Winona LaDuke, an American Indian author, activist, and mother of two.
Gadarene: I suppose if I had said, “Noted liberal Robert Novak, writing in the liberal Chicago Sun-Times thinks Joe Lieberman is a liberal,” your snider aside might have had a legitimate target. But I didn’t. even sven said Lieberman is “pretty right-wing,” and I pointed out someone who disagrees.
Sheesh.
The fact that conservatives, liberals and centrists all can find something in Lieberman to either like or dislike pretty much indicates that he’s none of them, doesn’t it?
I would appreciate some Nader supporters addressing their man’s stand on free trade. Nader is against it, or says he wants it with so many nips and tucks that it amounts to the same thing. The politician closest to his protectionist stance is Pat Buchanan, and I don’t see many voters wavering between those two.
So tell me. Are any of you embarrassed by Nader being in bed with Buchanan on this issue? Or do you think his protectionist stance is the ‘right’ position for a 21st century America, and the link with Buchanan is just too bad?
I’m a liberal, and lifelong Democrat, occasionally coming close to bouts of libertarianism, and there is NOBODY that I feel is even coming close to speaking for me in the presidential race.
One one side you’ve got Bush, who turns my stomach with some of his positions and, frankly, I distrust his lack of experience.
On the other hand, there’s Al Gore who is selling himself as a moderate-conservative Democrat; now regardless of whether this is true (and I would be even more depressed if I thought that it was), I can’t begin to imagine voting for the person that Al Gore is presenting himself as.
Their VP-candidates seem to share a common disdain for Bill Clinton, which is to be expected. Gotta sway the people out there who only read the headlines of the newspapers, after all.
Nader’s position on international trade isn’t really compatible with mine, and his position on taxation sounds a bit too extreme for me. Compare and contrast Nader’s position on “preventative diplomacy & defense” with his position on “bringing the boys back home.” It seems a little contradictory, which leads me to think that he may be out of his depth in foriegn affairs. I am also of the mind that Nader’s vice-presidential choice was made for two reasons. One, to say to the other parties “see, I’m not afraid to put a woman on the ticket.” for a good sound bite during the debates or just on Meet the Press. And two, for the same reason Geraldine Ferraro was the Dem’s nominee with Mondale; to provide an easy explanation for the crushing defeat the unrepresented and unpopular candidate is sure to suffer.
I for one don’t wish that Ventura would run; he might actually get elected. I wish we could have had a race between McCain and Bradley.
Nader chose LaDuke because he likes her as a person and an activist. She was his running mate in 1996, too. I haven’t even heard her mentioned on anything other than his website, so it’s not like he touts her as being a Native American woman that proves his inclusiveness.
I’ve addressed this on another thread: Buchanan’s free trade stance is protectionist; Nader’s isn’t. Nader opposes globalization for the same reason as most progressives…it hurts workers at home and abroad. It’s not that liberals are against free trade per se; it’s the manic, unrestrained variety which places the profit motive above human rights that bugs us. Read William Greider’s One World: Ready or Not.
The reason all those people have been protesting the IMF and the WTO isn’t that they’re fiercely protectionist; it’s that the particular brand of globalization fostered by these institutions, and encouraged by the wealthier nations, is arguably just a form of economic colonization. Few environmental safeguards, few consumer protections, few assurances of workers’ rights. The interests of the corporation over the interests of the individual.
Does that clarify anything for you? Check out this article for a little more information.
The fact that the “someone who disagrees” is staunchly right-wing himself is fairly relevant, I feel. I don’t believe Lieberman is right-wing, myself, but he’s certainly one of the more conservative Democrats–his positions on free trade, SDI, social programs, defense spending, and vouchers bear this out.
So for Novak to title his column “Moderate talk, but a distinctly liberal walk” (using Lieberman’s flip-flop on Social Security as essentially his only example)…well, I just think it’s important to consider the source. The off-hand way you used Novak as a cite, Phil, might have given some people to think that the man was an objective observer. He’s not. That’s all.
Spoke: thanks for helping out with that reply.
But, I don’t want to know why the Nader supporters think the Demos are too centrist. What I want to know is why hurt Gore, when the alternative is far worse? No one on the nader team actually thinks he is going to win, do you? He will not get even 1 electoral vote, which could be used for wheeling-dealing. The BEST Nader can hope for is to kill Gore off, so that Bush gets in, so 8 years from now, they can force the Demos to be more liberal. How is that making a positive contribution?
I’ll speak for myself, but I suspect many would agree.
-
If Nader gets enough votes in this election, that makes it easier to contest the next one. With some percentages, the Green party will get a spot on the ballot without having to collect signatures (this varies from state to state). With 5% nationwide, the party will get public funding for the next election. (Admittedly, this also raises the prospect of generating the kind of interest in the nomination that is producing such “wonderful” results at the Reform Party convention this year, but we’ll ignore that for now.) With more infrastructure in place, the next campaign might be able to build and progress further, and so on.
-
Nader isn’t just taking votes from Gore, he is bringing out people who would be too disgusted with the choice between Gore and Bush to vote if he weren’t on the ballot. In many districts, those voters will also then cast votes for other races, particularly Congress. The Greens are not running very many candidates for the House, so this may improve the chances of Democrats picking up some seats there. When Gore and Bush are both pretty centrist, and the Senate is virtually certain to remain in Republican hands, the differences in what actually happens for the next two years may rest as much on the House as the Presidential election - it is far from clear that Gore / Repub. Senate / Repub. House is really worse than Bush / Repub. Senate / Demo. House.
-
If Nader votes do swing the election, the dominance of the Democratic Leadership Council (or, as I like to think of them, the “kinder, gentler, Republicans”) in the Democratic party might wane at least a little bit. Forcing the Democrats to be more liberal 4 years from now (I won’t accept that a victory this year for Bush guarantees another victory in 2004) IS a positive contribution.
When it comes down to it, though, I think a big part of the reason that people would lean to Nader is precisely about the “Demos are too centrist” claim. Most Nader supporters would really not accept your basic claim that “the alternative is far worse.” In some ways, I would say that the current US political climate has been drifting to the right, and that the centrist Democrats worry ONLY about trying to win an election within that context, and not at all about trying to arrest or reverse that drift. I am more prone to want to see a left-wing version of the Barry Goldwater candidacy – a committed, strong statement about what the country should be doing that can lay the groundwork for victorious progressive candidates in the future.
You don’t think anyone voted for Al “Grampa Munster” Lewis thinking he would win the race for Governer of NY, did you? No one here seriously would want him as Governer (including him), but they got enough votes to put the Green party on the ticket for the next election.
Is Grampa running for the Senate this year as well? By the way, what percentage did he get in the gubernatioral election?
What dorkbro said.
Gadarene: Thanks for your response. I followed your link but the writer seems more concerned with what he calls ‘economic migrants’, and their treatment in Great Britain than Namer’s position on free trade and what I believe would result if his views were adopted in this country.
I took the following quotes from the ‘Free Trade’ section of this site,
which purports to be the ‘Platform of the Greens/Green Party USA’.
"Withdraw from the World Trade Organization, NAFTA,
and all other corporate-managed trade agreements that are
driving down labor and environmental conditions globally."
This is economic isolationism masquerading as idealism. How would our exit from these organizations improve the lot of workers in South Africa, say?
"Establish an internationalist social tariff system
that equalizes trade by accounting for the differences
among countries in wages, social benefits, environmental
conditions, and political rights."
So USA workers should get less so those in Sri Lanka can
receive more. I think this one will be particularly hard for Nader to sell on the stump.
"Tariff revenues to a democratic, international fund
for ecological production and democratic development in
poor countries in order to level up social and
environmental conditions to a high common standard."
So first we withdraw from WTO and IMF, then we set up similar agencies, but this time financed by a surcharge on every country which is not poor, and carry on with business as usual, only with Nader’s men in charge.
To be blunt, I feel the hands-wringing liberalism Nader is espousing is not only empty-headed but would if implemented be highly detrimental to workers in USA and developing countries alike.
What workers in developing countries need most is jobs–something like one-third of workers there are unemployed. I think ending or curtailing trade will make their lives harsher. I think efforts to shield workers from the harshest aspects of global capitalism have had results. In short I believe paying a 15 year old $5 for a ten hour day, while regrettable, is vastly preferable to paying her nothing. After all, she’s looking to feed and clothe herself and others, not saving to buy the new Eminem CD.
Free trade has greatly benefitted USA too. Nader made his name taking on GM, but what really forced American car makers to change was competition from Japan. That’s one irony I would especially like Nader to address in this campaign.
I’m not necessarily against 3rd parties and I welcome Nader’s efforts to make the Greens more competitive. But his and their (and Buchanan’s, for that matter) views on trade are, to me, dangerously short-sighted.
Nader, although he was nominated by the Green Party, is not a member of any political party and he has not yet endorsed this year’s Green platform.
Yes, I can see the point of "it will teach the Demos a lesson, and maybe they will field a cand. I like better next time’. BUT, speaking just on the environmental issues, how much irreparable damage do you think the GOP can do in “just 4 years”? I would say “too damn much”.
But about the Demos or Gop trying to field cand. who cater to the left or right wings: everytime this has been done- they have lost the election. I would rather have a cand who agrees with my (environmental) issues (only) some 70%, and can get elected, than a cand who I agree with 90% who cannot, and thus a cand who agrees only 5% is let in. Note, agian, this is only about the environmental issues, here.
DITWD,
Thanks for pushing to try and understand this.
I think that most of those who support Nader would say that the most important environmental issues are global. In particular, the rise of an international regime that says we are absolutely committed to eliminating barriers to trade - but environmental concerns (among others) can go hang is the greatest threat the environment faces. On this issue, Gore and Bush are the same (or so nearly the same as to make no difference). Furthermore, this kind of trade policy will create ongoing political pressures to make environmental policy weaker – if we imagine that a nearby country has very weak pollution controls, and the difference in pollution controls itself makes it more profitable to move industry there, there is now a big group of people (recently or potentially displaced workers) who will be joining the campaign to relax our laws.
Yes, better protection of US National Parks and Forests is nice, yes, good work on the Clean Air act is needed, etc. But much of that just doesn’t matter anymore if the world economic system undercuts it at every turn, as the current GATT/NAFTA/WTO arrangement seems likely to do (at least to those of us who support Nader).
So, I guess we really kind of think that Gore is going to do just as much real damage to the environment as Bush will, by continuing to support the globalization of trade policy, with no evidence of a commitment to globalize environmental policy. We might even prefer Gore on a large proportion of the decisions, but the ones we disagree about are hugely important.
Finally, I think it is important to point out that the Green Party is not just an environmentalist public (or “special”) interest group. Those who support the party have a range of concerns about justice, democratic government, human rights, etc. that goes far beyond just traditional environmentalist causes. Most of the major environmental groups (at least of those that will endorse candidates) have endorsed Gore this year - one of them was still considering a Nader endorsement last I heard, but I forget which one.
I support the Green Party whole-heartedly, but I don’t really have much of an opinion on the environment other than “Uh…don’t pollute toooo much. Thank you.” I like the Green Party because of worker’s rights, its opposition to NAFTA/GATT and the drug war, and their positions on fair election laws, human rights, and so on and so forth. Dorkbro was right in that it’s not only an environmental special interest group.
I gotta split in a couple of minutes so I’ll just say that my views are posted on another thread, and that it would be nice if one of my fellow Greean-sympathizers out there would explain the MAI to the pro-Gore folks. It’s truly scary.