Why Nader is Necessary [Guest Post by Crane]

[Guest Post by Crane]

When I leave my home and venture out into our societal labyrinth, I often find myself staring at my peers. It may be border-line rude of me to do so, but it's just part of my analytical nature. For the amateur anthropologist, every trip outside is an intimate encounter with our people, our country, and our world. I wonder if the faces I see at the store are feeling the same tension as me, the same subdued desperation. I wonder if they feel that their whole world is supported by nothing more than a foundation of carefully placed toothpicks. Do they feel helpless to stop the biggest challenges facing our human race? Do they lie awake at night worrying about war, pollution, money, jobs, education, and the health of themselves and their families? Are they mortified by the prospect of global disaster imposed upon us by corporate tyrants, who exploit the impoverished so that we westerners can indulge in frivolity?

If they are, they aren't showing it. And neither am I. We are either remarkably optimistic or deeply repressed. No one is talking to anyone about these issues. We smile, chit-chat, and move along with little acknowledgment of our mutual and universal feelings. As a result, our indignant dispositions are squelched... and things keep moving forward as planned. The entire mass-delusion is dependent on our silence and apathy. We are made to feel that we are alone with our troubles. That everyone else seems to be doing just fine, and perhaps "I" need to just suck it up, tighten my tie,
and climb the ladder. Nothing can be accomplished alone, and the ladder they would have you climb is as cyclical as a rats wheel. Also, even those with great intentions and liberal dispositions are often manipulated, and controlled by unseen powers. They are enchanted by flashy, well-funded campaigns that can afford the airtime to spread catchy slogans. So liberals are set against one another. They support candidates who use liberal rhetoric to justify or ignore corruption, candidates who are supported and funded by the very problems we face. A political candidate can not claim to stand for change unless they are willing to challenge the financial superpowers who dominate our world.

This is where Ralph Nader comes in. He is an anomaly, and to some he has become an incorruptible beacon atop a tower. To me he is a source of inspiration and an example of resilience. Myself and others can rest assured that he is out there fighting, day after day, not giving up. Even when the pie being thrown in his face left the realm of metaphor and crossed into reality*, discouragement seemed to be one of the few words in the dictionary Ralph never bothered to understand. He is consistent, consistently malleable, and dynamic. With the latter we encounter a certain degree of misunderstanding in the form of would-be and former supporters alike. I have heard many times, from many people, that they respect and revere the work of his past, yet scorn his present actions. The error of this argument lies in selective vision. To begin, it should be noted that the argument was created and distributed as a political tool designed to marginalize a life-long consumer advocate for continuing to do what he has always done. Mr. Nader has never changed at the fundamental level. He has the same sense of justice and the same drive to overcome injustice. The world, however has much changed since the mid-sixties, so a shift of approach is not only understandable but also inevitable and necessary. The enemy has become more sophisticated. They have made good ol' consumer advocacy nearly impossible. I understand the grievances of Michael Moore, The Nation Magazine, and other democratic leaders who have turned on Ralph, but I feel that their current decisions to snub him are rooted in fear. And to this I pose the question: Is that really a place we wish to come from? Does succumbing to our fears take precedent over facing our greatest hopes and dreams? Mr. Moore and his good intentioned peers have narrowed their vision and ignored the deeper issues at hand. They have scapegoated the one person who has never betrayed them. Nothing short of legitimate and substantial infrastructural change will be enough now to save our planet and its desperate population. Only one presidential candidate provides this vision.

Who else is running for our highest office? The names of these candidates are well known and nearly inconsequential. A political candidate is less a name than a tool employed to serve the public interest. By that definition, the two major candidates barely exist. They are rusty, dull, malfunctioning, and constantly hurting those who seek to use them to build a better society. We'd be better off using our bare hands. What should be known about the two major candidates is that they are not for single payer universal health-care. Instead they support a system in which the only way an insurance company can make a profit is by denying service. They support off-shore oil drilling. They are ardent supporters of the militant sect of Israel. They are open to all avenues in Iran. They have no wish to abolish NAFTA and WTO. They have no intention to repeal the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act. They are for wiretapping without a warrant. They really pose no threat whatsoever to the established power so deeply embedded in our world. Though, to be fair, it is not entirely their fault is it? There is no push from we the people. Democrats ask only that their candidate not be a Republican. Republicans ask the opposite. We Americans must surely be the least demanding, most forgiving democracy in the world. For some reason or another, we are not making these candidates speak about anything that really matters. Instead they have become greeting cards from the supermarket. They talk in vague promises of prosperity, change, tolerance, and strength. But Ralph Nader doesn't. He speaks factually about issues that the majority of Americans support, and given the chance he could demand a lot more of his fellow candidates as well as a lot more of us. His presence in the major debates would bring with it the presence of substance, sobriety, and truth. His absence from the debates would be an injustice to us all.


*Nader was subject to pie-ing in San Francisco in 2003 while there to support Peter Camejo's candidacy for governor.