In the 2000 Presidential election, the environmental movement faces a special challenge to its integrity and its future impact on American politics. This challenge does not primarily emerge from George Bush. His archaic vision of environmental rape and pillage, of denial and delusion, is pathetically out of touch with the vision of most Americans. When Bush used Alaska Senator Frank Murkowski as his surrogate in a speech before the National Press Club to promote oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, he underscored a blatant disregard for Alaska’s special contribution to our ecosystem and fundamental American priorities. Bush’s “old school” allegiance to plunder and extermination as humanity’s appropriate relationship to our world speaks a language effectively discounted by the great tradition of naturalists from John Muir to David Brower. Bush’s blatant anti-environmentalism will lose corporate favor as it loses popular support. It is a language of politics fading rapidly, and without a future.
A political language more sophisticated in its seductive impact on pragmatic environmentalists and environmental policy has replaced the threat to our planet articulated by Bush and his ilk. A carefully crafted alliance of multinational corporations is now fully conversant in the language of environmentalism. Politicians cognizant of this alliance are not overtly dismissive of constituencies concerned with dangers to the planet. To the contrary, these politicians wrap themselves in the mantle of environmental concern. They seize on serious threats to global survival as valuable political currency. Soon they will replace overt apologists for global exploitation on the political landscape. These new environmental poseurs are the natural product of two forces in modern politics. The first are organized voters with a developed conservation agenda, prepared to support or oppose candidates with their votes and vocal endorsements. The second is multinational corporations who view environmental issues as yet another barrier to profit making that can be deflected or compromised with the appropriate political proxies. For these corporations, environmental agenda must be manipulated to corporate advantage. Big corporations are prepared to offer vast sums of money for seduction of environmentalists and systematic compromise of their ideals.
Vice President Albert Gore is preeminent among the politicians who have seized on this new corporate prerequisite for investment as an avenue for career advancement. He has best defined the role of politicians deemed attractive by corporations that appreciate the dangers and opportunities of environmentalism in politics. Corporations now reward politicians who can deliver environmental votes and opinion without seriously deterring their goals with burdensome environmental constraints. Albert Gore is the politician who has best understood that his ability to attract and deliver the environmental constituency would make him attractive to corporate backers. Earth in the Balance, Gore’s script for his re-emergence as a national politician was an advertisement for his calculated strategy and availability as an environmental poseur, prepared to attract, barter and mollify environmental support for corporate cash. As a broker of environmental voters on corporate terms, Gore is the prototype for the bankable, Green corporate politician. He has literally written the book.
We can document Gore’s commitment to his role as broker of environmental voters for corporate cash. Gore’s agenda explains his apparent broken promises as, more than betrayal, proof of his calculated role as corporate double agent within the ranks of conservationists. Some examples:
· Despite his vaunted last minute trip to save the Kyoto treaty, Gore’s compromise committed the US to very small reductions in greenhouse gases, and has worked since to include nuclear power among the renewable energy source eligible for Clean Fuel credits under the treaty. These would allow the US to claim reductions supposedly made for the global good, while actually benefiting only the huge corporations that build nuclear power plants. It may sabotage the treaty in the eyes of Europe and small island nations (who will disappear if global warming isn’t stopped), but Al Gore only seems to care about how global climate change affects big corporate contributors.
· Meanwhile, when the presidential debate touched on oil exploration, Gore “bravely” defends the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that focus groups have shown him he cannot give up. Under cover of that stand, though, he has opened up the Arctic National Petroleum Reserve, 2000 miles of southeastern Alaska coastline, and parts of the California coastline, not to mention selling off the Elk Hills Petroleum reserve to Occidental Oil, his family’s patron company, in the largest privatization in American government history. Now Gore seems poised to break another promise and allow drilling along the Florida coastline, which he has promised never to do. As long as it’s not ANWR, it’s likely at risk under a Gore administration.
· The Clinton-Gore Administration did not even propose any across the board fuel CAFE standard increases during its 8-year administration. Thanks to that freeze and the effect of the exemptions given to SUVs, average fuel efficiency is now down to 24.5 mpg, the lowest level seen since 1980. Clinton-Gore in their 1992 campaign, promised that in 2000 A.D., the average would reach 40 mpg.
· Gore’s support for truly clean alternative fuels has never matched his promises. Instead of fighting for expanded solar energy and conservation budgets, he and Clinton have wasted over one billion dollars in a giveaway to GM, Ford and Chrysler for a clean energy project that never produced even a single prototype. Taxpayer subsidies to fossil fuel and atomic power companies continue unabated. He cannot even make solar energy a major forward vision of his campaign.
· Finally on the energy issue, Gore agreed with George W. Bush to extend and further fund the “Clean Coal” subsidy, which wastes millions of dollars finding ways to clean up the burning of domestic coal, such as “sequestering” the resultant CO2 in sea beds or oil wells. Meanwhile it totally ignores all the environmental harm that comes from mining—including mountaintop removal in West Virginia and in his home state of Tennessee—and its resultant waste disposal. With all these fossils getting their way, it seems the Kyoto treaty is doomed.
· For other resource extraction issues, the public good has been sold to highest bidders under the guise of conservation. The Administration set aside lands, not in National Parks, but rather in National Monuments that often can allow grazing, helicopter logging, and even hard rock mining. Logging has continued under this “earth-friendly” administration: Clinton-Gore signed the “salvage rider” that suspended the Endangered Species Act despite claiming they opposed it. Logging subsidies in the Tongass (Alaska) and White River (Colorado) have gone to corporate friends, and one in six old-growth trees that existed when they took office has been cut and sold for below cost. “Roadless areas” still have roads built with federal money, sometimes showing up in budgets as “stream enhancements.” The hands-off attitude toward corporate crooks reached its pinnacle in the backroom deal to protect Headwaters old-growth forest, which will lose 53,000 of its 60,000 acres, yet forces taxpayers to give $1.2 billion in cash and logging rights to Charles Hurwitz’s company, the S&L escapee which still owes Americans millions of dollars.
· On toxics, Gore’s position has been to wait years for risk assessments, then never release them if they look bad. Both administration terms have passed without the Clinton-Gore EPA’s dioxin reassessment being formally released, despite dioxin (the most potent carcinogen ever) being found in eggs, meat, and being dumped into the ocean. The administration signed away the Delaney Clause prohibited any cancer-causing pesticides or ingredients in food, a clause hated by the food industry.
· The dangerous WTI hazardous waste incinerator was permitted by the Gore EPA, despite his promise in 1992 that it would not be granted. This endangers that community, including its elementary school 1100 feet away at the same altitude as the smokestack. Gore claimed the Bush administration allowed the first permit there, but Bush EPA head William Reilly has said he was advised by the Gore staff during the transition to go ahead with the trash burn permit. In any case, the owners of the plant gave thousands of dollars to the Democratic campaign fund—which obviously counts more to Gore than promises to the locals. That may be why, despite Gore having held the first hearing on Love Canal, the true hero of that fight, Lois Gibbs, has spurned Gore and is supporting the Green candidacy.
· The Clinton-Gore administration also backtracked on its promise to implement “chlorine-free paper,” which would stop dioxin production in papermaking, when the chemical industry made the slightest squeal. Despite trumpeting the role of the US government as the biggest purchaser of paper in the country, the administration settled for “chlorine-dioxide” paper, thereby committing the government to continuing buying into the dioxin lifecycle. For two and a half years, Clinton-Gore have not responded to a coalition petition to the DEA to allow farmers to grow industrial hemp that could be used for paper that’s both chlorine-free and tree-free.
· On genetic engineering, the Democratic administration allowed the release of recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone with faulty science provided by Monsanto, the company that made it. That science has not passed muster in
Bush supports drilling the Arctic 10/2/00 11:56:40 AM Lucy Bostock George Bush proposed an energy policy to decrease America's dependency on foreigh oil. It emphasised oil drilling in the Arctic - one of Bush's most controversial policies.
The policy focused on lowering energy costs, increasinging the nation's energy security (promoting access to foreign oil) and the development of renewable energy.
"We are paying a steep price for seven and a half years without and energy policy", said Bush. He said he would open eight percent of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to explore for 10 billion barrels of oil. He would also explore opening natural gas reserves.Bush estimates $1.2 billion of bonuses will come from opening up the Arctic refuge for funding research into alternative energy resources and will create a "Royalties Conservation Fund".
He will invest over $1 billion to help utilities buy nuclear power plants.
Al Gore says fossil fuel exploration is not the way to provide energy security and that it threatens the environmental protection of the Arctic. He thinks Bush is using the current oil price as an excuse to plunder the Arctic.
Bush would oppose the breaching of four dams which biologists say is essential to the salmon. He would change the process for hydroelectric projects and invest $2 billion into researching "clean coal". He would also introduce a pipeline approval process to reduce oil leakages.
The Wilderness Society said, "drilling in the Arctic Refuge would not only be environmentally destructive, it would do very little, if anything to affect our energy prices or security."
The Arctic plan has a long lead time and short oil supply. It would take seven to 12 years to produce oil from the refuge and supply America for only six months destroying a haven in the process.
In the 2000 Presidential election, the environmental movement faces a special challenge to its integrity and its future impact on American politics. This challenge does not primarily emerge from George Bush. His archaic vision of environmental rape and pillage, of denial and delusion, is pathetically out of touch with the vision of most Americans. When Bush used Alaska Senator Frank Murkowski as his surrogate in a speech before the National Press Club to promote oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, he underscored a blatant disregard for Alaska's special contribution to our ecosystem and fundamental American priorities. Bush's "old school" allegiance to plunder and extermination as humanity's appropriate relationship to our world speaks a language effectively discounted by the great tradition of naturalists from John Muir to David Brower. Bush's blatant anti-environmentalism will lose corporate favor as it loses popular support. It is a language of politics fading rapidly, and without a future.
A political language more sophisticated in its seductive impact on pragmatic environmentalists and environmental policy has replaced the threat to our planet articulated by Bush and his ilk. A carefully crafted alliance of multinational corporations is now fully conversant in the language of environmentalism. Politicians cognizant of this alliance are not overtly dismissive of constituencies concerned with dangers to the planet. To the contrary, these politicians wrap themselves in the mantle of environmental concern. They seize on serious threats to global survival as valuable political currency. Soon they will replace overt apologists for global exploitation on the political landscape. These new environmental poseurs are the natural product of two forces in modern politics. The first are organized voters with a developed conservation agenda, prepared to support or oppose candidates with their votes and vocal endorsements. The second is multinational corporations who view environmental issues as yet another barrier to profit making that can be deflected or compromised with the appropriate political proxies. For these corporations, environmental agenda must be manipulated to corporate advantage. Big corporations are prepared to offer vast sums of money for seduction of environmentalists and systematic compromise of their ideals.
Vice President Albert Gore is preeminent among the politicians who have seized on this new corporate prerequisite for investment as an avenue for career advancement. He has best defined the role of politicians deemed attractive by corporations that appreciate the dangers and opportunities of environmentalism in politics. Corporations now reward politicians who can deliver environmental votes and opinion without seriously deterring their goals with burdensome environmental constraints. Albert Gore is the politician who has best understood that his ability to attract and deliver the environmental constituency would make him attractive to corporate backers. Earth in the Balance, Gore's script for his re-emergence as a national politician was an advertisement for his calculated strategy and availability as an environmental poseur, prepared to attract, barter and mollify environmental support for corporate cash. As a broker of environmental voters on corporate terms, Gore is the prototype for the bankable, Green corporate politician. He has literally written the book.
We can document Gore's commitment to his role as broker of environmental voters for corporate cash. Gore's agenda explains his apparent broken promises as, more than betrayal, proof of his calculated role as corporate double agent within the ranks of conservationists. Some examples:
· Despite his vaunted last minute trip to save the Kyoto treaty, Gore's compromise committed the US to very small reductions in greenhouse gases, and has worked since to include nuclear power among the renewable energy source eligible for Clean Fuel credits under the treaty. These would allow the US to claim reductions supposedly made for the global good, while actually benefiting only the huge corporations that build nuclear power plants. It may sabotage the treaty in the eyes of Europe and small island nations (who will disappear if global warming isn't stopped), but Al Gore only seems to care about how global climate change affects big corporate contributors.
· Meanwhile, when the presidential debate touched on oil exploration, Gore "bravely" defends the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that focus groups have shown him he cannot give up. Under cover of that stand, though, he has opened up the Arctic National Petroleum Reserve, 2000 miles of southeastern Alaska coastline, and parts of the California coastline, not to mention selling off the Elk Hills Petroleum reserve to Occidental Oil, his family's patron company, in the largest privatization in American government history. Now Gore seems poised to break another promise and allow drilling along the Florida coastline, which he has promised never to do. As long as it's not ANWR, it's likely at risk under a Gore administration.
· The Clinton-Gore Administration did not even propose any across the board fuel CAFE standard increases during its 8-year administration. Thanks to that freeze and the effect of the exemptions given to SUVs, average fuel efficiency is now down to 24.5 mpg, the lowest level seen since 1980. Clinton-Gore in their 1992 campaign, promised that in 2000 A.D., the average would reach 40 mpg.
· Gore's support for truly clean alternative fuels has never matched his promises. Instead of fighting for expanded solar energy and conservation budgets, he and Clinton have wasted over one billion dollars in a giveaway to GM, Ford and Chrysler for a clean energy project that never produced even a single prototype. Taxpayer subsidies to fossil fuel and atomic power companies continue unabated. He cannot even make solar energy a major forward vision of his campaign.
· Finally on the energy issue, Gore agreed with George W. Bush to extend and further fund the "Clean Coal" subsidy, which wastes millions of dollars finding ways to clean up the burning of domestic coal, such as "sequestering" the resultant CO2 in sea beds or oil wells. Meanwhile it totally ignores all the environmental harm that comes from mining-including mountaintop removal in West Virginia and in his home state of Tennessee-and its resultant waste disposal. With all these fossils getting their way, it seems the Kyoto treaty is doomed.
· For other resource extraction issues, the public good has been sold to highest bidders under the guise of conservation. The Administration set aside lands, not in National Parks, but rather in National Monuments that often can allow grazing, helicopter logging, and even hard rock mining. Logging has continued under this "earth-friendly" administration: Clinton-Gore signed the "salvage rider" that suspended the Endangered Species Act despite claiming they opposed it. Logging subsidies in the Tongass (Alaska) and White River (Colorado) have gone to corporate friends, and one in six old-growth trees that existed when they took office has been cut and sold for below cost. "Roadless areas" still have roads built with federal money, sometimes showing up in budgets as "stream enhancements." The hands-off attitude toward corporate crooks reached its pinnacle in the backroom deal to protect Headwaters old-growth forest, which will lose 53,000 of its 60,000 acres, yet forces taxpayers to give $1.2 billion in cash and logging rights to Charles Hurwitz's company, the S&L escapee which still owes Americans millions of dollars.
> · Despite his vaunted last minute trip to save the Kyoto treaty, Gore’s > compromise committed the US to very small reductions in greenhouse > gases,
That is what the Kyoto treaty proposes. It comes no where near the 80% reductions in CO2 emissions necessary to stabilize atmospheric concentrations at or below twice pre-industrial by 2100.
> and has worked since to include nuclear power among the renewable > energy source eligible for Clean Fuel credits under the treaty.
Nuclear power is sustainable, and is a clean fuel where GHG emissions are concerned (cleaner even than wind and solar in this respect) and therefore deserves credit under the treaty.
>These > would allow the US to claim reductions supposedly made for the global > good, while actually benefiting only the huge corporations that build > nuclear power plants.
Apparently, Ralph's lifelong obsession with huge corps blinds him to the existence of anything else: reducing GHG emissions by replacing coal plants with nuclear plants will actually benefit the global good, in so far as GHG emissions are a global bad.
Ralph likes electrified mass transit -- so do I. Where's he gonna get the juice? Chicago gets theirs from nuclear power plants, among other things. More e-trains for everybody means either more GHG for everybody or more nuclear power plants for everybody. As a source of electricity for large base-loads like urban transit, solar, wind, and biomass can't replace coal as cheaply, as safely, or as cleanly as nuclear power plants can and do every day now.
Furthermore, the corps that build nuclear power plants are not very huge: a few years ago, Westinghouse -- a major manufacturer of nuclear power plants -- was a little fish gobbled up by Morrison Knudtson, which this year was a little fish gobbled up by Washington Group International. How huge is Washington Group International? About two tenths of one percent the size of Microsoft or Cisco Systems, with about as many employees as a Ralph Nader rally in New York. Those employees are people, Ralph, not huge corporations, by the way.
> It may sabotage the treaty in the eyes of Europe > and small island nations (who will disappear if global warming isn’t > stopped), but Al Gore only seems to care about how global climate change > affects big corporate contributors.
Viewed through the eyes of someone with a pathological obsession that distorts reality to the point that big corporations are the only thing that exists, perhaps, but viewed through the eyes of an environmentalist concerned about the most cost-effective means of achieving stabilization of GHG at or below twice pre-industrial by 2100, Al Gore has a much better grip on reality than Ralph Nader.
The Green Party's anti-nuclear power plank contradicts its sustainable development agenda and should be abandoned.
-dl
********************************************************* * Replace "never.spam" with "dlibby" to reply by e-mail * *********************************************************
> In the 2000 Presidential election, the environmental movement faces a > special challenge to its integrity and its future impact on American > politics. This challenge does not primarily emerge from George Bush. His > archaic vision of environmental rape and pillage, of denial and > delusion, is pathetically out of touch with the vision of most > Americans. When Bush used Alaska Senator Frank Murkowski as his > surrogate in a speech before the National Press Club to promote oil > drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, he underscored a > blatant disregard for Alaska?s special contribution to our ecosystem and > fundamental American priorities. Bush?s ?old school? allegiance to > plunder and extermination as humanity?s appropriate relationship to our > world speaks a language effectively discounted by the great tradition of > naturalists from John Muir to David Brower. Bush?s blatant > anti-environmentalism will lose corporate favor as it loses popular > support. It is a language of politics fading rapidly, and without a > future.
{Etc]
Look, the issue is who is going to be president next January and who is going to control Congress. It is not going to be Ralph Nader or anyone associated with him. I happen to think that Nader's criticism of Gore is greatly exaggerated, but suppose it is correct. There are still significant differences between Gore and Bush, and all three major environmental organizations that endorse candidates have endorsed Gore. That includes the most uncompromising: Friends of the Earth. To people who have made a point of understanding complicated environmental issues, Nader's attacks on Gore don't provide an excuse to abandon Gore.
Nader's aim is to gain 5 percent of the vote in order to gain public financing for the Greens in 2004. That is a reasonable goal for him to aim for, but it doesn't justify sophistry and misleading arguments in order to attain it. But Greens just like other parties have to concentrate on political posturing in order to get votes, and they have shown their willingness to do so. To suggest that even if he is elected Bush is so far out of tune with the country that he won't be able to implement his policies is political science fiction. Make no mistake, if you are progressive and concerned with environmental issues, most of which won't wait for 20 years of hypothetical party building, you are going to be significantly more unhappy with four or eight years of Bush than you will by four or eight years of Gore. Just compare the 12 years of Reagan/Bush with the eight years of Clinton. We certainly didn't get everything we wanted, but we were clearly better off.
You will be specially unhappy when an even more conservative Supreme Court with Bush appointees essentially destroys the EPA's ability to regulate polluters. See last Sunday's N.Y. Times Magazine for an exploration of that issue and the views of Luttig, a likely Bush appointee vs. Tatel a likely Gore appointee.
Why is Nader so intent on going after Gore and giving Bush something of a backhanded pass? It is because the voters he is aiming at persuading to vote for him would most likely otherwise vote for Gore. Everyone knows that. It is not a mystery. Apply the same skepticism to Nader that you apply to the major party candidates. He is also peddling snake oil, just a different brand. Certainly many of his proposals are very attractive, but that is irrelevant if they have no chance to be implemented. Promising you that by voting for him you will make a difference is where he misleads you. If you vote for Nader rather than Gore, you are going to get Bush, and your movement is not going anywhere.
I keep reminding people that we have been through this sort of thing periodically for the past 60 years. Every promise that a splinter movement of progressive voters was going to make a real difference turned out to be a cruel illusion. If you are interested in moving the country in a more progressive direction, the way to do it is to take part in Democratic Party politics. You won't always succeed, but sometimes you will. If you destroy the chances Democrats have of being elected, you will get a less progressive government. What does Jesse Jackson know that Nader doesn't? Think about it.
--
Leonard Evens l...@math.nwu.edu 847-491-5537 Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
> > In the 2000 Presidential election, the environmental movement faces a > > special challenge to its integrity and its future impact on American > > politics. This challenge does not primarily emerge from George Bush. His > > archaic vision of environmental rape and pillage, of denial and > > delusion, is pathetically out of touch with the vision of most > > Americans. When Bush used Alaska Senator Frank Murkowski as his > > surrogate in a speech before the National Press Club to promote oil > > drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, he underscored a > > blatant disregard for Alaska?s special contribution to our ecosystem and > > fundamental American priorities. Bush?s ?old school? allegiance to > > plunder and extermination as humanity?s appropriate relationship to our > > world speaks a language effectively discounted by the great tradition of > > naturalists from John Muir to David Brower. Bush?s blatant > > anti-environmentalism will lose corporate favor as it loses popular > > support. It is a language of politics fading rapidly, and without a > > future. > {Etc]
> Look, the issue is who is going to be president next January and who > is going to control Congress. It is not going to be Ralph Nader or > anyone associated with him. I happen to think that Nader's > criticism of Gore is greatly exaggerated, but suppose it is correct. > There are still significant differences between Gore and Bush, and > all three major environmental organizations that endorse candidates > have endorsed Gore. That includes the most uncompromising: > Friends of the Earth. To people who have made a point of > understanding complicated environmental issues, Nader's attacks > on Gore don't provide an excuse to abandon Gore.
> Nader's aim is to gain 5 percent of the > vote in order to gain public financing for the Greens in 2004. > That is a reasonable goal for him to aim for, but it doesn't > justify sophistry and misleading arguments in order to attain it. > But Greens just like other parties have to concentrate on > political posturing in order to get votes, and they have shown > their willingness to do so. To suggest that even if he is elected > Bush is so far out of tune with the country that he won't be able > to implement his policies is political science fiction. Make no > mistake, if you are progressive and concerned with environmental > issues, most of which won't wait for 20 years of hypothetical > party building, you are going to be significantly more unhappy > with four or eight years of Bush than you will by four or eight > years of Gore. Just compare the 12 years of Reagan/Bush with > the eight years of Clinton. We certainly didn't get everything > we wanted, but we were clearly better off.
> You will be specially unhappy when an even more conservative > Supreme Court with Bush appointees essentially destroys the > EPA's ability to regulate polluters. See last Sunday's N.Y. Times > Magazine for an exploration of that issue and the views of Luttig, > a likely Bush appointee vs. Tatel a likely Gore appointee.
> Why is Nader so intent on going after Gore and giving Bush something > of a backhanded pass? It is because the voters he is aiming at > persuading to vote for him would most likely otherwise vote for > Gore. Everyone knows that. It is not a mystery. Apply the > same skepticism to Nader that you apply to the major party > candidates. He is also peddling snake oil, just a different > brand. Certainly many of his proposals are very attractive, > but that is irrelevant if they have no chance to be implemented. > Promising you that by voting for him you will make a difference > is where he misleads you. If you vote for Nader rather than Gore, > you are going to get Bush, and your movement is not going anywhere.
> I keep reminding people that we have been through this sort of > thing periodically for the past 60 years. Every promise that > a splinter movement of progressive voters was going to make a > real difference turned out to be a cruel illusion. If you > are interested in moving the country in a more progressive > direction, the way to do it is to take part in Democratic > Party politics. You won't always succeed, but sometimes you > will. If you destroy the chances Democrats have of being > elected, you will get a less progressive government. What does > Jesse Jackson know that Nader doesn't? Think about it.
Let me add that I remember people telling me that Reagan wouldn't be as bad as I thought he would be.
He was.
> --
> Leonard Evens l...@math.nwu.edu 847-491-5537 > Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
--
Leonard Evens l...@math.nwu.edu 847-491-5537 Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
There was once a splinter group that challenged the dominance of the two party system. It was called the Republican Party. Granted, it is now part of the problem and not at all part of the solution. But the point is that things are less static than we often believe, and that abrupt changes can occur. Nader's attacks on Gore may appear misguided. But Gores supporters have been attacking nader through ads and other tactics. I wonder why Gore does not respond to the Green's criticisms, and why his supporters constantly refer to the fear of Bush without publically refuting Nader's points. Here you have the reason why many progressives are alienated from the Democratic party. It becomes less and less something we can identify with and support as it takes us for granted more and more. As to the question of whether Nader is taking support from Gore, this is a questionable assumption. I wonder how many of Nader's supporters would be voting for another third party candidate or for no one at all. Gore may be more desirable than Bush in certain ways. But if Gore wins, and there is no visible progressive presence in the U.S., will he appeal to voters to his left? He'd be a fool to do this rather than to appeal to Bush's supporters and gain their support for 2004. This is the way things work, and it is why we need alternatives.
> > In the 2000 Presidential election, the environmental movement faces a > > special challenge to its integrity and its future impact on American > > politics. This challenge does not primarily emerge from George Bush. His > > archaic vision of environmental rape and pillage, of denial and > > delusion, is pathetically out of touch with the vision of most > > Americans. When Bush used Alaska Senator Frank Murkowski as his > > surrogate in a speech before the National Press Club to promote oil > > drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, he underscored a > > blatant disregard for Alaska?s special contribution to our ecosystem and > > fundamental American priorities. Bush?s ?old school? allegiance to > > plunder and extermination as humanity?s appropriate relationship to our > > world speaks a language effectively discounted by the great tradition of > > naturalists from John Muir to David Brower. Bush?s blatant > > anti-environmentalism will lose corporate favor as it loses popular > > support. It is a language of politics fading rapidly, and without a > > future. > {Etc]
> Look, the issue is who is going to be president next January and who > is going to control Congress. It is not going to be Ralph Nader or > anyone associated with him. I happen to think that Nader's > criticism of Gore is greatly exaggerated, but suppose it is correct. > There are still significant differences between Gore and Bush, and > all three major environmental organizations that endorse candidates > have endorsed Gore. That includes the most uncompromising: > Friends of the Earth. To people who have made a point of > understanding complicated environmental issues, Nader's attacks > on Gore don't provide an excuse to abandon Gore.
> Nader's aim is to gain 5 percent of the > vote in order to gain public financing for the Greens in 2004. > That is a reasonable goal for him to aim for, but it doesn't > justify sophistry and misleading arguments in order to attain it. > But Greens just like other parties have to concentrate on > political posturing in order to get votes, and they have shown > their willingness to do so. To suggest that even if he is elected > Bush is so far out of tune with the country that he won't be able > to implement his policies is political science fiction. Make no > mistake, if you are progressive and concerned with environmental > issues, most of which won't wait for 20 years of hypothetical > party building, you are going to be significantly more unhappy > with four or eight years of Bush than you will by four or eight > years of Gore. Just compare the 12 years of Reagan/Bush with > the eight years of Clinton. We certainly didn't get everything > we wanted, but we were clearly better off.
> You will be specially unhappy when an even more conservative > Supreme Court with Bush appointees essentially destroys the > EPA's ability to regulate polluters. See last Sunday's N.Y. Times > Magazine for an exploration of that issue and the views of Luttig, > a likely Bush appointee vs. Tatel a likely Gore appointee.
> Why is Nader so intent on going after Gore and giving Bush something > of a backhanded pass? It is because the voters he is aiming at > persuading to vote for him would most likely otherwise vote for > Gore. Everyone knows that. It is not a mystery. Apply the > same skepticism to Nader that you apply to the major party > candidates. He is also peddling snake oil, just a different > brand. Certainly many of his proposals are very attractive, > but that is irrelevant if they have no chance to be implemented. > Promising you that by voting for him you will make a difference > is where he misleads you. If you vote for Nader rather than Gore, > you are going to get Bush, and your movement is not going anywhere.
> I keep reminding people that we have been through this sort of > thing periodically for the past 60 years. Every promise that > a splinter movement of progressive voters was going to make a > real difference turned out to be a cruel illusion. If you > are interested in moving the country in a more progressive > direction, the way to do it is to take part in Democratic > Party politics. You won't always succeed, but sometimes you > will. If you destroy the chances Democrats have of being > elected, you will get a less progressive government. What does > Jesse Jackson know that Nader doesn't? Think about it.
> --
> Leonard Evens l...@math.nwu.edu 847-491-5537 > Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
> There was once a splinter group that challenged the dominance of the two party > system. It was called the Republican Party. Granted, it is now part of the > problem and not at all part of the solution. But the point is that things are > less static than we often believe, and that abrupt changes can occur.
Thank you for bringing that up. I keep bringing it up, but people ignore it. Let's review what was happening at that time. The nation was fundamentally split on one of the most basic issues of all time: slavery. There were two major parties: Whigs and Democrats, but each was split into pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions (although that is an oversimplification, since anti-slavery often meant being against the extension of slavery to the territories). The Republican Party gained prominence very quickly, over a period of some four years or so, and many Whigs, including Lincoln joined it. Lincoln was elected as the first Republican president by less than 50 percent of the vote. The immediate result of that was seccession by southern states and the beginning of the Civil War. The Civil War was probably the single most important event in American history.
Can anyone serioulsy suggest that conditions today in the US are anything like what they were in 1854 or 1860? I welcome everyone who subscribes to that belief to vote for Nader. If every other progressive voted for Gore, I would be happy indeed.
> Nader's attacks on Gore may appear misguided. But Gores supporters have been > attacking nader through ads and other tactics. I wonder why Gore does not > respond to the Green's criticisms, and why his supporters constantly refer to > the fear of Bush without publically refuting Nader's points.
Gore is running against Bush, not against Nader. Nader is not going to get elected, so there isn't any point in Gore's explaining why his policies would be preferable to progressive voters to Nader's policies. But I dispute that Gore supporters have been attacking Nader. I have yet to see any attacks either on Nader as a person or on his policies by anyone. I agree with quite a bit of what Nader says and disagree with some. But I haven't attacked Nader's programs that I disagree with because it is pointless. What all of us who argue with the Nader campaign point out is that Nader isn't going to get elected. Even Nader admits that. We may also attack his campaign for some sophistry it has engaged in. But remember that while Gore is running against Bush, Nader is to a large extent running against Gore. He is competing for many of the same votes. I agree that he may also be attracting some disaffected voters who would otherwise not vote. But many of the votes in play are people like me: liberal Democrats. Nader is not trying to win. He is trying to get 5 percent of the vote. He also knows perfectly well as does everyone else that he will have to convince some people who otherwise would vote for Gore to vote for him. And he has been trying to do that by attacking Gore very strongly while giving Bush something of a back handed pass. The attacks on Gore that I've seen not only attack his policies but are quite personal and mean spitited.
Certainly Nader must consider a Bush presidency at least as bad a prospect as a Gore presidency, at least if he is honest. Ask yourself what would happen if he spent a lot of time actively campaigning against Bush as hard as he could and saying a few negative words about Gore. Don't you think many of his supporters might think that it was a good idea to prevent Bush from being elected and might then decide to vote for Gore. The assymmetry of the Nader campaign suggests that my estimate of what it is doing is correct.
Some people think that Nader has already accomplished what he can in terms of highlighting his policies and should essentially withdraw. I would be happy if he spent the next ten days vigorously going after Bush and not mentioning Gore.
The Gore campaigners who are addressing the Nader constituency are doing it not by trying to attack Nader. They have been trying to scare such voters about Bush. And they should, because that is really the choice.
> Here you have the > reason why many progressives are alienated from the Democratic party. It > becomes less and less something we can identify with and support as it takes > us for granted more and more.
I also consider myself a progressive, although I don't know if you would agree with me about that. The real tragedy of this campaign is that it is likely to split progressives in this country, with many very bitter feelings on both sides. It is probably pointless to argue about who is responsible. It is more appropriate to discuss how to go about forming a workable majority which is committed to at least some parts of a progressive agenda. Recent history suggests that such a movement is going to be like Clinton/Gore not like Nader/Laduke. You may not like that, but getting bitter about it won't change it. And you have to admit that as I groan over each new measure in a Bush administration that I don't like, if it turns out that the Nader vote made the difference, my feelings towards Nader and his supporters is not going to be positive.
I suspect the Nader campaign won't even get its 5 percent. If it manages to keep going another four years, I would be surprised. If it does persist, it will never get a sizable vote, but if the split among progressives also persists, it will ensure conservative control of our national government for many years to come.
> As to the question of whether Nader is taking > support from Gore, this is a questionable assumption. I wonder how many of > Nader's supporters would be voting for another third party candidate or for no > one at all. > Gore may be more desirable than Bush in certain ways. But if Gore wins, and > there is no visible progressive presence in the U.S., will he appeal to voters > to his left? He'd be a fool to do this rather than to appeal to Bush's > supporters and gain their support for 2004. This is the way things work, and > it is why we need alternatives.
No, things don't work that way. It is not either/or. It is some of this and some of that. On some issues that have broad appeal, hw would be more likely to adopt policies which progressives would like. On issues where progressives are out of tune with the public at large, he would not. On isues concerning the environment, there is no question that most environmentalists would prefer Gore to Bush.
For a historical parallel, look back at the Wallace campaign of 1948. That drew some left wing voters from the Democratic coalition. But it did not lead to Democratic candidates after that moving to the left. It led to the Eisenhower presidency, and that move the nation to the right. The major issue in the Wallace campaign was the Cold War. The next Democrat who was elected in 1960, John Kennedy, was a vigorous cold warrior.
But the whole argument is based on a fallacy. You don't influence a party's policies by withdrawing support from it. You do so by being part of the party. Had Nader been serious about influencing Democratic Party politics, he could have run in the Democratic primaries. There are plenty of progressive Democrats still in the party and they make their influence known.
> > > In the 2000 Presidential election, the environmental movement faces a > > > special challenge to its integrity and its future impact on American > > > politics. This challenge does not primarily emerge from George Bush. His > > > archaic vision of environmental rape and pillage, of denial and > > > delusion, is pathetically out of touch with the vision of most > > > Americans. When Bush used Alaska Senator Frank Murkowski as his > > > surrogate in a speech before the National Press Club to promote oil > > > drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, he underscored a > > > blatant disregard for Alaska?s special contribution to our ecosystem and > > > fundamental American priorities. Bush?s ?old school? allegiance to > > > plunder and extermination as humanity?s appropriate relationship to our > > > world speaks a language effectively discounted by the great tradition of > > > naturalists from John Muir to David Brower. Bush?s blatant > > > anti-environmentalism will lose corporate favor as it loses popular > > > support. It is a language of politics fading rapidly, and without a > > > future. > > {Etc]
> > Look, the issue is who is going to be president next January and who > > is going to control Congress. It is not going to be Ralph Nader or > > anyone associated with him. I happen to think that Nader's > > criticism of Gore is greatly exaggerated, but suppose it is correct. > > There are still significant differences between Gore and Bush, and > > all three major environmental organizations that endorse candidates > > have endorsed Gore. That includes the most uncompromising: > > Friends of the Earth. To people who have made a point of > > understanding complicated environmental issues, Nader's attacks > > on Gore don't provide an excuse to abandon Gore.
> > Nader's aim is to gain 5 percent of the > > vote in order to gain public financing for the Greens in 2004. > > That is a reasonable goal for him to aim for, but it doesn't > > justify sophistry and misleading arguments in order to attain it. > > But Greens just like other parties have to concentrate on > > political posturing in order to get votes, and they have shown > > their willingness to do so. To suggest that even if he is elected > > Bush is so far out of tune with the country that he won't be able > > to implement his policies is political science fiction. Make no > > mistake, if you are progressive and concerned with environmental
In article <291020002239277894%petr...@netcom.com>, Loren Petrich <petr...@netcom.com> wrote:
> One interesting question is why Ralph Nader seems to hate Al Gore > much more than he does George W. Bush. Has anyone probed this?
His latest information was posted on http://www.futureenergies.com/ but I did note one thing... He states, “The best case Al Gore has made to any environmentalist in this election year is that he is not George W. Bush,” Based on that statement I'd say that he hates Bush more...(You can also make comments directly to the site)
The other thing we noted is that our readers (Environmental professionals) don't appear that interested in US politics, because although the majority come from the US they seem far more interested in Solar Powered Planes, buildings, ticket meters and wind turbines. (We have articles on all of the above) Would you say that's true for the newsgroups as well?
> The other thing we noted is that our readers (Environmental > professionals) don't appear that interested in US politics, because > although the majority come from the US they seem far more interested in > Solar Powered Planes, buildings, ticket meters and wind turbines. (We > have articles on all of the above) Would you say that's true for the > newsgroups as well?
Very few environmental professionals in the newsgroups. Most posting comes from environmentalists. Most good posting comes from about half a dozen scientists. Solar and wind power come up quite often, as do nuclear, fossil, biomass, hydro, geothermal.
Interest in US politics appears confined to people outside the US criticising Americans for failing to adhere to the ideological dogma set forth in fundraising literature from giant multinational corporations in the environmentalist protest industry, and inappropriate campaign literature from Nader backers. Abandon science, all ye who enter.
-dl
********************************************************* * Replace "never.spam" with "dlibby" to reply by e-mail * *********************************************************
> One interesting question is why Ralph Nader seems to hate Al Gore > much more than he does George W. Bush. Has anyone probed this?
> -- > Loren Petrich > petr...@netcom.com > Happiness is a fast Macintosh > And a fast train
There is really no mystery about that. I conjecture that there are two basic reasons. First, it is always true that a splinter group directs its anger at those they separated from. Mainline Democrats and Gore in particular are seen as betraying the cause and trying to masquerade as progressives. Bush is seen as honestly pursuing his agenda, which is certainly unacceptable, but he is just doing what they would expect him to do.
The second reason is that Gore is largely competing for votes that might otherwise go to Gore (and may well do so anyway). His goal in this election is to gain five percent of the vote to qualify for matching funds in 2004. Since there really is a quandary for some liberal Democrats about the matter, it makes sense to drum up antagonism towards Gore. Such voters are already uneasy with Gore for a variety of reasons. The more Nader drums up anti Gore feeling, the more voters in this category will temporarily forget their doubts about Bush. More important, he obviously has a big concern about holding onto the votes he thinks he has. If he doesn't even achieve his goal of five percent, but his candidacy seems to have helped Bush, some people may ask what the point was.
Note that not only has Nader been attacking Gore more vigorously than Bush, but he has also been minimizing the undesirable effects of a Bush presidency. That is not based on an honest evaluation of reality. It is a campaign device designed to reassure voters who are leaning his way. He has already paid a price among many liberal advocacy groups, and it will get worse.
Political campaigns tend to lead to corruption of the truth, and the Nader campaign is not exempt from such considerations. --
Leonard Evens l...@math.nwu.edu 847-491-5537 Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
|
