News Ralph Nader's Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us

[BenVitale]

Ralph Nader's “Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us”

Ralph Nader's “Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us” is his recent book.

THE BOOK : it is described as a "fictional vision", a "practical utopia."

Read the good reviews: NEWS RELEASE

Ralph Nader asks:

What if a cadre of superrich individuals tried to become a driving force in America to organize and institutionalize the interests of the citizens of this troubled nation? What if some of America's most powerful individuals decided it was time to fix our government and return the power to the people? What if they focused their power on unionizing Wal-Mart? What if a national political party were formed with the sole purpose of advancing clean elections? What if these seventeen superrich individuals decided to galvanize a movement for alternative forms of energy that will effectively clean up the environment? What if together they took on corporate goliaths and Congress to provide the necessities of life and advance the solutions so long left on the shelf by an avaricious oligarchy? What could happen?

Youtube video "ONLY THE SUPER-RICH CAN SAVE US"

I noticed that Ralph Nader is saying nice things about the kind of people (the billionaires) you'd expect him to despise.

I'm disapointed with Ralph Nader.

Please share your thoughts.

 

[nismaratwork]

I think that Nader should have retired from public life after reforming the auto industry. He and Jimmy Carter seem to have spoiled with age.

 

[Cyrus]

lol, "after reforming the auto industry" ...not quite

 

[nismaratwork]

lol, "after reforming the auto industry" ...not quite

Just to be clear, I was being deeply sarcastic, and the reference to spoilage has to do with "peanut" references with Carter. I'm not a fan of either fellow, but to stick to the OP, let's just say I'm no fan of Ralph Nader.

 

[Proton Soup]

alright now, Carter ain't all bad. Habitat is a solid organization.

 

[nismaratwork]

alright now, Carter ain't all bad. Habitat is a solid organization.

Agreed, and I won't thread-jack with the issues I have against Carter. Nader has done some good things too, but there is a big element of "what have you done for me lately", and with Nader especially, "What have you DONE TO us lately" in regards to the 2000 election. Spin that however he wants, had he been absent from the ticket there is a better than even chance that W. would never have seen the presidency.

 

[Cyrus]

Just to be clear, I was being deeply sarcastic, and the reference to spoilage has to do with "peanut" references with Carter. I'm not a fan of either fellow, but to stick to the OP, let's just say I'm no fan of Ralph Nader.

Gotcha

 

[nismaratwork]

Gotcha

Good... I can imagine any engineer having palpitations when the "Nader brought us seat belts" argument is made. I don't want to kill members in good standing of PF with a misunderstanding.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Just to be clear, I was being deeply sarcastic, and the reference to spoilage has to do with "peanut" references with Carter.

Good heavens! I can scarcely remember when I last heard a Carter/peanut wisecrack. I think I may have been wearing feetie pajamas.

 

[nismaratwork]

Good heavens! I can scarcely remember when I last heard a Carter/peanut wisecrack. I think I may have been wearing feetie pajamas.

Are you somehow insulting feetie pajamas? I WILL NOT STAND idly by and hear them slandered... but yeah, the "peanut farmer" thing is older than I am.


Well... not older, but.. oh hell, you young'uns these days, and whatnot! grumble grumble...

 

[ThomasT]

I'm disappointed with Ralph Nader.

He's asked some questions, and presented a hypothesis. But of course the super rich and powerful aren't going to campaign against the very conditions which allowed them to become super rich and powerful.

In a country which has, effectively, only one major political party (the 'Republican-Democtrat' party -- an "avaricious oligarchy" in Nader's words) which advocates primarily for the rights of big money interests, it isn't surprising that a man like Nader, who's spent his life advocating for the rights of the common people, is marginalized and ridiculed.

The US populace is generally complacent and apathetic wrt civic affairs. Nader's primary message is that positive, progressive change can be effected through mass movements. It isn't a popular message because it requires a bit of work.

 

[nismaratwork]

He's asked some questions, and presented a hypothesis. But of course the super rich and powerful aren't going to campaign against the very conditions which allowed them to become super rich and powerful.

In a country which has, effectively, only one major political party (the 'Republican-Democtrat' party -- an "avaricious oligarchy" in Nader's words) which advocates primarily for the rights of big money interests, it isn't surprising that a man like Nader, who's spent his life advocating for the rights of the common people, is marginalized and ridiculed.

The US populace is generally complacent and apathetic wrt civic affairs. Nader's primary message is that positive, progressive change can be effected through mass movements. It isn't a popular message because it requires a bit of work.

Life, and the irony of his role in 2000 has made him a marginal figure, deserving of mockery.

 

[Proton Soup]

Life, and the irony of his role in 2000 has made him a marginal figure, deserving of mockery.

ross perot was a spoiler for clinton, too.

if anything gets me about nader, it's his being a child of privilege, only to go on to a career of pretending to be the champion of the common man.

 

[nismaratwork]

ross perot was a spoiler for clinton, too.

if anything gets me about nader, it's his being a child of privilege, only to go on to a career of pretending to be the champion of the common man.

Ross Perot was a gift from god to comedians, who merely happened to be a spoiler. Your point about Nader is a good one, especially because he still thinks and acts with the limited vision of someone who hasn't seen beyond their privilege.

 

[talk2glenn]

He's asked some questions, and presented a hypothesis. But of course the super rich and powerful aren't going to campaign against the very conditions which allowed them to become super rich and powerful.

In a country which has, effectively, only one major political party (the 'Republican-Democtrat' party -- an "avaricious oligarchy" in Nader's words) which advocates primarily for the rights of big money interests, it isn't surprising that a man like Nader, who's spent his life advocating for the rights of the common people, is marginalized and ridiculed.

The US populace is generally complacent and apathetic wrt civic affairs. Nader's primary message is that positive, progressive change can be effected through mass movements. It isn't a popular message because it requires a bit of work.

Is this intended to be self-parody?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Life, and the irony of his role in 2000 has made him a marginal figure, deserving of mockery.

Yep. There can be no forgiveness for his role in 2000. Look what it has cost us!

 

[nismaratwork]

Yep. There can be no forgiveness for his role in 2000. Look what it has cost us!

Too true!

 

[Proton Soup]

democracy be damned!

 

[ThomasT]

Life, and the irony of his role in 2000 has made him a marginal figure, deserving of mockery.

I agree that the 2000 presidential election was a mockery, but not because of Nader's participation.

I consider his life to be exemplary in many ways. Is there some evidence to the contrary?

... (Nader) still thinks and acts with the limited vision of someone who hasn't seen beyond their privilege.

In what way(s)? Example(s)?

if anything gets me about nader, it's his being a child of privilege, only to go on to a career of pretending to be the champion of the common man.

Why you believe that?

There can be no forgiveness for his role in 2000. Look what it has cost us!

His role was that he ran for president. Which was his right. What there can be no forgiveness for are the actions of the media and the major parties which effectively screened him out of any possible contention, and a Congress that shouldn't have acquiesced to the invasion of Iraq in the first place, and should have begun impeachment proceedings against Bush et al. when that administration's deceit and questionable practices became evident. But instead of focusing on that (or the fact that the Democrats could have won the election had they mobilized even a tiny percentage of the tens of millions of potential voters who chose not to vote -- not that things would have been significantly different if the Dems had won), people, predictably, and nonsensically, point at Nader's candidacy.

Anyway, for those who want to take the position that Nader's candidacy was the primary factor determining Bush's election, then how many votes did Nader take away from Gore, how many from Bush, and how do you know?

Is this intended to be self-parody?

Is there something you wanted say about Nader, or his latest 'literary' offering?

 

[lisab]

Yep. There can be no forgiveness for his role in 2000. Look what it has cost us!

But had Gore won his *own state*, he'd have won the election. He just rand a lousy campaign, Nader was the final straw.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But had Gore won his *own state*, he'd have won the election. He just rand a lousy campaign, Nader was the final straw.

Yes, but Nader knew he could throw the election to Bush. He knowingly helped that ******** to win.

Were he really the public servant he claims to be, he would have thrown his support behind Gore. The only plus: Were it not for eight years of Bush Jr., Obama may have never been elected. So in a way, we have Nader to thank for Obama. Of course, it was two wars and a collapsed economy later that we finally got Obama... What do they say about closing the bard door after the horses already got out?

 

[BenVitale]

Thanks Thomas,

I'd like us to focus on the messages and the intentions of Ralph Nader's book "Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us."

Does he think he's still an electable candidate?

In his book -- I've only read the book reviews -- he talks about the "Meliorists".
So I searched on the web for a clear definition:

Meliorism

Meliorism (politics)

But, I'm still not sure what Nader is referring to.

Here's a review of the book in the Wall Street Journal

And, Bitterly Books is undertaking a chapter-by-chapter review of Ralph Nader's work

 

[nismaratwork]

But had Gore won his *own state*, he'd have won the election. He just rand a lousy campaign, Nader was the final straw.

Yeah, and ask me how I feel about Al Gore, but being a "final straw" is still part of the problem! I don't care what role it played; as has been mentioned before he stood on principle to the detriment of the entire country (and arguably world) for 8 years. Al Gore should also be kneecapped, but this isn't an Al Gore thread.

ThomasT: After 2000, he ran again... I'd call that limited vision given his role in 2000. Beyond that, how do you figure that his life has been exemplary?

 

[Proton Soup]

http://bitterlybooks.blogspot.com/search/label/Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us

TRIADS AND BFLs

looks like it's simply tedious

but this amuses me: http://bitterlybooks.blogspot.com/2009/11/peter-lewis-guide-to-soliciting.html

 

[Proton Soup]

oh, and the assault on Wal-Mart is priceless, given this:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-07-15/the-liberal-sweatshop/?cid=hp:mainpromo6

The nonprofit Fund for Public Interest Inc. was set up in 1982 as the fundraising arm of the network of Public Interest Research Groups, which was founded by Ralph Nader. It deploys legions of door-to-door and street canvassers—and once counted a young Barack Obama as one of its New York City organizers—to solicit contributions for the Human Rights Campaign, the Sierra Club, Environment America, and other groups that together spend millions of dollars each year lobbying Congress.

"They’re the Wal-Mart of nonprofits in every way imaginable. They basically look at the next generation of social change as the next source of cheap labor."

Those organizations often battle with deep-pocketed corporations; the money raised by canvassers is an important source of funds. In many cases, however, the employees collecting those donations made an hourly rate that worked out to less than minimum wage.

 

[nismaratwork]

Really, I hate when people don't realize they're long past their "shelf-life". It's this crap that makes genuine complaints and concern labeled as "fringe".

 

[ThomasT]

Hi Ben -- ok, back on topic. You asked:

Does he think he's still an electable candidate?

Did he ever think that? Who knows? My guess is that he saw his candidacies as a very large forum for his message (however one might want to characterize it).

From the Wikipedia article on Nader, linked to below:

In the 2006 documentary An Unreasonable Man, Nader describes how he was unable to get the views of his public interest groups heard in Washington, even by the Clinton Administration. Nader cites this as one of the primary reasons that he decided to actively run in the 2000 election as candidate of the Green Party, which had been formed in the wake of his 1996 campaign.

In his book -- I've only read the book reviews -- he talks about the "Meliorists".
So I searched on the web for a clear definition:

But, I'm still not sure what Nader is referring to.

From the first Wikipedia link you provided:

Meliorism is an idea in metaphysical thinking holding that progress is a real concept leading to an improvement of the world. It holds that humans can, through their interference with processes that would otherwise be natural, produce an outcome which is an improvement over the aforementioned natural one.

The 'natural process' in the above quote might be considered analogous to the status quo in US politics. Is it an "avaricious oligarchy", as Nader calls it?
Anyway, the idea is that the current status quo can be improved upon via increased participation and activism. In his book, he (apparently, I haven't read it either) explores the idea of collective progressive activism by a group of super-rich and super-powerful people.

Meliorism is somewhat synonymous with progressivism. Nader, while conservative in certain ways, is a progressivist. Hence, "the Meliorists".

Rob Long's review is genuinely funny. My guess is that not very many people will read Nader's 'novel' -- at least, not any time real soon (700 pages?? -- what was he thinking?).

Is the motivation behind Nader's novel vaguely reminiscent of, and in some ways similar to, the apparent motivation behind B.F. Skinner's 'novel', Walden Two? I don't know, but both these guys seem to be idealists who spent the bulk of their lives working on the basic mechanics of their chosen professions. They both think that the human condition, in general, can be improved, and they both present a 'vision' wrt how that might be accomplished.
---------------------------------------

After 2000, he ran again... I'd call that limited vision given his role in 2000. Beyond that, how do you figure that his life has been exemplary?

http://www.salon.com/bc/1999/01/26bc.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader

How do you figure that he should be mocked? What, exactly, is "deserving of mockery"? Do you know some 'dirt' wrt his personal life? If it's just the 2000 election thing, then, if he had dropped out, then I'd be mocking him for that. If it's that he's run again, then I have to suppose that you just disagree with some, or maybe all, of what he says and what he says he stands for. If so, then what is it that you disagree with?

Ok, then there's this ... er, 'novel'. Well, I didn't say that I thought the guy was perfect, just that, in general, I consider him to have led an exemplary life.

 

[ThomasT]

Youtube video "ONLY THE SUPER-RICH CAN SAVE US"

I noticed that Ralph Nader is saying nice things about the kind of people (the billionaires) you'd expect him to despise.

I'm disapointed with Ralph Nader.

Please share your thoughts.

Ben, just watched the video. (I'd only read snippets of the reviews before.) The rationale of the book, as Nader states it, makes sense to me. It didn't seem like he was saying anything particularly 'nice' about the super-rich. Just that they're in a position (due to their wealth and networks) to bring about some positive changes, and that enough of them seem to be interested in some sort of progressive agenda that, collectively, a very small percentage of very rich people (just 17 in the book) could do just that. Each of the people he mentions has some particular area that they're most interested in improving.

One interesting point was that had George Soros (or whoever) bought enough airtime to saturate the mass media with the 'anti-Iraq-invasion' message of a few hundred respected military and civilian officials, then it might have tipped the balance of opinion (wrt both the populace and the Congress) solidly against the invasion.

It remains to be seen whether any of this will lead to a super-rich, progressive 'cabal'.

Anyway, I wouldn't expect Nader to despise the super-rich just because they're super-rich.

I'm curious as to what exactly you're disappointed with.

 

[nismaratwork]

ThomasT: I have no special knowledge about the man, and nothing approaching insider info; I believe what we have here is a difference of opinion between us, and one that is unlikely to be settled. We are probably aware of the same facts, and privy to the public details of his life; you like it, I don't. We COULD debate this, but that seems like it would be too far off topic. I see him as a starry-eyed crusader who has had far less impact than he is credited with, and more ego than he deserves. He strikes me as the type to argue the "the constitution is not a suicide pact" concept to death, much as he stuck to his guns re: W. Bush. Was he right that Gore should have done better... yeah, definitely. Could he have withdrawn and changed 2000-2008... probably. Nothing he's done in life prior to that can possibly make up for a contributing role in W's presidency... and this novel as you so rightly put it, is laughable.

That is what I mock: the disparity between his espoused ideals and the most significant role he's played in American history.

 

[ThomasT]

nismaratwork,

I have no special knowledge about the man, and nothing approaching insider info; I believe what we have here is a difference of opinion between us, and one that is unlikely to be settled. We are probably aware of the same facts, and privy to the public details of his life; you like it, I don't. We COULD debate this, but that seems like it would be too far off topic. I see him as a starry-eyed crusader who has had far less impact than he is credited with, and more ego than he deserves. He strikes me as the type to argue the "the constitution is not a suicide pact" concept to death, much as he stuck to his guns re: W. Bush. Was he right that Gore should have done better... yeah, definitely. Could he have withdrawn and changed 2000-2008... probably. Nothing he's done in life prior to that can possibly make up for a contributing role in W's presidency... and this novel as you so rightly put it, is laughable.

Ok, points taken, and yes we should respect the OP and stick to the book. I didn't say that I thought the novel itself, or its premise, was necessarily laughable. It's just so ... large. The rationale makes sense to me. I've changed my mind wrt the possibility of a tiny percentage of super-rich people forming a progressivist 'cabal'. It's not as outlandish as it, at first, seems. Or maybe it is. I don't know.

I don't get your association of Nader with "the constitution is not a suicide pact" notion.

That is what I mock: the disparity between his espoused ideals and the most significant role he's played in American history.

If he had dropped out of the 2000 race, then there would have been a, mockable, disparity between his espoused ideals and his actions. But he didn't, so there wasn't -- at least not wrt that election. Bush got elected because of a mockable Florida vote collection and count, a mockable Supreme Court decision, a mockable electorate, and a mockable Democratic campaign. To think that Nader should have dropped out is, really, quite missing the point.

-------------------------

... Nader knew he could throw the election to Bush. He knowingly helped that ******** to win.

Were he really the public servant he claims to be, he would have thrown his support behind Gore.
...

It's precisely because of who he is (a real public servant), and what his whole life has been about, that he couldn't have dropped out of the race and "thrown his support behind Gore" (the, purported, lesser of two evils).

 

[nismaratwork]

nismaratwork,
Ok, points taken, and yes we should respect the OP and stick to the book. I didn't say that I thought the novel itself, or its premise, was necessarily laughable. It's just so ... large. The rationale makes sense to me. I've changed my mind wrt the possibility of a tiny percentage of super-rich people forming a progressivist 'cabal'. It's not as outlandish as it, at first, seems. Or maybe it is. I don't know.

I don't get your association of Nader with "the constitution is not a suicide pact" notion.

If he had dropped out of the 2000 race, then there would have been a, mockable, disparity between his espoused ideals and his actions. But he didn't, so there wasn't -- at least not wrt that election. Bush got elected because of a mockable Florida vote collection and count, a mockable Supreme Court decision, a mockable electorate, and a mockable Democratic campaign. To think that Nader should have dropped out is, really, quite missing the point.

-------------------------


It's precisely because of who he is (a real public servant), and what his whole life has been about, that he couldn't have dropped out of the race and "thrown his support behind Gore" (the, purported, lesser of two evils).

As I said, I really believe that we have an irreconcilable difference in views here, and your last bit is precisely the analogy I was drawing with the "suicide pact" comment. Many factors contributed to the result in 2000, but Nader was personally in control of one deciding factor and stuck to his principles at the expense of sooooo much. I don't respect people who live in a world of pure ideals and fail to respect the realpolitik.

He places the integrity of who he is and his beliefs ahead of the relative welfare of, as we now see, virtually the entire world. His beliefs were a contributing factor, and a deeply individual one at that, in the deaths of untold Iraqi soldiers, and civilians, as well as US and other 'coalition' service-men and women. It's not "all his fault", but it's rare that one man has the capacity to flip a switch and change a probable outcome this way. It's a mockery of his ideals that he ignores to this day, the impact on human lives and treasure that his decision had, when his beliefs are (according to him) fundamentally humanist. In my view, that makes him scum.

 

[ThomasT]

With apology to BenVitale, and note that I do conclude with an on-topic question, I feel that I must respond to nismaratwork's latest post. The thing is, if we dismiss Nader as a fringe scumbag for his decision to stay in the 2000 election, then there seems to me to be little point in discussing his 'novel'.

By the way, Ben, you haven't yet replied to my question regarding what disappoints you about Nader's latest offering.

Many factors contributed to the result in 2000, but Nader was personally in control of one deciding factor and stuck to his principles at the expense of sooooo much.

Nobody, including Nader, had any way of knowing, at the time, exactly what Bush might do if elected.

I don't respect people who live in a world of pure ideals and fail to respect the realpolitik.

Do you also not respect people who can't foretell the future? The Iraq invasion was a couple of years away. Bush hadn't even been elected President yet. Nobody knew what Bush was going to do or not do if elected.

The 'realpolitik' was that Bush and Gore were, both of them, functionaries of the status quo. "Tweedledee and Tweedledum", as Nader characterized them.

However, according to you, Nader's reasoning (when faced with the proposition that he should drop out of the 2000 election) should have been something like: "If I stay in the election, then there's a better chance that Bush will win than if I drop out of the election. If Bush wins, then he might do something really bad or really stupid, or just predictably in line with 'business as usual', down the road. Same with Gore. However, Gore is not as bad or as stupid as Bush, and he seems to have some progressive intentions. Therefore, I will drop out of the election."

Now, I'm asking you, what sort of sense does that make? Or, maybe you can phrase what you think should have been Nader's reasoning differently.

He places the integrity of who he is and his beliefs ahead of the relative welfare of, as we now see, virtually the entire world. His beliefs were a contributing factor, and a deeply individual one at that, in the deaths of untold Iraqi soldiers, and civilians, as well as US and other 'coalition' service-men and women.

Come on nismaratwork. These statements are absurd. There's no connection there. Unless Nader could foretell the future. And remember, Bush was elected to a second term. How many people's lives were unnecessarily destroyed during Bush's second term? Are Nader's beliefs responsible for that also.

If we had elected someone with Nader's "beliefs", like, say, Nader, then I think it's reasonable to suppose that none of the crap that Bush visited upon us, and Iraq, etc., would have happened.

Did you vote for Nader? Probably not, eh? Predictable. But I don't think any less of you for that. You're just a victim of the status quo.

It's not "all his fault", but it's rare that one man has the capacity to flip a switch and change a probable outcome this way.

It isn't rare at all. Bush and Gore also had that capacity. Any significant candidate in any election has that capacity.

But since nobody can foretell the future, and because some people actually do act according to their principles, Nader stayed in the election.

It's a mockery of his ideals that he ignores to this day, the impact on human lives and treasure that his decision had, when his beliefs are (according to him) fundamentally humanist. In my view, that makes him scum.

An "impact" that couldn't possibly have been foreseen by ... anyone. The effective determinants of the Bush political atrocities were (1) the Bush administration, (2) the American mass media, (3) the American people, (4) the US Congress, (5) the US Supreme Court, (6) the Florida election process, and (7) the Gore campaign's incompetence -- not necessarily in that order, and if I left anything out then please correct me.

Nader's decision to stay in the 2000 election, and to run again, had nothing to do with Bush's political actions. The US Congress directly impacted "lives and treasure" by their continuing support of Bush's doctrines. And the US populace elected Bush to a second term. Do you want to see a timeline of Bush's administrative/political actions? Do you really want to blame Nader for it? We, collectively, all of us, could have prevented the Iraq invasion. But we didn't. We could have voted Bush out of office. But we didn't.

A man like Nader comes along ... infrequently. America missed the chance to elect such a man to a high political office when he was in his prime. But he's still alive and 'kicking', so to speak. In a way, I'm glad that he's been marginalized. Otherwise, because then he would represent a 'serious' threat to the status quo, he'd be in real danger.

So much for my own 'idealistic' impulses.

Here's an (incomplete) timeline of Bush's administrative/political actions. For those who want to blame this on Nader, well, shame on you. Blame yourselves (if you voted for Bush), or blame the US Congress, or whomever -- but how in the world can you blame it on someone like Nader who is speaking out against this sort of stuff?
http://tampa.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/a_timeline_of_the_george_w_bush_presidency/Content?oid=547210

Anyway, back to the 'novel', what do you think about the premise? Is it feasible, or what? And, before you dismiss it out of hand, just consider that there really are lots of super-rich folks who endorse 'progressive' ideas.

 

[nismaratwork]

ThomasT: The fact that the extent of Bush's incompetence and destructive policies is what makes Nader scum, instead of a psychotic. I'm impressed by your capacity to blame literally everything and everyone EXCEPT Nader, who again, as I said was in a unique position that is not shared by such diffuse entities as "The American People", or "The media". That you still think gore was a different side of the same coin as W. is absurd given that all we require now is hindsight rather than precognition.

As a victim of the status quo, I would happily have endured Gore's mediocre and usual DemacRepublicrat politics instead of Bush's insanity. Nader didn't stick to a principle, he stuck to a delusion that two candidates were essentially the same because they were not sufficiently "not status quo" for his taste. As for Nader's rarity, I think he's less of a unique gem than you believe, but I don't care to debate the point... I can only HOPE that there are few others like him.

As for the novel, super-rich people do involve themselves in cabals... they're called banks and corporations and politics. Nader's childish imbecilic wish that such people would go against the grain of recorded human history and act in a profoundly enlightened manner... and en masse no less... is just another example of his lack of appreciation of realpolitik. He's what a man whom I generally disagree with, but in this case do not, would call a "limousine liberal".

Anyway, I can't say that given your... let's be generous and call it a "minority view"... in topics now ranging from non-locality to politics, that your 'reasoning' surprises me. As usual, you simply substitute repetition in place of sound concepts and thinking. In the same way that having read your position in the EPR thread I decided that engaging you in debate would be painful and pointless, I am coming to realize this is a universal truth in any thread with you. Really, that you warp what I said about Nader having the capacity to "flip a switch", and place that on the majority candidates is either sophistry, or deliberate rhetorical crap. Either way... *wave*.

 

[BenVitale]

.

By the way, Ben, you haven't yet replied to my question regarding what disappoints you about Nader's latest offering.
..

Thanks Thomas for taking the lead. Sorry, I was busy with number theory.

I understand better the concept of "Meliorism", now.

Why was I disappointed with Nader?

We all know his contributions to the American society. Ralph Nader has helped us drive safer cars, eat healthier food, breathe better air, drink cleaner water, and work in safer environments for more than four decades.

I read few years ago the book he published in 1965: "Unsafe at Any Speed" which led to congressional hearings and automobile safety laws passed in 1966, including the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.
I also read articles and bibliographies about him and his contributions to society: He was key architect of ...
... the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
... the Environmental Protection Agency
... the Consumer Product Safety Commission
... the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration

He was involved in the...
... recall of millions of unsafe consumer products
... protection of laborers and the environment.

He started dozens of citizen groups to create an atmosphere of corporate and governmental accountability.

Throughout his long career, Nader fought a campaign against corporate greed. He fought for stronger regulation, for the public interest; he has fought against the rich, in favor of the public.

And now, he publishes this book "Only the Rich Can Save Us"
I heard the first time on Democracy Now

You can follow on Youtube videos (3 parts):

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3


My first reaction was of disappointment. I asked myself, "how does he reconcile with the two?" ... How does he go from there to here with this new book?

 

[Galteeth]

ThomasT: The fact that the extent of Bush's incompetence and destructive policies is what makes Nader scum, instead of a psychotic. I'm impressed by your capacity to blame literally everything and everyone EXCEPT Nader, who again, as I said was in a unique position that is not shared by such diffuse entities as "The American People", or "The media". That you still think gore was a different side of the same coin as W. is absurd given that all we require now is hindsight rather than precognition.

As a victim of the status quo, I would happily have endured Gore's mediocre and usual DemacRepublicrat politics instead of Bush's insanity. Nader didn't stick to a principle, he stuck to a delusion that two candidates were essentially the same because they were not sufficiently "not status quo" for his taste. As for Nader's rarity, I think he's less of a unique gem than you believe, but I don't care to debate the point... I can only HOPE that there are few others like him.

As for the novel, super-rich people do involve themselves in cabals... they're called banks and corporations and politics. Nader's childish imbecilic wish that such people would go against the grain of recorded human history and act in a profoundly enlightened manner... and en masse no less... is just another example of his lack of appreciation of realpolitik. He's what a man whom I generally disagree with, but in this case do not, would call a "limousine liberal".

Anyway, I can't say that given your... let's be generous and call it a "minority view"... in topics now ranging from non-locality to politics, that your 'reasoning' surprises me. As usual, you simply substitute repetition in place of sound concepts and thinking. In the same way that having read your position in the EPR thread I decided that engaging you in debate would be painful and pointless, I am coming to realize this is a universal truth in any thread with you. Really, that you warp what I said about Nader having the capacity to "flip a switch", and place that on the majority candidates is either sophistry, or deliberate rhetorical crap. Either way... *wave*.

I personally think Obama isn't significantly different from Bush.
The whole, "throw your vote away" argument always reminds me of the Simpons episode where Kang and Kodos ask the people what they are going to do "Throw their vote away?"


By the rationale of not "wasting your vote" you should always vote for who you perceive to be the most likely person to win, because a vote for a losing candidate is a wasted vote. Which kind of makes the whole voting thing pointless in the first place.

 

[Galteeth]

ross perot was a spoiler for clinton, too.

if anything gets me about nader, it's his being a child of privilege, only to go on to a career of pretending to be the champion of the common man.

So if you are born to rich parents, you are obligated to be a jerk because...

why?

 

[BenVitale]

To the attention of the moderators:
-------------------------------------

Could you please split this thread as some are talking about other issues than the messages in Ralph Nader's book "Only the Rich Can Save Us"

 

[CRGreathouse]

I personally think Obama isn't significantly different from Bush.
The whole, "throw your vote away" argument always reminds me of the Simpons episode where Kang and Kodos ask the people what they are going to do "Throw their vote away?"


By the rationale of not "wasting your vote" you should always vote for who you perceive to be the most likely person to win, because a vote for a losing candidate is a wasted vote. Which kind of makes the whole voting thing pointless in the first place.

I agree with your Simpsons analogy. But technically speaking, your explanation of vote wasting in the second paragraph is wrong: the strategic vote in a First-Past-the-Post system is to vote for the preferred of the two top vote-getters, not just the top one. (I could prove this mathematically in a reasonable model, but I think you'll take my word...?)

 

[Proton Soup]

So if you are born to rich parents, you are obligated to be a jerk because...

why?

i'm not sure what you mean by "obligated to be a jerk".

but take someone like good ol' J.C. (that's right, Jimmy Carter). now that guy is a class A jerk. but a little more in touch with common people, i'd think.

 

[Proton Soup]

Thanks Thomas,

I'd like us to focus on the messages and the intentions of Ralph Nader's book "Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us."

Does he think he's still an electable candidate?

In his book -- I've only read the book reviews -- he talks about the "Meliorists".
So I searched on the web for a clear definition:

Meliorism

Meliorism (politics)

But, I'm still not sure what Nader is referring to.

Here's a review of the book in the Wall Street Journal

And, Bitterly Books is undertaking a chapter-by-chapter review of Ralph Nader's work

i don't believe he ever thought he was a viable candidate. i think his candidacy had other goals, such as simply getting the democrats to acknowledge them, and to use debate as a means to get the dems to accept some of their ideas into the democratic platform.

reading about meliorism there, i think what he really means is "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism#United_States"", but doesn't want to say that word. and speaking of meliorism, this is why Nader will never be more than a fringe element. he may be able to talk in code like this to some rank and file groupies, but the general public will have no idea what he's going on about. in fact, to use a more popular term like progressive would just identify him as a garden variety dope-smoking hippy that says "down with corporations, down with consumerism". which is also american for "some kind of communist". one would hope that somewhere among the super-rich, there is an individual with extraordinary communication skills that can save Nader from himself.

 

[nismaratwork]

i don't believe he ever thought he was a viable candidate. i think his candidacy had other goals, such as simply getting the democrats to acknowledge them, and to use debate as a means to get the dems to accept some of their ideas into the democratic platform.

reading about meliorism there, i think what he really means is "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism#United_States"", but doesn't want to say that word. and speaking of meliorism, this is why Nader will never be more than a fringe element. he may be able to talk in code like this to some rank and file groupies, but the general public will have no idea what he's going on about. in fact, to use a more popular term like progressive would just identify him as a garden variety dope-smoking hippy that says "down with corporations, down with consumerism". which is also american for "some kind of communist". one would hope that somewhere among the super-rich, there is an individual with extraordinary communication skills that can save Nader from himself.

Well, he got the attention he was looking for, and then promptly burned any good-will he'd built over decades in the space of 8 years. This book is the gravestone on his legacy, and it's not pretty.

 

[Proton Soup]

Well, he got the attention he was looking for, and then promptly burned any good-will he'd built over decades in the space of 8 years. This book is the gravestone on his legacy, and it's not pretty.

yeah, it's pretty clear you don't like the guy.

 

[nismaratwork]

yeah, it's pretty clear you don't like the guy.

Damn! I thought I was being all kinds of subtle here too.

 

[ThomasT]

Throughout his long career, Nader fought a campaign against corporate greed. He fought for stronger regulation, for the public interest; he has fought against the rich, in favor of the public.

Ben, being rich in a country where it's possible to be rich without necessarily being greedy, like the US, isn't in any way contrary to the public interest. I don't think that Nader has ever been against the rich, per se. Against corporate greed, of course. Against official or corporate avarice at the expense of the public good, of course. But, hey, we live in a capitalist society. Some of us are going to get rich. I really don't think that Nader ever had any problem with individual wealth, per se. Do you have a problem with it?

My first reaction was of disappointment. I asked myself, "how does he reconcile with the two?" ... How does he go from there to here with this new book?

I still don't understand what the problem is. Nader's 'mission' has always been to do what he thought was best for the country, right? Well, who cares if it takes 200 million common people, or 20 super rich people to effect certain important changes?

So please elaborate wrt exactly what it is that disappoints you, as I'm still not clear about it.

 

[ThomasT]

in fact, to use a more popular term like progressive would just identify him as a garden variety dope-smoking hippy that says "down with corporations, down with consumerism". which is also american for "some kind of communist".

That's an interesting hypothesis, Soup. The word 'progressive' connotes drugs, hippies and communism? Are you sure about that?

 

[nismaratwork]

That's an interesting hypothesis, Soup. The word 'progressive' connotes drugs, hippies and communism? Are you sure about that?

It shouldn't, anymore than "liberal" should connote wild spending, or "conservative" should mean anything other than stodgy and unwilling to change. Alas, these words have been charged (mostly by republicans) to be pejorative labels in the face of their actual definitions.

 

[Proton Soup]

That's an interesting hypothesis, Soup. The word 'progressive' connotes drugs, hippies and communism? Are you sure about that?

i first learned it from a college english teacher who also just happened to be a vegan pothead.

 

[ThomasT]

i first learned it from a college english teacher who also just happened to be a vegan pothead.

Of course. Well, in light of this associational ... distortion, then your assertion ...

in fact, to use a more popular term like progressive would just identify him as a garden variety dope-smoking hippy that says "down with corporations, down with consumerism". which is also american for "some kind of communist".

... is somewhat understandable.

 

[Al68]

It shouldn't, anymore than "liberal" should connote wild spending, or "conservative" should mean anything other than stodgy and unwilling to change. Alas, these words have been charged (mostly by republicans) to be pejorative labels in the face of their actual definitions.

As I've pointed out before, the word "liberal" as it applies to economic issues, according to the historical definition, means someone who favors an unregulated free market or "laissez-faire" capitalism. But it is virtually never used to mean that in the U.S. today by media outlets or politicians. Someone who is actually a liberal according to the dictionary (like me) is usually referred to as "right wing extremist", "radical right", "extreme neo-con", "for the rich", etc.

And for social issues, "liberal" is commonly used consistently with the dictionary for some issues (abortion, drugs, etc.) and for just the opposite for others (gun control, etc).

But what's worse, using the word "liberal" as a (sarcastic?) pejorative to describe an anti-liberal (Democrat) according to the dictionary, or someone adamantly opposed to economic liberalism using it to describe themselves on economic issues?

They're both wrong according to the dictionary, unless they are being sarcastic.

 

[nismaratwork]

As I've pointed out before, the word "liberal" as it applies to economic issues, according to the historical definition, means someone who favors an unregulated free market or "laissez-faire" capitalism. But it is virtually never used to mean that in the U.S. today by media outlets or politicians. Someone who is actually a liberal according to the dictionary (like me) is usually referred to as "right wing extremist", "radical right", "extreme neo-con", "for the rich", etc.

And for social issues, "liberal" is commonly used consistently with the dictionary for some issues (abortion, drugs, etc.) and for just the opposite for others (gun control, etc).

But what's worse, using the word "liberal" as a (sarcastic?) pejorative to describe an anti-liberal (Democrat) according to the dictionary, or someone adamantly opposed to economic liberalism using it to describe themselves on economic issues?

They're both wrong according to the dictionary, unless they are being sarcastic.

It's just an example of how spin has devolved our language, and that in turn has devolved the capacity of people to discern the motives of groups and individuals. I see it as a sad state of affairs, but a clever (if immoral) use of manipulation.