Letter to Environmentalists from Ralph Nader (fwd)
Recycled News
Dear concerned environmental voters:
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 countries where the government is not on this corporate
payroll, such as Canada. As other governments in Europe and Asia
demanded at least minimal testing and labeling requirements, the US
administration insisted that the genetically engineered foods were
“substantially equivalent” to bred crops, and even tried to get them
included into national Organic food standards (along with food that was
irradiated or treated with sewage sludge). Any efforts to segregate
these experimental foods has been met with Clinton-Gore Administration
threats under GATT and WTO to treat such precautionary actions as
“obstacles to free trade.” In fact, any local standard is imperiled by
the “free trade” bureaucracy that both major party candidates endorse,
including Al Gore at his most enthusiastic.
· Wetlands destruction is no longer properly tracked, and the
administration blocked the protection for functioning wetlands that are
currently farmed. The Administration refused to have the Army Corps of
Engineers implement section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which would
protect wetlands. Again, the rhetoric is there, but when the
follow-through is needed, the budgets approved, the political will
expended, Gore never challenges the despoilers, developers, and
polluters if there is an easier back door exit—especially one out of
public view.
· The Administration refused to impose sanctions against countries that
break international law by engaging in commercial whaling, such as
Norway and Japan. On fishing issues, they continue to attempt to set
commercial licenses (ITQs: individual transferable quotas) for how much
fish can be taken by large industrial concerns, at the risk to family
fishermen, despite the fragility (and in some places collapse) of entire
fisheries.
· On ozone depletion, currently in its worst year with the biggest holes
ever, including some over urban areas, the Administration made deals
over ozone-depleting chemicals such as the pesticide Methyl Bromide,
used as a pesticide by strawberry growers and others. This had the
effect of stopping the phase-out of this nerve gas, to the benefit of
large agri-business, to the detriment of workers, consumers, and anyone
who goes outside without sunblockers.
· On the Everglades, currently a key issue in a hotly contested state,
Gore has worked with the Florida government (including Jeb Bush) to cut
deals for the “recovery plan” that allows for major development around
this national treasure. Gore has not opposed a proposed commercial
airport on the site of the former Homestead Air Force Base, despite the
protests of local people working for conservation and his own EPA. There
are no airports situated on the border of national parks in America; the
Everglades is the last place to consider changing that fact. In general,
work to restore the Everglades should be done for the public, and for
future generations, not on the basis of debts called in by the sugar
industry and local power brokers.
· Finally, any of these and other environmental interests cannot be
protected by laws that are superseded by global corporate interests
which can see nothing beyond the next quarterly profit statement.
Dangerous PCBs are imported into this country because waste incinerators
must be kept profitable. Dolphins are killed catching tuna, turtles are
killed catching shrimp because the countries that allow these practices
can challenge restrictions on practices at a closed-door, non-democratic
WTO process that values only money. Any environmentalists worth their
salt know that local communities must be allowed to make more stringent
rules for their own protection, yet the workings of global business
can’t allow that. This is why corporate environmentalism must be
stopped.
The Nader candidacy offers environmental groups and voters committed to
protection of our planet through the political process an opportunity to
disengage from this con game as defined and played by Gore. As an
achieving environmentalist for nearly four decades, I offer the
environmental community an opportunity to reassert its independence as a
potent and uncompromised political force. Environmentalists who stand
with this candidacy can assert their own agenda and priorities without
fear of contradiction. If environmentalists ally with Gore because he is
positioned as distinctly different from a self-proclaimed plunderer of
the old school, they must acknowledge that any and all environmental
positions taken by the candidate will be subject to mutation and
subjugation to his corporate agenda. They thus allow corporations to
define environmental results. They tell future political leaders that
the environmental community is for sale, because its constituency values
“access” to the process over any demonstrable and permanent results.
Even as this letter is being written, we watch Gore turn his back on
perhaps the worst political disaster to hit the conservation front this
Congressional session, a range of riders to the EPA appropriations bill
that would:
1. Delay safe drinking water standards by telling the EPA to get new
costs data before proceeding.
2. Substitute federal taxpayer dollars for increased fees that pesticide
manufacturers were supposed to pay to fund EPA’s pesticide programs.
3. Prohibit the EPA from listing localities with unhealthy smog levels
until June 15, 2001 or a date set by the court in current litigation.
4. Delay EPA’s effort to set new arsenic standards of five parts per
billion to protect millions of American s from cancer and other health
risks.
5. Weaken the EPA’s effort to clean up rivers, lakes and bays
contaminated with toxic waste by demanding further study.
6. Block implementation of 1998 environmental justice guidelines to
expedite civil rights claims against the EPA alleging discrimination in
permitting.
Where is Al Gore when the chips are down? Does it take courage to make
these cruel riders a major vocal difference between him and George W.
Bush? Clinton-Gore opposed these riders in the House but signed off on
them in the Senate, despite vocal opposition from health and
conservation groups. They apparently assumed that campaign rhetoric
would conceal riders that blocked the EPA from designating
non-attainment areas under the new smog rule, clean ups of PCBs in
river, or blocked EPA from investigating environmental racism in the
permitting process, among others. Who among their allies in the
environmental community would dare speak out? The same friends of the
earth who condemned the Clinton-Gore regime of “anything goes with the
coddled biotech industry” now proceed to endorse Gore, who will outrage
them even more should he become President.
In the meantime these same environmental groups urge their members to
vote for Gore either because he writes and speaks their language or
because he is the lesser of two evils when compared with George Bush. In
environmental terms, they fight the last war instead of confronting the
new politics of their new adversaries and the new advocacy at their
disposal. They have adopted the servile mentality of the lesser of two
evils (see Michael Lerner, Tikkun).
My candidacy offers environmental groups and voters committed to
protection of our planet through the political process an opportunity to
disengage from this conservation con game as defined and played by Gore
and his corporate allies. I offer the environmental community an
opportunity to reassert its independence as a potent and uncompromising
political force.
Independence critical to sustained environmental influence on political
events is contingent on a conscious withdrawal by environmentalists from
pseudo-environmentalists supported by corporate money, which have fueled
both parties with tens of millions of dollars. This important
opportunity will be valued increasingly as the Gore betrayals
accumulate, from the Everglades to East Liverpool to the environmental
racism that he so cruelly ignores. People concerned about the
environment don’t just need access to politicians—they need access to
power. For that to happen, the power must come back from the
corporations to whom it has been auctioned.
For the earth and the common good,
Ralph Nader
--
Paid for by the Nader 2000 General Committee, Inc
----- End forwarded message -----
Green Party <http://www.green-party.org>
Green Party Platform <http://www.gp.org>
Lucy Bostock
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.
for more see http://www.envirospace.com/
--
Kind regards,
Lucy Bostock
Orthoclase: Net Research and Marketing
web: http://www.orthoclase.com/
tel: +44 (0) 20 8355 7229
mobile: +44 (0) 7939 081 899
ICQ: 72950115
"Recycled News" <ay...@extra.lafn.org> wrote in message
news:20001024222638.B1173@localhost...
October 20, 2000
Dear concerned environmental voters:
mining-including mountaintop removal in West Virginia and in his home
state of Tennessee-and its resultant waste disposal. With all these
plant gave thousands of dollars to the Democratic campaign fund-which
polluters if there is an easier back door exit-especially one out of
public view.
environment don't just need access to politicians-they need access to
Don Libby
>
> October 20, 2000
>
> Dear concerned environmental voters:
> · 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 *
*********************************************************
Leonard Evens
>
> October 20, 2000
>
> Dear concerned environmental voters:
>
> 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
> 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
> anti-environmentalism will lose corporate favor as it loses popular
> support. It is a language of politics fading rapidly, and without a
> future.
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
Leonard Evens
Let me add that I remember people telling me that Reagan wouldn't
be as bad as I thought he would be.
He was.
Paul Belz
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.
Leonard Evens
>
> 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.
-------------------
Loren Petrich
much more than he does George W. Bush. Has anyone probed this?
--
Loren Petrich
pet...@netcom.com
Happiness is a fast Macintosh
And a fast train
james...@my-deja.com
Loren Petrich <pet...@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?
James Abela
http://www.futureenergies.com/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Don Libby
>
> 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?
>
> James Abela
> http://www.futureenergies.com/
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.
Leonard Evens
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.