HOME
your socialist home on the internet
ABOUT US
who we are, what we do
NEWS & VIEWS
newspaper, articles, statements
THEORY
what is socialism, marxism
JOIN US!
joining, getting active
CONTACT US
branch directory
Y.S.A.
youth 4 socialist action
F.I.
socialists around the world
CULTURE
poetry, reviews, commentary
HISTORY
events & people from the past
SCIENCE
science, dialectics & more
LINKS
other important sites
WHAT'S NEW
listing of what's been recently added
Socialist Action Events
Socialist Action/
Canada
LUS/
Mexico
Below is a list of our Single Issue Feature Pages:
[economy]
[mumia]
[elections]
[s.america]
[palestine]
[labor]
[minorities]
[gender & sexuality]
[students]
[ireland]
[rights]
The demise of Ralph Nader and Green Party politics
by Jeff Mackler
Hundreds of Green Party delegates from across the country gathered on
Saturday, June 26, in Milwaukee’s Midwest Airlines Convention Center to
choose their nominee for the U.S. presidency.
Following several days of jaw-boning, caucusing, and formal debates
they
selected Green Party attorney David Cobb, thus assuring him ballot
status in
the District of Columbia and 22 states—plus others where Green Party
organizations may decide to pursue petition campaigns.
On the surface, the convention was a contest between “safe-state”
(pro-John
Kerry) Greens supporting Cobb and opposing delegates who favored
endorsement
of the Ralph Nader/Peter Camejo duo. Camejo, a leading California
Green,
arrived at the convention having just accepted the vice presidential
spot on
Nader’s “independent”/Reform Party/Populist Party ticket. He accused
Cobb of
being a Kerry supporter and challenged Cobb’s position on the Iraq war.
Cobb responded with a rendition of his “smart growth” party-building
strategy, focused on building the Green Party locally while running a
campaign designed to defeat George Bush—that is, by electing Democrat
John
Kerry. Green Party supporters will be advised to vote for Kerry in
“contested states” where the vote is expected to be close and for Cobb
in
“safe states,” those where a Green vote will not effect the outcome.
California Green Party leader Medea Benjamin issued a leaflet that
succinctly expressed this view: “Want to Get Rid of Bush and Grow the
Greens? Support David Cobb.”
In some states, like New Hampshire, “growing the Greens” means
consciously
refraining from seeking ballot status. Green party leaders there,
according
to Ballot Access News editor Richard Winger, declined to file for
Cobb’s
candidacy in a state where ballot status is quite easy to obtain. The
Green
Party state chair wanted to avoid posing any challenge to John Kerry,
said
Winger.
Camejo’s opponents, however, were not content to be the only Kerry
supporters. They charged that Camejo’s agreement to be Nader’s running
mate
posed the same question.
“What is the Nader/Camejo strategy?” asked a Cobb leaflet. According to
a
report from Cobb/ Kerry supporter Ted Glick, the leaflet “highlighted
what
it called an inconsistency between Ralph Nader’s position of trying to
influence Kerry and the Democrats and ‘retire Bush,’ and Camejo’s
position,
articulated Thursday evening, that ‘Greens should never, ever vote for
a
Democrat.’”
Of course, the Green Party leadership knew the reason for this
“inconsistency” well in advance. Nader has proclaimed his
pro-Democratic
Party objectives during a myriad of public speeches and interviews over
the
course of many years.
A June 29, 2004, Nader website item, for example, headlined, “Chomsky
and
Zinn Support Ralph’s Revolt” reads: “In a newly released book, author
Greg
Bates reveals that ... Noam Chomsky... and Howard Zinn ... have both
decided
to vote for independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader this
November.”
That is an interesting statement indeed, especially in light of Noam
Chomsky’s repeated statements that “anyone who lives in the real world”
would understand that a vote for Kerry is the only possible way to
defeat
Bush!
The Nader website article continues: “The book, ‘Ralph’s Revolt: The
Case
for Joining Nader’s Rebellion,’ highlights the views of the two
celebrated
residents from Kerry’s home state, Massachusetts, who urge people in
safe
states to vote for Nader. They argue that Nader’s campaign is essential
to
stopping the Democratic Party’s move to the right, especially around
the war
and occupation in Iraq”.
The Cobb wing of the Greens, feeling burned by their 2000 experience,
doesn’t have much confidence in “progressive” voters. They fear that
they
might vote for Nader because they understand that the Democrats are
really
no different than the Republicans. This explains why Cobb and his Green
followers prefer to stay “local”—that is, far and away from national
(read
“presidential”) politics, if not ballot status.
It may also explain why Nader thus far has achieved ballot status in
only
seven states, by way of the endorsement he received from Pat Buchanan’s
right-wing Reform Party. At this time in 2000, the Nader campaign,
according
to Winger, had achieved ballot status in 26 states.
Nader created the Populist Party for his 2004 ballot effort but has
thus far
not secured ballot status in any state through this vehicle. His
requests
for endorsement and ballot status to the Natural Law Party (supporters
of
John Kerry), the Peace and Freedom Party (supporting Leonard Peltier in
California), and the Mountain Party of West Virginia have been turned
down.
Nader and Buchanan
Today, Nader has taken the “third party” game a step further. He has
accepted the formal endorsement of the Reform Party, the party that
began in
1996 with the candidacy of the multi-billionaire capitalist
protectionist
Ross Perot and ended up with neo-fascist Patrick Buchanan as its
presidential 2000 standard bearer.
Buchanan’s revealing interview with Nader, titled “Ralph Nader:
Conservatively Speaking,” appears in the June 21, 2004, issue of his
publication, The American Conservative (TAC). It begins with the
introduction: “The long-time progressive makes a pitch for the
disenfranchised Right.”
The editors quip, “Ralph Nader recently accepted Pat Buchanan’s
invitation
to sit down with us and explain why his third-party presidential bid
ought
to appeal to conservatives disaffected with George W. Bush·”
Space limitations prevent us from reproducing the entire interview,
which
appears on the TAC website, but the following excerpts should suffice
to
indicate the extent of Nader’s willingness to adopt right-wing
positions to
achieve his “progressive” ends.
• On Israeli policy
Patrick Buchanan (PB): “Then you would say it is not only Bush who is
at
fault, but Clinton and Bush and Reagan, all the way back?”
RN: “The subservience of our congressional and White House puppets to
Israeli military policy has been consistent.” Note here Nader’s
inversion
designed to appeal to Buchanan and his anti-Semitic milieu who argue
that
the U.S. government is run by Israel as opposed to Israel being the
representative of U.S. imperialism in the Middle East.
• On Iraq
RN: “Under my proposal there would be an international peacekeeping
force,
and the withdrawal would be a smart withdrawal during which there are
internationally supervised elections.” What happened to Nader’s “Bring
the
Troops Home Now!” position?
TAC: “You often mention corporations. What is the theory behind this or
what
are the alternatives to corporate economic power? I presume you are not
talking about state ownership or socialism, or perhaps you are.”
RN: “Concentrated corporate power violates many [presumably
“progressive” –
Editor] principles of capitalism. For example, under capitalism, owners
control their property. Under multinational corporations, the
shareholders
don’t control their corporation. Under capitalism, if you can’t make
the
market respond, you sink. Under big business, you don’t go bankrupt;
you go
to Washington for a bailout.
“Capitalism is supposed to be based on law and order. Corporations get
away
with corporate crime, fraud, and abuse. And finally, capitalism is
premised
on a level playing field; the most meritorious is supposed to win.”
Here Nader’s utopian vision of the progressive nature of capitalism in
bygone times is contrasted to its supposed modern reactionary version.
In
truth, capitalism, past and present, is based on the institutionalized
rule
of the property-owning minority elite who subordinate human needs to
the
acquisition of private profit by any means necessary.
Nader’s supposedly benign “law and order” has always been a
ruling-class
“law and order” to protect the interests of the few. His “level playing
field” never applied to the mass of working people and the rich.
• On immigration
PB: “The U.S. population now—primarily due to immigrants and their
children
coming in—is estimated to grow to over 400 million by mid-century.
Would
that have an adverse impact on the environment?”
RN: “We don’t have the absorptive capacity for that many people. Over
32
million came in, in the ‘90s, which is the highest in American history.
We
have to control our immigration. We have to limit the number of people
who
come into this country illegally.”
PB: “What level of legal immigration do you think we should have per
year?”
RN: “First of all, we have to say what is the impact on African
Americans
and Hispanic Americans in this country in terms of wages of our present
stance on immigration? It is a wage-depressing policy, which is why the
Chambers of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers,
Tyson
Foods, and The Wall Street Journal like it. The AFL-CIO has no
objection to
it because they think they can organize the illegal workers.”
• On NAFTA
PB: “I was going to ask you about NAFTA and the WTO.”
RN: “Sovereignty shredding, you know. The decisions are now in Geneva,
bypassing our courts, our regulatory agencies, our legislatures.”
PB: “I find it amazing that Congress sits there and they get an order
from
the WTO, and they capitulate. What happened to bristling conservative
defiance, “don’t tread on me” patriotism?”
Here Nader and Buchanan repeat without foundation the false notion that
American imperialism has subordinated its sovereignty to the WTO or
NAFTA.
Quite the opposite is the case. As the most powerful imperialist
nation, the
provisions of these agreements are largely determined by U.S.
corporations
based on what best meets their interests.
In a minority of cases, where U.S. corporations, due to inferior
technology,
cannot effectively compete on world markets, special WTO exceptions are
included to protect U.S. corporate interests. More important, Nader and
Buchanan operate on the false premise that protecting less competitive
U.S.
corporations benefits U.S. workers.
• On abortion
PB: “Let me move to the social issues. Would you have voted against or
in
favor of the ban on partial-birth abortion?
RN: I believe in choice. I don’t think government should tell women to
have
children or not to have children. I am also against feticide. If
doctors
think it is a fetus, that should be banned. It is a medical decision.”
PB: “Between the woman and her doctor?”
RN: “And whoever else, family, clergy.”
Here “pro-choice” Nader adds reactionary qualifications that negate
this
fundamental right, ranging from establishing criteria as to the
definition
of a fetus, to the political intervention of doctors, the family, and
the
church!
• On conservatives and the election
PB: “What are the reasons a conservative should vote for Ralph Nader
rather
than John Kerry·”
RN: “One, conservatives are furious with the Bush regime because of the
fantastic deficits as far as the eye can see. That was a betrayal of
Bush’s
positions, and it was a reversal of what Bush found when he came to
Washington.
“Conservatives are very upset about their tax dollars going to
corporate
welfare kings because that undermines market competition and is a
wasted use
of their taxes. ... Conservatives are upset about the
sovereignty-shredding
WTO and NAFTA. ... Conservatives are also very upset with a self-styled
conservative president who is encouraging the shipment of whole
industries
and jobs to a despotic Communist regime in China.
“Next, conservatives, contrary to popular belief, believe in law and
order
against corporate crime, fraud, and abuse, and they are not satisfied
that
the Bush administration has done enough.
“Conservatives are also upset about the Patriot Act, which they view as
big
government, privacy-invading, snooping, and excessive surveillance.
They are
not inaccurate in that respect.
“If you add all of those up, you should have a conservative rebellion
against the giant corporation in the White House masquerading as a
human
being named George W. Bush. Just as progressives have been abandoned by
the
corporate Democrats and told, “You got nowhere to go other than to stay
home
or vote for the Democrats,” this is the fate of the authentic
conservatives
in the Republican Party.”
PB: “Well, it’s a pleasure. Thank you very much for coming over,
Ralph.”
RN: “Thank you very much.”
It is doubtful that there are many “conservatives,” either of the
Democratic
or Republican stripe, who fit Ralph Nader’s utopian conceptions. The
mythical era of free enterprise capitalism, where government
intervention
was seen as inimical to the interests of hard-working and well-meaning
capitalist entrepreneurs, never existed.
To the contrary, capitalism, as Marx noted powerfully, came into
existence
dripping with blood, from the genocide of the Native American
population in
the United States to chattel slavery and the days of the early robber
barons
who used government power to steal the nation’s resources for private
profit. Contrary to Nader, the state power has always been the
instrument
for the rule of the capitalist class, whether by force or by law.
Capitalism in its modern or developed form, beginning more than a
century
and half ago, brought colonialism, famine, mass poverty, working-class
oppression and exploitation, starvation, environmental destruction, and
wars
for plunder across the globe. Men like Ralph Nader have tried to reform
it
for their entire lives, ending up with virtually nothing to show for
their
efforts.
Middle-class reformists
Nader’s vision stems from a middle-class reform perspective aimed at
convincing the general population to seek salvation through electing
this or
that liberal capitalist politician to do good for the working class as
a
byproduct of advancing “progressive” capitalist interests.
John Kerry is today Nader’s object of attention. The richest man in the
U.S.
Senate and a multi-billionaire deeply connected to the centers of
ruling-class power, Kerry was more than willing to give Nader an
audience.
The New York Times gleefully recounted the scene in a May 20, 2004,
article
headlined, “Kerry Woos Rival Nader, And Nader Is Partly Won.”
“Mr. Nader had nothing but kind things to stay about Mr. Kerry in a
chuckle-filled telephone interview after the meeting,” said The Times.
“Mr.
Kerry was almost effusive in his praise of Mr. Kerry. ‘I think he’s
very
presidential. He has a very confident demeanor. I’ve noticed it on TV,’
Nader bubbled.”
Indeed, Ralph Nader the lobbyist spent a lifetime flattering men of
power.
By his own admission he has little or nothing to show for it. His
politics
are reform politics at their worst, divorced from direct involvement in
building the mass movements to challenge the horror of capitalist war
and
plunder and separate and distinct from the broad workers’ movement.
Ralph Nader exists as a prominent political figure today only because
of the
bankruptcy of the organized trade-union leadership whose perspectives
are
equally tied to the coattails of the parties of the ruling rich.
When working people in their own name and through their own
organizations
enter the political arena, it will be to give political expression to
the
economic and social struggles they have taken up against the capitalist
bosses.
When workers begin this challenge they will press forward with their
own
leaders, who will have proven their mettle in the class struggle. These
fighters will offer a perspective of challenging the bosses and their
political agents in the government as well as the middle-class
do-gooders
who seek to keep a degenerate social system alive by supporting one
wing of
the exploiters against the other.
Ralph Nader and the Greens have demonstrated the bankruptcy of “third
party”
politics. In the name of “independence” they seek to organize the
unwary to
support Kerry, a man whose politics are hardly distinguishable from
those of
George Bush. Kerry and Bush represent complementary wings of a U.S.
ruling
class in deep crisis. Their program and deeds can only be explained by
the
trillion-dollar ruling-class interests they are beholden to, as opposed
to
their personal preferences, special ideological predispositions, or
character defects.
David Cobb’s and Ralph Nader’s reformist orientation inevitably leads
to the
graveyard of U.S. politics, the Democratic Party. Without a
working-class
perspective or a will to join with others to mobilize mass forces in
the
streets to act in their own class interests, they have succumbed to the
very
corporate power-mongers they claim to oppose.
Cobb seeks to keep the Greens out of the national political arena
entirely.
Kerry is his choice, stated or not. As November approaches, Nader too
may
politely bow out of the race after uttering a few miserable and foolish
words about how he has met with success by forcing John Kerry to the
left.
This article first appeared in the July 2004 issue of Socialist Action newspaper.
(415) 255-1080 -- socialistact@igc.org |
(715) 394-6660 -- mnsocialist@yahoo.com |