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

[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. :rofl:

 

[nismaratwork]

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

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.