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

[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.

 

[Al68]

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.

Interestingly, the word "liberal" in Europe is still commonly used to mean someone who believes in unregulated free market capitalism. Some Europeans have remarked in this forum how strange they found it that Americans use the word to mean the opposite.

I normally avoid using the word at all, unless I use the phrase "classical liberal", which makes it clear I'm referring to Enlightenment style liberalism, ie socially and economically libertarian.

Of course I have yet to find an accurate word to describe the economic political philosophy of Democrats that isn't objected to.

 

[nismaratwork]

Interestingly, the word "liberal" in Europe is still commonly used to mean someone who believes in unregulated free market capitalism. Some Europeans have remarked in this forum how strange they found it that Americans use the word to mean the opposite.

I normally avoid using the word at all, unless I use the phrase "classical liberal", which makes it clear I'm referring to Enlightenment style liberalism, ie socially and economically libertarian.

Of course I have yet to find an accurate word to describe the economic political philosophy of Democrats that isn't objected to.

It's a study in how labels are created and disseminated. It really is a deliberate matter that warps these words in the last few decades, so it's not simple linguistic drift. I think your choice to avoid the use of potentially misleading language is a wise one, unless the context is obvious.