I' m passing two items regarding Ralph Nader along to the list. The
first of these, interestingly enough (for this list, especially), is a
Nation editorial on "Nader-for-President" in 1975! The second is a
recent article from Corporate Watch on the close links between
Gore-Lieberman and the globalizing corporate sector that is increasingly
pervasive. The latter tends to focus on the specific aspects of
corporatism that Gore and Lieberman personally have embraced with
enthusiasm (and precisely the kind of stuff Nader has spent his entire
life opposing).
On a personal note, I'm trying to counteract the creeping
'lesser-of-two-evilism' that the media have been hyping ever since
before the Democratic convention --i.e., ever since Nader showed up on
their radar charts ("Nader the 'Spoiler'") --with considerable effect,
note the polls!. Some "progressives" and "liberals" (including some on
this list) are scared by the prospect of a Bush presidency. As someone
who follows this stuff (including the S.Court) pretty closely, I feel
the fears of what "Bush can do" are enormously exaggerated, especially
relative to what Gore will do on the exact same issues of concern (and
of course, for the record, Nader is vastly better on precisely these
same issues). Meanwhile, in contrast
to the media glitz, this world is deterioriating in many ways, and, in
my view the key cause is the globalization of capitalism (or corporate
power, or whatever you want to call it). Clinton/Gore and the
Democratic Party have been wildly enthusiastic supporters of this path.
So, whether or not Nader wins is irrelevant because he offers the best
electoral chance we've had in, oh, some 28 years (cf. the Nation) to
begin to get across to the system and the larger public that it (the
system) is broken, it cannot continue forever the way its going
(ecologically, to say nothing of the devastating effects of massive
inequality & squalid poverty), so we as a society (and as a globe) have
got to re-think & start moving toward real democracy. Real change is
only going to happen through a combination of forces --grass-roots
activism, leading to & connected with mass mobilization, coupled with
electoral activity that doesn't trap people in 'business-as-usual.'
It's not going to happen "in the streets" alone.
My fear, if that's the right word, is that I'll live the rest of my life
in a country that never wakes up. Alas, too, it happens to be the
country that is crucially responsible, in taking the lead, for so much
of this global devastation & deterioration.
I urge you to read this.
Ted
============================================
August 30, 1975
"Ralph Nader for President"--don't dismiss the idea as just "a
wistful dream," The Nation urges, in this August 30, 1975
unsigned editorial.
The Raider
Try saying it to yourself--"Ralph Nader for President." It's a
phrase
that sparks on the tongue; it peps you up, like a sudden shower on
a
muggy afternoon. So before dismissing it as a wistful dream,
consider...
An organization in California, The Draft Nader for President Club
of
Los Angeles, is beating this drum and has come up with some
interesting facts. Last November, when the tide of 1976 was just
beginning to be felt, the Gallup poll ran a name-awareness, or
popularity, survey of thirty-one Democrats who had been mentioned
as Presidential possibilities. Nader placed fifth--ahead of Eugene
McCarthy, Morris Udall and Henry Jackson. An earlier Drummond
poll, asking "What kind of President do you want in 1976?" placed
Nader among the top ten, ahead of Kennedy, Wallace and Muskie.
Not being a politician, Ralph Nader did not see this sort of
response
as a reason to jump upon a horse and start whooping it up across
the
country. Indeed, his greatest handicap as a candidate is that he
has
never shown the faintest sign of wanting to be President. But once
an
idea like this gets rolling, and the Los Angeles group is pushing
hard,
it can gain momentum very rapidly. And Nader is not a man to turn
his back on a job that needs to be done, if he is qualified to do
it.
And what qualifications does he have? He is a man of enormous
energy, with an uncanny gift for getting people to dedicate
themselves
to the goal he envisions, a firm belief in the basic institutions
of
democracy and a determination to make them work. He is beholden
to no one and, the record shows, afraid of no one. What his foreign
policy would be we do not know, but it is not unlikely that he is
without one. It is also true that he has never run for office and
some
experience in politics is thought to be a prerequisite for the
job--with
the less than satisfactory result that we invariably get hardened
politicians in the White House.
It is hard to estimate what a campaign would cost Nader in energy
and money, but the public could hardly fail to be the gainer. If he
won, it might be a new beginning for the country, but win or lose,
he
could not fail to raise the level of the upcoming race. Norman
Thomas was a perennial Presidential candidate who never came
close to winning. But it is hard to say that he lost, since
virtually
everything he ever proposed in his campaigns has by now become
part of the law of the land. Try it again: "Nader for President."
=============================
[TM] This came off of the web-page [www.commondreams.org] --which is an
excellent source of news relevant to progressives of various stripes,
mostly articles gleaned on a daily basis from mainstream newspapers, but
including other sources like this one and some British papers as well
(some of the best stuff from the Guardian). You can make it your 'home'
page so you see "today's news-of-interest" in headline form each time
you go to the web (and can read or not read as you like). I highly
recommend it. For those less radical than myself, it doesn't have the
'tone-of-assumptions' you sometimes get in more radical sources like Z
Magazine, for example.]
2) Published on Friday, September 8, 2000 in Corporate Watch
Al Gore: Friend of Corporate America
Al Gore has raised more money than any other Democratic
presidential candidate in history. But his pandering to rich and
powerful comes at a cost to the public.
by Bill Messler
Washington DC -- Molten Metal Technology was a company bound to
fail. For thirty years a
succession of others had tried what the company hoped to do:
reprocess nuclear waste into
non-radioactive metals that could be remarketed. None succeeded.
Molten Metal never did manage to reprocess nuclear waste. But it
sure made a lot of money
trying. During the Clinton administration, the company received
$27 million in research
grants from the Department of Energy--more than all 17 other
companies that applied for the
same grants received combined. Despite a 1995 DOE report that
reprocessing would not
work, the contracts continued all the way up until the company
went finally went bust in
1997.
It might not have made sense from a scientific or business
standpoint. But it made a lot of
sense to the money-men that run the Democratic party. The company
was one of the first
donors to the Clinton/Gore campaign in 1996, for which they
received a thank you note from
the presidential ticket's campaign manager Peter Knight. The note
underscored that the
company had earned "a special place of significance with the Vice
President." The Molten
Metal was also paying Knight an $84,000-a-year retainer at the
time.
Less than two weeks before the donation, Gore had visited a Molten
Metal factory in Falls
River, Massachusetts, where he told reporters: "Molten Metal is a
success story, a shining
example of American ingenuity, hard work and business know-how."
When he accepted the Democratic nomination last month, Al Gore
told the nation that he
wants to be president to take on "big tobacco, big oil, the big
polluters, the pharmaceutical
companies, the H.M.O.s." As the Democratic Candidate turns to
populist rhetoric to win the
election, it is worth noting that corporate America isn't exactly
shaking in its boots at the
prospect of a Gore presidency. In fact, he has long been known in
the White House as
"Solicitor in Chief" for his fundraising prowess.
The story of Molten Metal, and the numerous other corporate
Democratic donors who have
received preferential treatment from the administration, shows
that corporate welfare is alive
and well in Washington. And the money pouring into Al Gore's
campaign war chest ($52
million so-far and growing fast) shows that corporate America
knows it has a friend in Al
Gore. He has already raised more money than any other Democratic
presidential candidate
in history. Perhaps even more telling, the Democratic party itself
has almost achieved parity
with Republicans in soft money.
"When you look at Clinton and Gore in particular, you have to see
them in terms of their
success in raising huge amounts of money for their campaigns,"
says Peter Eisner,
managing director of the Center for Public Integrity. "The Clinton
administration and Gore
are part of a system that infects both parties that allows
corporate influence to gain access
to the halls of power and distort our political process."
The money has been pouring in from all kinds of corporate special
interests. There is money
from high-tech firms which don't want to be taxed. There is money
from banks and
securities brokers appreciative of the administration's
deregulation of the finance industry.
Even the Democratic convention was financed by a host of
corporate-welfare-fattened
telecom giants like AT&T (which gave $1 million to both the
Democratic and GOP
conventions), union-buster Sprint and BellSouth.
As one health care industry lobbyist, gushing over the selection
of Joe Lieberman as
running mate, told the New York Times, the Gore/Lieberman ticket
was only feigning
populism "as a political ploy." When he's not campaigning, Gore's
heart is with the money
in corporate America.
Telecom Giants
Of the numerous corporate interests behind Al Gore, none have
ponied up as much dough
as the communications and high tech sector. The industry gave $10
million to Gore and the
Democrats (ten percent of the total to date) have raised some
eyebrows as to what exactly
it is buying. So has the $98 million the industry spent on
lobbying last year. Some of it is a
reward for services rendered: telephone companies have had
relatively free reign to merge
and have seen little regulation. "The industry got what it wanted
[under Clinton Gore]," David
Beckwith, spokesman for the National Cable Television Association,
recently told the
Associated Press.
Take Gore's ugly treatment of 235 phone workers fired by Sprint
for attempting to unionize
in 1998. The AFL-CIO called the case one of the decade's most
blatant violations of
workers' right to unionize. At a meeting with the mostly Latina
workers in Los Angeles,
Gore promised to take on Sprint. But Sprint, led by
arch-conservative Bill Esrey, had been a
big supporter of Clinton/Gore in 1996 and was gearing up to
support Gore in 2000. Esrey
had even told a group of business leaders during the 1996 campaign
that "There is a
growing realization that Democrat Bill Clinton has been good for
America."
Gore never lifted a finger against the company. And Sprint
continues to provide the White
House with much of its long-distance service. Gore even used his
influence to soften a
Labor Department report on the Sprint dispute, according to one of
the report's authors. The
National Labor Relations Board eventually ruled in favor of the
workers, but the company
has bogged the decision down in appeals.
Selling Off the Internet
Meanwhile the prize high tech companies are fighting for is the
future of the Internet itself.
And although Al Gore didn't invent the Internet, he could down in
history as the president
who gave it away.
Today the Internet is one of the most democratic forms of media
around. Everyone pays the
same to post their sites and websites receive relatively the same
service. Consumer
advocates say big conglomerates are seizing control of the Net.
"The industry wants to be able to decide who gets on the fast pipe
and the slow pipe with
impunity," says Consumer Project on Technology director Jamie
Love. "It raises profound
issues, changing the open-access character of the Internet."
The only answer is regulation, but Gore has come down decidedly
against Internet
regulation--and against taxing Internet transactions. The Gore
campaign website says one
of the priorities of president Gore will be pursuing "an
international agreement to make
'cyberspace' a permanent 'duty-free zone,' so that U.S. companies
can sell goods around
the world, via the Internet, without duties."
Gore has even come down on the wrong side when it comes to the
administration's biggest
anti-corporate crime success, the prosecution of Microsoft. Most
Americans see the
company as a target of the Clinton administration. But some close
to the case say the real
architect of anti-monopoly proceedings was Attorney General Janet
Reno, who proceeded
with the investigation despite objections from the White House.
The Administration, for its
part, publicly called for a negotiated settlement every step of
the way. So far Microsoft has
given the Gore campaign and the DNC $391,000 in the current
election cycle.
Cable and Multi-Media
Another industry buying a place at the Gore table is the cable
industry. Their generosity
helped pave the way for increased mega-mergers, which have met
little opposition from the
administration. "A lot of money has been spent to influence these
decisions," says Gary
Larson, a telecom consultant for the Center for Media Education.
"With the introduction of
cable broadband, you can say 'gee we are getting 60 channels.' But
in reality it is the
illusion of choice." He explains. " Fewer and fewer companies are
providing the content you
watch. You are getting a larger menu from the same restaurant."
Cable companies have grown brazenly monopolistic under the current
administration, as
evidenced by Time/Warner's recent blacking out ABC from entire
regions over a financial
dispute.
Multi-media provider Disney has also been a big supporter of Gore.
Responding to a request
from Tipper, the company provided the Vice President and his wife
with free Holloween
costumes worth $8,600, in violation of the Ethics in Government
Act. When the costumes
were reported in the Washington Post, Disney was repaid by the
Democratic National
Committee. Later Gore and Disney chairman Michael Eisner were
regularly seen chumming
it up in Washington while the company was seeking Interior
Department approval for a new
theme park. "Disney's America," was set to open next to the Bull
Run battlefield in
Manassas Virginia, but the plan was nixed by Disney as it became
clear the community
wouldn't stand for it.
But the oddest part of the Disney/Gore alliance was yet to come.
Disney-known for it's
"family" image-- enlisted the Vice President's help fighting the
1998 Child Online Protection
Act, designed to limit children's access to pornographic websites.
Gore, who called for
censoring rock lyrics in the 1980's, dispatched domestic policy
advisor David Bier, to kill the
legislation. After the beating Disney and Gore took in the press
when the story finally
emerged, the Vice President tried to help the company's p.r.
situation by inviting Disney
executives to the White House for "a summit on Internet
pornography."
Gore Picks a Friend of Big Business
The selection of Joe Lieberman as number two on the Democratic
ticket should reassure
corporate America. Especially the health care industry, a big
Lieberman backers over the
years. Lieberman did the industry a service by helping to defeat
universal health coverage.
The Senator drafted his own less-ambitious plan to counter the
White House, helping to
split the Democratic party and ensure that nothing be done.
Lieberman's selection should also solidify Gore's already strong
support among banks and
securities houses. Not only has the administration done nothing to
curb currency
speculation abuses, new legislation has made it easier for
industry mergers. Goldman
Sachs pushed for the new rules. They've been big contributors to
both Gore's presidential
campaign and Lieberman's senate campaign (he had already raised
$3.3 million despite
facing almost no opposition).
Arms manufacturers were another group that surely applauded Gore's
choice for his running
mate. While disarmament groups actually had high hopes for
Lieberman when he was first
elected to the Senate in 1989, he has since turned into one of the
Senate's most hawkish
democrats. He was one of only five (along with Al Gore) to vote in
favor of the Gulf War. He
has also consistently opposed arms cuts and cuts in the
intelligence budget (he has also
voted to keep the intelligence budget secret). He has voted in
favor of the unnecessary F-22
fighter; new Connecticut "Sea Wolf" attack submarines which are
almost totally useless in
modern warfare; and for the Star Wars ballistic missile defense
program.
"Lieberman's motivation is basically the need to protect defense
jobs in Connecticut," says
Council for a Livable World analyst Dan Koslofsky. "He understood
that when the cold war
was going on these jobs were safe. Once the cold war ended he
realized this pot of gold
might not be there, he became more hawkish."
According to one Congressional staffer, Lieberman is the reason a
large contingent of
Connecticut-made Blackhawk helicopters were included in the
administration's recent
Colombian military aid package. General Dynamics, the makers of
the Blackhawk, have
been big supporters of Lieberman over the years, giving him
$24,500 for his Senate
campaign this year.
"Colombia doesn't even have enough hangers to deal with these
helicopters," says
Koslofsky. "Most of them are going to just sit around." With his
brazen peddling of
corporate interests, Lieberman should make the perfect match for
Al Gore. You might say
they deserve each other.
Bill Mesler is a Washington-based reporter. His work has appeared
in the Nation, Mother
Jones and the Progressive, among other publications.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 10 2000 - 04:45:40 CUT