>Published December 20 - 26, 2000 >Village Voice > >'The New York Times,' Todd Gitlin, Katha Pollitt, Gloria Steinem, Jack >Newfield, Frightened Liberals All >Ralph Nader Lashes Back >by Lenora Todaro > >Scoundrel. Spoiler. Narcissist. This fall the left warred over >whether a vote for Nader was a vote for progress, a vote in protest, >or worse, a vote for Bush. As Gore lost Florida, Nader's critics >charged that his 97,000 or so votes in that state had cost the >Democrats the election. Never mind Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush and >his cousin at Fox news, uncounted African American votes, the >Florida courts, and finally, the U.S. Supreme Court. And never >mind Gore himself. No, it all comes back to Ralph Nader. The Voice >asked him to respond. > >A few days before the election a group of Nader's Raiders came out >against you and encouraged voters to pull the lever for Gore. Were >you betrayed by your own disciples? >These were people who worked >with me more than 25 years ago so they weren't exactly recent. Once >they emerged, they were supported by the Democratic PR operation >to get them on national media. They were 12 out of thousands of >former Nader Raiders. I think they have lower expectations and are >therefore willing to settle for a stagnant, indentured corporate >Democratic Party that can't even save our legislature from control >by the extreme wing of the Republican Party, by Tom DeLay, Newt >Gingrich, and Trent Lott. From what I know, none of them are >enthralled by the Democratic Party. > >In the days just before and after the election it seemed that >everyone in the press had something negative to say about you. Todd >Gitlin and Sean Wilentz circulated an open letter that excoriated >you for running a "wrecking ball campaign, one that betrays the very >liberal and progressive values it claims to uphold." Can you respond >to that? >We embodied the progressive agenda, so what they're talking >about is tactics. And the question is whether the Democratic Party >should be legitimized further in its downward slide into looking >like Republicans or should there be an outside campaign to jolt it >back to its historical roots as a party of working families. I >advise Todd Gitlin to read some of his earlier books and refresh >his perspective on the concentration of power in this country. > >Jack Newfield wrote in the New York Post that you should be "shunned >and shamed." >I would have appreciated if he had picked up the phone >and asked for my views. I moderately took him to task [in New York's >'98 senate campaign] for abandoning Mark Green and supporting Chuck >Schumer, and he never responded. He always renews himself, and now >he's a neoliberal. > >Jacob Weisberg wrote in Slate that you had a "Leninist strategy of >heightening the contradictions" and that you adopted a >it-has-to-get-worse-to-get-better policy. Anything to that? >We were adopting a policy that says American people deserve significant >choices between two major parties and third parties. As far as >Leninist strategy, Tony Coehlo and the corporate Democratic National >Committee,which spawned Clinton, Gore, and Lieberman,have for 20 >years destroyed the progressive agenda and excluded citizen's groups >from being able to affect policy in Washington, D.C., as they lunge >into protective imitation mode with Republicans. That means the >Democrats' strategy was to defeat the Republicans by taking Republican >issues away from them and becoming more like them. > >Whenever you called Bush and Gore Tweedledum and Tweedledee, someone >would say, "What about the Supreme Court?" Now that the Supreme >Court appears to have decided the election for us, what about the >Supreme Court? Will it matter that Bush will nominate future justices >rather than Gore? >It matters that the Democratic Party sent Scalia >and Thomas to the Court while I was up there fighting their >nominations day after day. I even managed to persuade Joseph >Lieberman to vote against Thomas, something he pointed out to me >a year later. I couldn't get one Democratic senator to vote against >Scalia. He was confirmed 98-0, and the two absentees were Republican. >Every Democrat voted him in, including Al Gore. Thomas was confirmed >52-48, with 11 Democratic senators supporting him, and with a Senate >ruled by George Mitchell and the Democrats. > >In an interview you did with In These Times, you spoke about the >Green Party strategy to "go after Congress district by district." >Some critics fear this means going after progressive Democrats. Do >the Greens want to unseat Paul Wellstone, Tom Hayden, and the like? >The aim of any party is to win, but it's not likely that any Green >could win against Wellstone or even Russ Feingold, for example. >Greens are more likely to win at the local level. It's sort of >foolish to indicate that Democrats are entitled to particular >voters, but Wellstone is not likely to have trouble in terms of >the Green platform. >By the way, not one of these critics called me to interview me or >to get my views. And they're reporters? They don't want to have >their fixed mindset challenged. Maybe Jacob [Weisberg] interviewed >me, but he never said, "Look, I think this and this. What's your >answer?" >And Katha Pollitt, I called her. In my view, she was making incorrect >assumptions. I mean, I've fought for women's rights since the '50s. >I've been a leader in documenting marketplace discrimination against >women that jeopardizes their health, safety, and economic rights. >Women pay more, whether for dry cleaning or unnecessary operations. >This is something we could never get Ms. magazine and Gloria Steinem >to take an interest in. She never called me either, and she said >false things about me,that I only called her about platform shoes >(which, by the way, broke a lot of women's ankles). But we've talked >about the WTO, about the plight of African women when they come >down with malaria. Bobby Kennedy Jr. never called me. When they >don't call, you realize there's something less than authentic at >stake. > >What about Harry Evans? He said he wanted to kill you. Have you >heard from him? >I called him. He said it was 2:30 in the morning >and people were boisterously drinking and [Bill] Clinton was listing >states that he thought the Greens would cost Gore. When someone >said Florida was in play, Evans made the remark. He unreservedly >apologized to me. > >Supposedly the word went out that you shouldn't show your face on >the Hill, that Democrats might not receive your phone calls. Do >you have any sense that you'll be ostracized? >Gore beat Gore. His own Democrats in three Florida counties wouldn't >support him, one >took a holiday so the counting didn't get finished; another said >they just wouldn't count. The Democrats must also be angry at Bush, >who got 10 times more Democratic votes then I did in Florida. And >at Gore, who couldn't carry his home state and wouldn't send Clinton >to campaign in Arkansas. By the same logic, they will gleefully >return Pat Buchanan's calls. Why wouldn't they call us if they need >support on a certain issue? >Teddy Kennedy told a friend that he thought the progressive Democratic >hand will be strengthened because of the Greens. In Washington, >Maria Cantwell won by 2229 votes and there was no Green Party >candidate running. >If they're going to blame me for [Gore losing], they have to credit >me for helping them get a 50-50 Senate rather than losing it again. >Credit me for helping reform election machinery that probably in >the past kept out more Democratic votes than Republican. > >Not only were you kept out of the debates, you were more or less >kept out of The New York Times. Has the paper of record thwarted >your effort to build a third party? >The Times believes there should >just be two parties, and a party like the Green Party, in that >memorable phrase, "clutters" the playing field. A remarkable position >for a newspaper that believes in the First Amendment and has >excoriated politicians for corrupt campaign funding that the Green >Party wanted to eliminate. That will go down as the most indefensible >intellectual exercise that ever appeared on New York Times editorial >columns, which were basically rantings. The Washington Post invited >me to speak at their editorial office, and The Wall Street Journal >invited two op-eds. The Times never did either. >Tom Friedman is a source of humor. He's so off the edge that he >bellows in his column, he rages, it really makes our day. Here's >a man who fancies himself an expert on global trade and has never >read global trade agreements. I would give him the nomination as >the columnist who has traveled more extensively and regularly around >the world and has learned the least. > >Anything you would have done differently in your campaign? >I would have started earlier and called up these so-called critics had I >had the clairvoyance to realize they were getting cold feet. The >only true aging is the erosion of one's ideals. They're people of >increasingly low expectations. That's the definition of a frightened >liberal. -end-
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 01/01/01 EST