law Formed This Court?": a Transcript of Saddam"s
Arraignment
Christopher
Brauchli
Bush"s Drug Card Lottery: the Price Ain"t Right
Saul
Landau
Buzz Words and Venezuela
July 1, 2004
Katherine
van Wormer
Bush"s Damaged Mind: the Madness
in His Method
Joe
Bageant
Is Our President a Whackjob? Does It Matter?
William
James Martin
The Dogma of Richard Perle
Dave
Lindorff
Bush"s Evacuation Moment
Robert
Fisk
Bread and Circus Trials in Iraq
Alan
Maass
Green Party in Reverse
Website
of the Day
Michael Moore and Israel: Blind or a Coward?
June
30, 2004
Kurt Nimmo
Nicholson
Baker"s Checkpoint: a New Kind of Anger About Bush
Tariq
Ali
Getting Away with Murder in Iraq
Jennifer
Van Bergen
Bush and the Detainees
Douglas
Valentine
Apotheosis of the Psychopaths: Instead of Fahrenheit 9/11, Rescreen
The Quiet American
David
Price
Fahrenheit 9/11 Through the McCain-Feingold Looking Glass
Roger
Normand
America"s Criminal Occupation of Iraq
Stan
Cox
Sanitized for Your Protection: Ashcroft"s
War on Art
Henry
David Thoreau
On the Futility of Bush v. Kerry: All Voting is a Kind of Gaming
Ben
Tripp
Who Dast Call Him Liar: a Rebuttal to Nicholas Kristof
June
29, 2004
Patrick
Cockburn
The Cloak-and-Dagger Handover
Robert
Fisk
Alice in an Iraqi Wonderland
Troy
Selvaratnam
New York Times Boosts Pet Developer
Harry
Browne
Bush in Ireland
Ray
McGovern
The CIA According to Anonymous
Elaine
Cassel
Hamdi, Padilla & Rasul: Who Really
Won?
June
28, 2004
Patrick
Cockburn / Leyla Linton
Grisly Rituals in Iraq
Amira
Hass
Confronting Myths and Deadly Power
June
26 / 27, 2004
Alexander
Cockburn
Venezuela: the Gang"s All Here
Patrick
Cockburn
Iyad Allawi, the CIA"s New Stooge
in Iraq
Dennis
Hans
Once They Were Sweethearts: Cheney,
the NYTs and the Myth of an Iraq Link to 9/11
Ben
Tripp
Adventures in Fuel Efficiency
Dave
Lindorff
That State Department Terrorism
Report: What They Knew, But Didn"t Tell You
Chris
Floyd
Cold Irons Bound: the Russian Gambit
Ali
Tonak
Contamination at Berkeley: Profit Motives,
Academic Freedom and the Case of Ignacio Chapela
Keith
Rosenthal
The Withering of the Anti-War Movement
Bryan
Sacks
The Failure of the 9/11 Commission
Wayne
Madsen
Another Case of Blowback
Thomas
St. John
L. Frank Baum, Racist: Indian-Hating
in the Wizard of Oz
Niranjan
Ramakrishnan
American Swadeshi
June
25, 2004
Stephen
Gowans
US to North Korea: "Trust Us"
Saul
Landau
2006 Pentagon Budget as Sacrilege:
Bush Invests the National Treasure in Death and Destruction
Amir
Butler
Iraq: the Deadly Embrace
Jack
McCarthy
Another Times Plagiarism Scandal?
Did Maureen Dowd Lift from the World Weekly News?
Greg
Bates
Chomsky and Zinn Plan to Vote Nader
June 24, 2004
Gary Leupp
John
Lehman on the Iraq / al-Qaeda Links
Patrick Cockburn
A
Day in the Life of Col. Abu Mohammed: Defusing Bombs, Facing
Death Threats
Harry Browne
On
the Rebound: Bush Bounces Back...in Europe
Bill Kaufman
Another
Marxist for Kerry: Joel Kovel"s Sad Smear of Ralph Nader
Christopher
Brauchli
Bush,
Cheney and the 9/11 Commission: What Did They Know? What Did
They Tell?
Rick Gioimbetti
Andrea Yates: Victim of Psychiatric Violence?
John Chuckman
Call Center ID Hypocrisy
Diana Johnstone
Kerry
and Kosovo: the Lie of a "Good War"
June 23, 2004
Laura Carlsen
Bush
and Castro Face Off
Dave Zirin
Barry
Bonds vs. Boston: "A Flea Market of Racism"
Kurt Nimmo
From
Saddam, With Love
Patricia Wolff
Foundation Wars
Mahboob A. Khawaja
"They Had Me Arrested and Shackled My Son"
Patrick Cockburn
The
Pretense of an Independent Iraq
Website of the Day
The Road to Abu Ghraib
June 22, 2004
Dave Lindorff
The
Meaning of Putin"s Pronouncement: Mutually Assured Pre-emption
Ron Jacobs
Nuclear Plants in US Protectorate of Iraq?
Vanessa Jones
Coogee, Peter Garrett and Valium Earrings
Mickey Z
An Open Letter to the People of Iraq
John L. Hess
Clinton Exhales
Pedro Marset/Ex-Solidarity
Committee for Pacho Cortés
An Exchange on the Case of Pacho Cortés
Bruce Jackson
Saying
No to Prosecutors: Why Steve Kurtz"s Colleagues Refused
to Testify
Website of the Day
From Boot Camp to Boot Hill
June
21, 2004
Gary
Leupp
Putin"s Helpful Remarks
Lucson
Pierre-Charles
Haiti After the Press Went Home: Chaos
Upon Chaos
Cockburn
/ Khan
Saddam May Face Death Penalty
Uri
Avnery
Irreversible Mental Damage
June
19 / 20, 2004
Patrick
Cockburn
Inside the Green Zone: US is Paranoid
and Isolated
Bruce
Anderson
Frozen Gringos
Diane
Christian
Morality and Death: a Meditation
on Bush and Blake
Walter
A. Davis
Passion of the Christ in Abu Ghraib
Josh
Frank
How Democrats Helped Bush Rape Mother
Nature
Col.
Dan Smith
Respectable Genocide?: the Crisis
in Sudan
Brian
Cloughley
A Profound Disruption of the Senses
Christopher
Brauchli
Bush and the Timken Plant, a
Year Later
Prudence
Crowther
Mr. Ashcroft, Deport Me!
Poets"
Basement
Iqbal/Alam, Krieger and Albert
Kathy
Kelly
Dying to See Their Kids
June
18, 2004
Chris
Floyd
Blood Victory
Dave
Zirin
Danielle Green, Basketball Player
& Disabled Vet, Speaks Out Against War
Justin
E.H. Smith
The Christian Question in American
Politics
Gary
Leupp
The "Long-Established" Link?:
Iraq, al-Qaeda, and al-Zarqawi
June
17, 2004
Noel
Ignatiev
Zionism, Anti-Semitism and the People
of Palestine
Kurt
Nimmo
The Bush-Kerry Conundrum
Ed
Cardoni
The Persecution of Steve Kurtz
Ron
Jacobs
Power Relations: Rounding Up Everyone Who Knows More Than They
Do
Dave
Lindorff
Philly Daily News: "Four Wasted Years"
Greg
Moses
Geneva Ignored
Norm
Dixon
How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical
Weapons
June
18, 2004
Noel
Ignatiev
Zionism, Anti-Semitism and the People
of Palestine
Kurt
Nimmo
The Bush-Kerry Conundrum
Ed
Cardoni
The Persecution of Steve Kurtz
Ron
Jacobs
Power Relations: Rounding Up Everyone Who Knows More Than They
Do
Dave
Lindorff
Philly Daily News: "Four Wasted Years"
Greg
Moses
Geneva Ignored
Norm
Dixon
How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical
Weapons
June
16, 2004
Lenni
Brenner
A Question for Kerry Supporters
Davey
D
Hip Hop Reflections on Reagan
Daniel
Wolff
Why Did Michael Moore Withhold Video Evidence of US Prisoner
Abuse?
Bruce
Jackson
Harry Levin and the Penultimate Manuscript of Finnegans Wake
Patrick
Cockburn
Boom! Boom! Out Go the Lights: Bombings Target Oil and Power
Facilities
Gary
Handschumacher
Mourn Ben Linder, Not His Killer: Reagan"s Death Squads
JG
Turning Haiti into One Big Sweatshop
Mario
Benedetti
Obituary with Cheers
Vicente
Navarro
Meet the New Head of the IMF: Who
is Rodrigo Rato?
Website
of the Day
Iraqi Oil Revenue Watch
June
15, 2004
Harry
Browne
Ireland Adds a Brick to Fortress Europe
Neve
Gordon
The Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited
David
Palmer
Richard Armitage, Abu Ghraib and CACI
John
Blair
Lovelock"s Misguided Call: Nukes Are No Solution to Global
Warming
Dave
Lindorff
God Wins in TKO
Bill
Quigley
Blood-Pouring Peace Activists: State Charges Dropped; Feds Step
In
Patrick
Cockburn
Carbombs and Street Dances: 13 More Killed in Baghdad Blast
John
Chuckman
John Kerry, Political Placebo
Hot Stories
Alexander Cockburn
Behold,
the Head of a Neo-Con!
Subcomandante
Marcos
The
Death Train of the WTO
Norman Finkelstein
Hitchens
as Model Apostate
Steve Niva
Israel"s
Assassination Policy: the Trigger for Suicide Bombings?
Dardagan,
Slobodo and Williams
CounterPunch Exclusive:
20,000 Wounded Iraqi Civilians
Steve
J.B.
Prison Bitch
Sheldon
Rampton and John Stauber
True Lies: the Use of Propaganda
in the Iraq War
Wendell
Berry
Small Destructions Add Up
CounterPunch
Wire
WMD: Who Said What When
Cindy
Corrie
A Mother"s Day Talk: the Daughter
I Can"t Hear From
Gore Vidal
The
Erosion of the American Dream
Francis Boyle
Impeach
Bush: A Draft Resolution
Click
Here for More Stories.
|
Weekend
Edition
July 3/4, 2004
An
Interview with Greg Bates
Ralph
Nader's Revolt
By
JOSH FRANK
(Greg Bates co-founded Common
Courage Press in 1990, and is the Publisher. He is also the author
of the new book, Ralph's
Revolt: The Case for Joining Nader's Rebellion. Bates recently
spoke with Joshua Frank about his upcoming book, the elections,
and the future of progressive politics in America. He currently
resides in Monroe Maine.)
Joshua Frank: Greg, first
thanks for doing this interview, as I hope it adds to the discussion
about Ralph Nader's role in the upcoming election. You have been
a publisher and an editor for many progressive books and publications,
but have never authored a book before. Why now? Why this book?
Greg Bates: The book came about
by accident. Last year Ralph Nader called to order some books.
I got on the phone and said, "Of course, you are running,
right?" He was a bit surprised and asked me to write a letter
about why, which got posted on Commondreams.org. That made me
a lightning rod for a ton of mostly negative emails. I paid little
attention until he announced his run in late February. I realized
from the press coverage and emails from both friends and foes
that there were a lot of issues I considered obvious that no
one was actually addressing--including Nader himself. So, on
February 28, I just decided to write the book in an attempt to
elevate the dialog.
The key myths about his run
that I wanted to debunk are:
1. A vote for Nader is a vote
for Bush.
2. We should hold off on a third party run for now.
3. Nader is an egomaniac
4. We can reform the Democratic Party from within.
5. A Kerry presidency will be better.
6. Kerry had to move right.
7. Kerry will be more receptive to pressure from social movements
than Bush is.
I wanted my first book to be
much more carefully done over a number of years. But given the
need and the timeframe, I banged it out.
JF: What was your reaction
to the Green Party deciding to nominate long time party activist
David Cobb on June 26, rather than endorsing the Ralph Nader/Peter
Camejo independent ticket? Cobb as you know was democratically
nominated by the largest progressive party in the US, where Nader
is running on his own. Doesn't that hurt Nader's chances, not
only of making an impact on this election, but in building any
viable third party movement over the long haul?
GB: First, I look at this from
the progressive voters' perspective. The fact that the Greens
are running ANY candidate as opposed to no candidate gives voters
more choice in the 22 states where Greens are on the ballot.
More voter choice--even if you feel passionately about what choice
they should make--is a move toward democracy. So it's a step
forward.
Second, again from the perspective
of voter choice, I wish the Greens would run Cobb in all 50 states.
Voters in those states where he isn't running have less choice.
I would have preferred that
Nader/Camejo was endorsed because they stand for letting voters
decide. It is the role of those who want to be president to run
as candidates, the role of voters to make the choices, strategic
and otherwise. Refusing to run in swing states says that you
know better than the voters do. That's antithetical to democracy.
Had Cobb said he was really
running for president across the country, I would still have
preferred Nader for the simple reason that Nader has the best
track record and the longest. Let's hope Cobb--and many others--duplicate
this over the years.
Does Nader's lack of endorsement
hurt his chances of an impact? Minimally to the extent that he
may have trouble getting ballot access in some of the 22 states
the Greens have. But those who vote Cobb instead of Nader are
endorsing the Nader strategy--be a counterweight to the Democrats'
drift right. Since neither candidate will win, it doesn't matter
which one you vote for; it still has an impact on Kerry.
Nader's run highlights the
need for a party, and I hope inspires others to get involved,
whether with the Greens or some other group. The lack of  endorsement could cut two ways. On one
side, he doesn't have party backing from them (but he does from
the Reform Party). On the other, he might feel freer to found
a new party. A new party that was committed to holding a convention
in time for serious efforts at ballot access (say in October
of the previous year rather than the Green's impossibly late
timing at the end of June), could free up the Greens to abandon
presidential runs, about which they are ambivalent.
Plus, if a new party gave the
Greens a little competition for the progressives abandoned by
the Democrats, it might make them better. That wouldn't be a
bad thing. Some group is bound to move into the space in a fairly
professionally organized way, especially the larger the political
space becomes as the Democrats move right. Maybe it will be the
Greens, maybe another group. But I predict--largely as a result
of the Democrats abandoning their constituents--that third party
politics will become a much larger force in the coming years.
As I point out in the book
and as many have argued, building a party takes years, as does
acquiring the experience of presidential runs in order to one
day win. Airbags took Nader and so many others 20 plus years.
For the presidency we might need to think in terms of 13 elections
or more over the next 50 years. That is the proper time frame,
regardless of who the party is, I believe. That has certain implications,
among them you have to run flat out each time to get the experience
and develop the networks and resources in all 50 states.
JF: In 2000, many progressives
maintained there was "no difference" between Al Gore
and George W. Bush. Many of those same voters feel much differently
today, including many former Naderites. What about you? Do you
not see any substantive differences between John Kerry and Bush?
Many progressives argue that if Kerry is elected, even if he
is just 'Bush-lite', he will at least give us a little 'wiggle
room' to push for genuine change, whereas with another four years
of Bush we have no chance of that. In your book you don't seem
to buy this argument. What are your reasons?
GB: The differences are hard
to understand, not because there aren't any but because there
are so many variables involved. And because we fervently WANT
to believe there are solid differences. Progressives and liberals
don't want 4 more years of Bush; they want to believe they will
get something better in Kerry. But it's best to drop how we want
to see the situation in order to perceive it as accurately as
possible.
One thing that makes Bush different
is 911. Would Gore have prosecuted the "war on terror,"
had he been given the chance, the way Bush has? Undoubtedly there
would have been differences. More important, what about Kerry?
He advocated going into Iraq over WMDs--in 1998. On that front,
he beat Bush by several years and, crucially, was arguing the
case BEFORE the pretext of the war on terror. Today he says,
"I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the war
on terror. I believe he's done too little." That tells me
I can't hope Kerry will better on this critical issue.
Another factor that makes Bush
different is that he is the first Republican president to serve
since the 1950s when Republicans had control of all branches
of government, the Judiciary, both houses of Congress and the
Executive. I think this leads to some important insights--if
we are going to lose the election to Bush (a very real possibility
independent of Nader), regaining the House and Senate are vital
secondary goals. And having Nader out there could draw more voters
to the polls (both those in favor and those opposed to him) who
would then vote for Democrats in the House and Senate.
Another factor in the mix is
Kerry's record. It has shifted so far right that it isn't clear
how much farther right he would shift as president--we have no
clear idea what the differences are on most issues. I thought
I had one pegged--abortion. I wrote the section in the book to
acknowledge that, on this issue, pro choice advocates are safe.
But then I had to write a last minute insertion about his statement
that he would appoint anti-abortion judges. He gives a caveat--as
long as it won't affect Roe v. Wade. But that's meaningless.
Had one of those judges been sitting on the recent San Francisco
case that declared the law against partial birth abortion unconstitutional,
the case could well have gone the other way and been a victory
for the pro-life advocates who favor overturning Roe.
So what are the differences?
Answer: I don't really think they are knowable. Are they significant?
Probably. How significant? I don't know and I don't think anyone
can tell us because Kerry is moving right quickly.
Will those differences give
us more wiggle room? That's essentially what Howard Zinn focuses
on when he says "I don't have faith in Kerry changing, but
with Kerry there is a possibility that a powerful social movement
might change him. With Bush, no chance."
We would do well to ask, how
powerful would that movement have to be to change him? On some
issues like civil rights and other domestic ones, success might
be relatively attainable. But on war? Consider what it took to
protest the last Democratic president persecuting a war, Lyndon
Johnson during Vietnam. Some activists burned themselves to death
in an attempt to shake the foundations. Years of people protesting
on the streets, etc. A crisis of democracy. And Johnson left
rather than submit. We won, eventually, at least partially. (Although
the U.S. foreign policy establishment also won even though they
had to pull out--by bombing the area back into the Stone Age
they foreclosed any possibility that some palatable alternative
to our economic system could survive.)
The point isn't that the Democrats
are equally unreceptive to social movements. Rather, the differences
on some vital issues such as war are probably very tiny at best.
How much wiggle room would we get? In some scenarios, such as
a Kerry Presidency in which we have another 911, I predict it
might be no extra room. Like his mentor Kennedy who needed to
stand tough on Communism for fear of attack from the right, Kerry
will need to stand tough on terrorism--and that probably means
more war.
Many social movements don't
succeed because of "receptivity." They can also succeed
by building up such intense force that the costs of continuing
whatever the policy is becomes greater than the cost of giving
in. With war, we will have to raise the cost very high through
a social movement--regardless of whether it is Bush or Kerry
in office.
Perhaps because I suffer from
looking through the same rose colored glasses, I too think there
are differences between Bush and Kerry. I hope Kerry wins. But
I want his leash as short as possible. We may have more wiggle
room in a Kerry presidency if he can see we are building ever
more serious electoral challenges with each cycle.
The problem with the strategy
of elect him first and then pressure him is that he will view
his electoral strategy of moving right as a success--how else
could he view it? And so he'll be set to move right again. In
that scenario of a large Kerry victory, social movements will
have a tougher time pressuring him than they will if he can also
see a large group of his constituents defecting...
Sorry for the long winded answer.
Here's the short answer: Kerry has made it completely clear over
many years on many issues that he has zero receptivity to international
law. What makes you think he'll be receptive to social movements?
JF: Okay, so if Kerry will
not be responsive to social movements, which I absolutely agree
with, you have to admit getting the neocons out of office is
still essential. And many are willing to do it at almost all
costs. You even admit you would like to see Bush defeated, but
as you write in Ralph's Revolt, "let's admit that the more
support Nader gets the more likely Democrats are to lose the
election." [p. 16] So you are admitting what many Nader
supporters deny -- that indeed Nader voters could siphon votes
from Kerry, and hand the election to Bush. So how can we get
the neocons out of office, and still put energy into building
a progressive third party movement in the US without risking
another four years of Bush? And speaking of which, isn't Nader
starting his own third party, the Populist Party? Doesn't this
also hurt the Green Party movement?
GB: If we look at the situation
a little deeper, the details reveal a more complex situation
than the idea that support for Nader comes at the expense of
costing Kerry the election. First, the conditions under which
a vote for Nader helps Bush are narrow. The following have to
be true for Bush to benefit from a Nader vote:
1. It must be a vote that would
in fact be cast for Kerry if Nader wasn't in the race. (If you
intended to stay home but go to the booth to vote Nader, your
vote doesn't hurt Kerry because, absent Nader, Kerry would not
have received it.)
2. It must be a vote that,
if Nader wasn't in the race, it would be cast for Kerry (Repubs
voting Nader could hurt Kerry more if Nader was absent because
Bush could get their vote).
3. The national election must
be close, not just in popular vote but more importantly in electoral
vote. If one candidate pulls ahead, Nader voters won't be the
deciding factor. John Pearce, co-creator of the Don'tVoteRalph
website is jumping up and down with poll data showing that Nader
voters could indeed cost Kerry some swing states. But that's
only if the election were held today. By November, the election
may not be a close one. We don't know.
4. The vote must be cast in
a swing state. 75% of voters, according to a cover story in BusinessWeek
in June 04, live in safe states--they can vote Nader with no
fear of costing Kerry the election.
5. The election in that swing
state must be close. (Which it will be if it is a swing state,
assuming voter preferences don't change dramatically and make
a swing state into a safe state.)
6. The larger the swing state,
the more the possible impact. The smaller the state, the less
likely it is that the particular swing state will decide the
election. Of the swing staters, Floridians have the most power--27
electoral votes. Mainers and Nebraskans have the smallest: although
these states have several electoral votes, some are decided one
at a time by district. Meaning that, in my case living in Maine,
for example, my vote influences just one electoral vote.
For a vote for Nader to be
a help to Bush, the first 5 conditions must be true. And the
effect is magnified to the extent 6th is in a large swing state.
A vote for Nader under conditions
where any of these 5 aren't true does not support Bush. Most
people I talked to who voted for Nader in 2000 feel bad that
they helped elect Bush. But unless they voted in Florida, their
vote didn't help determine the election. This time, like 2000,
most support for Nader can be an important protest vote, humbling
for Kerry should it narrow his victory, and, in the event of
a Kerry defeat, a crucial message that Democratic presidential
candidates running on Republican platforms have picked a losing
strategy.
How can we get the Neocons
out of office? Kerry could run a campaign like Nader's designed
to infuse passion in voters and get out the vote to pick a candidate
genuinely working for their interests and for justice. That's
not Kerry. He is running against a president who, if re-elected,
will have won with lower approval ratings this close to the election
than any incumbent in history. If Kerry can't win a landslide
in these conditions, we need to point the finger not at Nader,
but at Kerry and the strategy of running to the right. The responsibility
for the support Nader is getting is Kerry's. "The stakes
are too high," argues the Naderfactor.com website opposed
to Nader's bid. Most progressives agree. How is it, then, that
Nader is polling so high even as his one time celebrity supporters
have abandoned him or remained silent? The answer is it is the
Kerry factor, not the Nader factor. Could it be that there are
a few people who, in the midst of a war, want to vote against
it?
Let's modify the question:
how could we get the neocons out of office while electing a prowar
candidate who seeks to emulate the incumbent's father while the
economy is recovering? Sorry, absent a Bush scandal or downturn
in the economy, I don't think it's doable. The risks of another
4 years of Bush have so much more to do with Kerry than Nader.
Progressives have a right to be mad--at Democrats who selected
Kerry and his strategy. Anger at Nader, or at voters who don't
want to vote for his Republican platform, seems misplaced to
me.
If Nader founds a third party,
does this hurt the greens? I don't think so. I don't buy the
"limited resources" argument. If the Democrats keep
moving right, resources for third parties will grow, not shrink.
There are so many races out there that two or more progressive
parties could run candidates where candidates aren't in direct
competition. And as I mentioned, competition might help.
Regarding Nader's plans to
be a party animal by founding one, I have no information.
JF: What do you make of
the stories that are now coming out regarding major Republican
donors to the Nader campaign in swing states like Oregon? Isn't
this a bad thing for building a progressive third party movement?
Doesn't it hurt his credibility with those fighting for peace
and justice?
GB: I find it appalling that
we have a situation where Democrats--who represent the party
of the people--are desperately trying to cut off choice for voters
while Republicans are trying to widen it. Fighting for ballot
access is the right thing to do; it matters little what people's
motivations are for doing it. So I support those Republicans,
along with anyone else, who are working toward Nader's access.
The whole premise of the argument
that Nader should disavow those on the right fighting for his
ballot access is this: if voters get access, we can't trust them
to make rational decisions. But the minute we decide what choices
the voters should be allowed, we start working for the wrong
side.
One person who heard this argument
from me responded by saying, look, "the fascists are inside
the gates; this is no time for philosophy." Putting aside
the issue of whether Bush = fascist, it's aligned with George
Bush's position. Replace the word "fascist" with the
"terrorist" and it's his argument for curtailing democracy:
We have to stop democracy because the terrorists are inside the
gates. Progressives reject this argument when Bush makes it.
I believe we should be consistent and reject it whenever anyone
makes it.
I believe we have to strengthen
democracy--get dialog going among voters, widen their choices
on the ballot, empower them by treating them as equal to ourselves,
and build social movements.
There's another premise behind
the argument that Republican support for Nader is bad: Everything
Republicans do is a major help to their cause. That's false--they
make blunders like the rest of us. For example, some months ago
they ran ads linking Bush to patriotism over 911. Not a bad ploy,
one might think, but much to their surprise, the ads were met
with universal disgust and backfired. Now they are helping Nader.
Looks like a good ploy. But if it leads to shifting the debate
onto a more progressive landscape, it will be a disaster for
them, a help to liberals and progressives.
JF: You predict "same-sex
marriage could turn out to be a bigger threat to John Kerry's
presidential bid than Ralph Nader." [p. 55]. Why is that?
What different position than his current "middle-ground"
might benefit candidate Kerry?
GB: Same sex marriage seems
like a fringe issue. But as the Wall Street Journal reported,
fundamentalist Christians who want to ban it are putting a referendum
question on ballots in swing states:
"In at least seven swing
states in the presidential race--Arkansas, Louisiana, Ohio, Oregon,
Missouri, Michigan and Minnesota--a vote on gay marriage may
be included on November ballots, a move that could prompt a large
turnout among socially conservative voters. High turnout [by
social conservatives] inspired by the issue could also win houses
or senates in eight state legislatures where control is up for
grabs. They include Indiana, North Carolina, and, again, Minnesota."
As the article goes on to say,
that could spell disaster for Kerry in those states. Meanwhile,
gay and lesbian allies have little incentive to turn out for
Kerry. Contrary to your characterization of Kerry's position
as "middle of the road," it's aligned with Bush: both
favor bans on gay marriage. The difference is Kerry wants states
to decide. He claims he favors civil unions and equal  rights
but that's disingenuous. You can't get the federal rights conferred
by marriage unless the union is recognized at the federal level.
So favoring letting states decide means you are effectively opposed
to granting federal rights.
The reason gay marriage might
be a bigger threat to Kerry than Nader is is that in swing states,
I expect many who want to vote Nader will vote Kerry to help
oust Bush. Nader's support in those states may turn out to be
small compared to the boost Bush gets from fundamentalists turning
out for the referenda. (That's no small number. Bush strategist
Karl Rove is reported to have calculated that 4 million fundamentalists
stayed home in 2000 because Bush wasn't working in their interests
hard enough. You can bet they will turn out this time...)
What position could Kerry have
chosen? That of leader--which is what we need in our times of
crisis and what Kerry abandons. A leader could have taken a position
on the principle of human rights. And could have figured out
that, with a majority of Americans already in favor of granting
the rights to those in same sex unions, educating them to realize
that marriage is the only way to confer those rights would have
been a small step. Even if he failed to convince them, given
that same sex marriage ranks 12th in one poll of voter concerns,
Kerry had little to lose. Instead, he blew it.
JF: Nader says his run is
geared to pull the Democrats back to the left. But aren't they
already past the point of no return? Many progressives argue
the Democrats were never left to begin with. Isn't the idea that
a party funded by the corporations will actually act in the interest
of working class people and minorities a dangerous illusion?
Or as you seem to argue in Ralph's Revolt, isn't this something
Nader needs to recognize now, in order to help his chances?
GB: Some Democrats are past
the point of no return. Others, especially on levels below president,
are more open. Nader has already had an impact on Kerry, the
intransigent end of the spectrum. They met, Nader said he wouldn't
pull out and asked Kerry to push for a living wage. Weeks later,
voila!--Kerry announce he is our $7 dollar (an hour) man. He's
now arguing the minimum wage should rise to that level. Good
for Kerry, thank you Nader.
But on issues of war, there
is little chance Nader will influence Kerry. This gets back to
"receptivity" to social movements. The point of those
movements--and of what Nader is doing--is to raise the costs
of continuing current policies above their benefits (in this
case Kerry's policy of being a Republican), so that those carrying
them out cease because to persist becomes too costly, regardless
of how they feel about it.
A party funded by corporate
interests can act in the broader interest if it is forced to
do so, not because we "persuade" it that our path is
morally the better choice--they already know that, or are so
committed to their positions that they will never know it.
Whether the Dems will act in
the broader interest remains to be seen, and there is ample evidence
that no matter how punishing third parties are, the Dems just
won't abandon nursing at the corporate teat. To the extent that
is true, this is an even more powerful argument for pursuing
3rd party politics--not to swing the Dems left but to replace
them, which may take a long time.
Regarding what Nader needs
to recognize now: keep in mind that my view is only about what
I understand him to be saying as portrayed by the media, which
may be distorted. While I agree with Nader that voters are unlikely
to vote for him in large enough numbers to swing the vote to
Bush (see conditions listed in last answer), progressives voting
for Nader in swing states could be dangerous to Kerry's bid under
certain narrow conditions. I think we need to acknowledge that
at the starting gate.
It's not just a matter of honesty,
but of clarity: that danger is precisely what makes Nader's efforts
so powerful, and should be proclaimed, not shied away from. Nader
seems to be trying to deflect it when he could embrace it powerfully.
That danger is why, if you have limited resources, you should
campaign not in safe states but in swing states. It's the swing
state pressure that sends the message. Cobb and LaMarsh (who
hails from my state of Maine and is a wonderful person who I
admire for running), are wasting their time campaigning in safe
states. Why bother? It does have some effect, registering dissent.
I think campaigning everywhere is best. But if you had to choose,
I'd favor doing the opposite of what Cobb and LaMarsh are doing.
That raises the obvious question:
Isn't 3rd party campaigning in swing states too dangerous? I
believe candidates should run, and leave to the voters the decision
of strategy. It's my choice, as a swing state voter, whether
I vote Nader, Cobb, stay home, or vote Kerry. It's not up to
Nader or any other candidate to choose for me. Those who suggest
that Nader should throw all his support behind Kerry at the last
minute, just don't want to argue with the voters, and seek to
avoid doing so by asking Nader to make the choice. It's demeaning,
as a swing state voter, to hear others imply by their advocacy
for running in safe states only, that I shouldn't have the choice.
I don't take lightly the requests
by Howard Zinn and others that I vote for Kerry, a man who has
the blood of innocent Iraqi children on his hands from backing
sanctions. Zinn has good reasons-Kerry does not equal Bush. But
voting for Kerry isn't some easy gesture; it's a decision to
be made carefully. But I'm far less likely to vote for Kerry
if Democrats succeed in blocking my right to choose by keeping
Nader off the ballot or convincing him that he should bar my
choice by abandoning his run. In that event I'm likely to vote
Cobb--or stay home.
Some pundits opposed to Nader's
run this time wrote columns that said they voted for Nader in
2000 but have learned their lesson. To those advocating no swing
state campaigning, I ask, what makes you think I or any other
voter is less capable of thinking through the implications of
voting Nader this time than you are? Step one in any democracy
is to treat all voters as thinking people who can be argued with,
not cut off their choices.
Returning to Nader, he has
said he won't pull out because he doesn't want to let the campaign
workers down and because he wants to let voters in swing states--and
everywhere--have a choice. For me, that latter point far outshines
the former because it goes to the heart of democracy. If he were
to say "My run is in fact dangerous to Kerry under certain
conditions," he could then make the powerful point, "and
if you want to do something about it, stop nagging me and start
dialoging with those who want to vote for me."
JF: But, despite these frivolous
attacks, doesn't Nader risk becoming the Gus Hall of independent
candidates with this being his third run for President in a row?
GB: The problem with repeat
runs is usually that there is big news value the first time followed
by declining interest with successive runs. Doesn't seem to me
that declining interest is a problem here.
JF: Recently, Nader has
courted the Reform Party and in an interview with Pat Buchanan argued for immigration
restrictions that many view as racially motivated. Should this
give Leftists pause about endorsing Nader's canididacy?
GB: Let me answer that question
on two levels. First, in reading that interview I saw his motivations
as economic, not racist--open the borders and it depresses wages
of poor Americans. Doesn't matter what the race of the immigrants
is if they are unskilled and increasing the competition at the
bottom end of the ladder. It's hard to read racism/xenophobia
into Nader's motivations, given his choice of Peter Camajo as
running mate, or Winnona Laduke previously, and given that he's
of Arab descent himself.
The real answer to the immigration
problem--and by problem I mean the downward pressure on wages--is
to have a foreign policy that enhances the fiscal security of
workers and families globally. If workers had hope, money, access
to medical care, rising wages, prospects of increasing their
skills and education, and finding or creating meaningful work
in their own countries, the desperation Nader talks about to
move to the U.S. wouldn't exist. People would still migrate--because
it's fun, because it's interesting, but not because they are
desperate. It's the sea of destitution that we are actively creating
which entices people to find islands of prosperity. It's what
we do with the sea, not the access to the islands, that is the
key to one day having open borders that don't threaten labor
but enhance all cultures through promoting diversity.
I don't know what Nader would
say to that.
But the second level of the
question is more important. Many people are trotting out Nader
skeletons and saying, see, he isn't as good as he proclaims.
We could discuss an endless number of issues--Doug Henwood of
the Left Business Observer raised some, others have pointed to
his opposition to unions within nonprofits including his own,
and still others have raised accusations about how he uses resources,
among other issues. And then there is the "he's a megalomaniac"
argument. You raise a policy position, on immigration. Policy
positions are most important--they tell us how a candidate would
govern. Personal practices are less so.
But even granting, for the
sake of argument, that all of the criticisms are on target (which
I don't), there is the question of what we do with the information.
Having proved he is no saint, some want to argue that therefore
he should be out of the race. But as soon as you stack up these
warts against Kerry and Bush, it becomes totally obvious Nader
has both beat on personal integrity and virtually every policy
position. The choice between Kerry who helped kill 500,000 children
in Iraq with his approval of sanctions, Bush who would like to
if we just give him 4 more years, and Nader who wants a just
foreign policy should be obvious.
The real argument we are having
isn't about Nader's warts. It's all about strategy--what happens
if voters for Nader swing the election to Bush? The warts are
a red herring.
The reason the warts keep cropping
up is that integrity is the one thing Nader has that Bush and
Kerry don't. And they can't build that with a raft of campaign
promises. Nader's integrity is based on a 40 year-plus track
record. So they keep trying to dent it, arguing most recently
that he is somehow evil because his campaign offices are rented
from the building that houses his nonprofits. No doubt we will
see more. I read these articles and rejoice--they are the accusations
of the desperate, and they say more about the accusers than the
accused.
JF: What would you say,
or think Nader would do, if Kerry offered him a cabinet or VP
position?
GB: I can't speak or speculate
for Nader. But if he got offered a position and took it, I wouldn't
be surprised if he suffered the same fate as Robert Reich, Clinton's
labor secretary, who titled his book "Locked in the Cabinet."
But I'd be shocked to hear
Kerry offer him something important above the level of, say,
Ambassador to Antarctica... Kerry needs a VP to root for his
positions. If I were Kerry, I'd worry that Nader had too much
integrity to pull that off.
I think Nader is much more
effective right where he is, on the outside. A Kerry overture
would be aimed at one thing: neutralization. We need Nader as
an advocate for consumers, workers, etc. As soon as he gets appointed,
he would have to be an advocate for the administration.
If Nader moves from the outside
to the inside and becomes president, I'll amend my position.
JF: Many progressives fear
that a women's right to choose will be lost if Bush serves long
enough to make a Supreme Court appointment. And this fear is
exemplified by leading feminists and other Democrats. You don't
believe this is true do you?
GB: It could be true if there
are enough appointments. But it will take more than just the
one that Kerry's campaign claims. There are only 3 who voted
to overturn Roe and who continue to say it was wrongly
decided: Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin
Scalia and Clarence Thomas. For a majority, two more are needed.
And even more might be needed. If Bush were to appoint a new
justice to replace Rehnquist, that would not be a net gain for
the anti-abortion forces. You have to have two pro-Roe voices
retire. It's still an important issue. But we need to be clear
exactly where we are.
Where would we be with Kerry?
Almost certainly better, but not necessarily a lot better. He
voted for Scalia, which he now regrets. Will he regret an appointment
he makes? He has a lot of regrets for things he has supported--the
war, no child left behind, for example. He's still probably better
than Bush, but again we don't really know by how much.
JF: Greg, thanks again for
taking the time to do this interview. One last question: If Bush
is re-elected because Nader threw the election to Kerry, how
will you feel the morning after? Even if you claim Kerry lost
it himself by not pandering to progressive voters, won't that
stigma still damage third party efforts in the future?
GB: I don't think we should
act solely based on how people might perceive the act. In this
case, I wouldn't worry about stigmatizing third party efforts,
and just do what seems right: running an antiwar candidate in
the middle of a war seems unobjectionable to me.
Second, if it seems as if Nader
voters in swing states threw the vote, we'd have to examine that
carefully. Would they have voted for Kerry in the absence of
Nader? Let's suppose that too is true. Then there is the question
of what is the political landscape. If Repubs still control both
houses and the presidency, that would be bad.
But even in that outcome, we
should assess the reasons instead of heaping blame on Nader.
Was it voters just couldn't stomach Kerry? Did they miscalculate
and think they wouldn't throw the election? Either is a strong
message to the Democrats: turn around! My guess is that such
an outcome would signal the growth of disenfranchised progressives
who aren't willing to cooperate with the lesser evil strategy
no matter how great the greater evil is. Democrats--and progressives--need
to then ask, how should we respond to this constituency? Blaming
them or who they vote for will likely prove an ineffective response.
In any case, I will feel that
voters got to make their choice. If this becomes the start of
permanent serious third party runs, it will mean that the Democrats
will have to get used to not being the only game in town. That
could have a very positive long-term outcome, possibly waking
them up in time to change strategies for the midterm elections
in 2006.
Returning to the issue of stigma,
we are already there--people are scared stiff that Nader will
throw the election. But I think the likelihood that the stigma
will intensify is worth the risk.
Greg Bates welcomes comments at gbates@commoncouragepress.com.
Joshua Frank is the author of the upcoming book,
Left
Out: How Liberals did Bush's Work for Him, to be published
by Common Courage Press and is a contributor to Counterpunch's
forthcoming book, Dime's Worth of Difference. He welcomes comments
at frank_joshua@hotmail.com.
Weekend Edition
Features for June 12 / 13, 2004
Peter
Linebaugh
Remembering the Common Hood: Soweto
and Runnymede
Team
CounterPunch
CP"s Favorite Albums
Jeffrey
St. Clair
Troy, Now and Then
Gary
Leupp
Not Really a Puppet Government in Iraq?
Brian
Cloughley
US Military in Crisis
Antonio
Ponvert, III
Iraqi Prisoner Abuse: the Connecticut Connection
Ben
Tripp
The Polls Get Stupider
Joe
Bageant
Mash Note to the "Girl with the Leash"
Ron
Jacobs
The Return of the Hip Hop Insurgency
Forrest
Hylton
Object Lessons from the Case of Francisco Cortés
Christopher
Brauchli
Federal Bureau of Errors
Kurt
Nimmo
Going After Qaddafi, Again
Wayne
Madsen
Israel"s Slap at Reagan
Anthony
Loewenstein
Al Jazeera Awakens the Arab World
Michael
Donnelly
A Lightship in the Forest: Greenpeace Docks in the Siskiyous
Greg
Moses
Who Will Tell Us More About the Workers of Nasiriyah?
Susan
Davis
Harry Potter & the Prisoner of Azkaban
Joseph
Ramsey
Weather Report: a Review of The Weather Underground
Niranjan
Ramakrishnan
The 18th Brumaire in the 21st
Century
Wayne
Saunders
The Gipper, D-Day and the Stanley Cup
Poets"
Basement
Richey, Ford, La Morticella, Albert
Website
of the Weekend
Insurgent Music
Keep
CounterPunch Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
home
/ subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
|