[IP] New Yorker's Hertzberg on Nader: "Reckless Driver"
Delivered-To: dfarber+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 15:32:41 -0800
From: Denise Caruso <denise@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: New Yorker's Hertzberg on Nader: "Reckless Driver"
X-Sender: caruso13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: farber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dear Dave,
A terrific take on the Nader "candidacy." Thought I'd pass it to you for
IP if you'd like.
Denise
http://newyorker.com/talk/content/?040308ta_talk_hertzberg
COMMENT
RECKLESS DRIVER
by Hendrik Hertzberg
Issue of 2004-03-08
Posted 2004-03-01
More than any other single person, Ralph Nader is responsible for the
existence of automobiles that have seat belts, padded dashboards, air bags,
non-impaling steering columns, and gas tanks that don't readily explode
when the car gets rear-ended. He is therefore responsible for the existence
of some millions of drivers and passengers who would otherwise be dead.
Because of Nader, baby foods are no longer spiked with MSG, kids' pajamas
no longer catch fire, tap water is safer to drink than it used to be,
diseased meat can no longer be sold with impunity, and dental patients
getting their teeth x-rayed wear lead aprons to protect their bodies
from dangerous zaps. It is Nader's doing, more than anyone else's, that
the federal bureaucracy includes an Environmental Protection Agency, an
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and a Consumer Product
Safety Commission, all of which have done valuable work in the past and,
with luck, may be allowed to do such work again someday. He is the man to
thank for the fact that the Freedom of Information Act is a powerful
instrument of democratic transparency and accountability He is the founder
of an amazing array of agile, sharp-elbowed research and lobbying
organizations that have prodded governments at all levels toward
constructive action in areas ranging from insurance rates to nuclear
safety. He had help, of course, from his young "raiders," from
congressional staffers and their bosses, from citizens, and even from the
odd President. But he was the prime mover
More than any other single person, Ralph Nader is responsible for the fact
that George W. Bush is President of the United States. Nader is more
responsible than Al Gore, who, in 2000, put himself in the clear by
persuading more of his fellow-citizens to vote for him than for anybody
else, which normally-in thirty-nine of the forty-two previous Presidential
elections, or ninety-three per cent-had been considered adequate to fulfill
the candidate's electoral duty. Nader is more responsible than George W.
Bush, whose alibi complements Gore's: by attracting fewer votes, both
nationally and (according to the preponderance of scientific opinion) in
Florida, Bush absolved himself of guilt for his own elevation. A
post-election rogues' gallery-Jeb Bush, James Baker, Katherine Harris,
William Rehnquist and four of his Supreme Court colleagues-helped, each
rogue in his or her own way, but no single one of them could have pulled
off the heist without the help of the others. Nader was sufficient unto
himself.
For the past three years, everything Nader accomplished during his period
of unparalleled creativity, which lasted from around 1963 to around 1976,
has been systematically undermined by the Administration that he was
instrumental in putting in power. Government efforts on behalf of clean air
and water, fuel efficiency, workplace safety, consumer protection, and
public health have been starved, stymied, or sabotaged in tandem with the
shift of resources from public purposes to high-end private consumption,
the increasing identity of government and corporate interests, and the
growth of a cult of secrecy and arrogance that began well before September
11, 2001. Nader bears a very large share of responsibility for these
spectacular traducements of his proclaimed values. So it is quite a tribute
to the brilliance of his early achievements that an argument can still be
made that the net effect of his career has been positive.
That argument will no longer be plausible if Nader succeeds in doing in
2004 what he did in 2000. This time, though, he is unlikely to garner
enough strategically placed votes to push the electoral college past the
tipping point. Neither before nor after his announcement last week that he
will try to get on the ballot in all fifty states was there the slightest
sign of enthusiasm for his candidacy. The liberal and leftish outlets that
serve what was once his natural constituency overflowed with critiques that
ranged from mournful disavowal to bitter denunciation, some of them written
by former supporters. The Democratic Party, meanwhile, is in the final
stages of a primary campaign that has been as amicable as any in living
memory. Thanks to President Bush and the passionate wish of the Democratic
rank and file to see the back of him, the Democrats are more united and
energized, and less beguiled by the narcissism of small differences, than ever.
It's safe to predict that Nader will come nowhere near matching the 2.9
million votes he got in 2000. He'll be lucky to get half of the 685,000 he
got in 1996. His reasons for running, as he announced them in an interview
with Tim Russert on "Meet the Press," don't add up. "Do you believe,"
Russert asked him, "that there would be a difference between a George Bush
Administration and a John Kerry or a John Edwards Administration on
judicial nominations, on tax cuts, on environmental enforcement?" "Yes,"
Nader said, but he went on to say that "corporate government remains in
Washington, whether it's Democrats or Republicans"-as if the Supreme Court,
the tax code, and the environment were bagatelles. "This candidacy is not
going to get many Democratic Party votes," Nader admitted-or lamented, or
promised (it was hard to tell which)-at a press conference the next day. He
noted that he faces "overwhelming opposition by the liberal
intelligentsia," and added, "I think this may be the only candidacy in our
memory that is opposed overwhelmingly by people who agree with us on the
issues." His strategy, therefore, is to get votes from people who disagree
with him on the issues-i.e., Republicans who, he suggested, will support
him because they don't like the Bush deficits. Also, he argued, he will
help Democrats win congressional seats. Also, his candidacy will constitute
"another front" against Bush. A fifth column is more like it.
Ralph Nader turned seventy last Friday. If a Democrat is elected
President in November, then the old crusader's 2004 campaign will be merely
a happily inconsequential ending to the story of a life spent mostly in
creative service. If Bush is elected to a second term, then four more years
of Bush policies, Bush deficits, and Bush judges will likely undo what
remains of Nader's positive legacy. But if Nader once again succeeds in
making himself the decisive factor in a Bush victory, then his legacy will
be less than zero. His legacy will be George W. Bush.
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle."
-- Philo of Alexandria
Denise Caruso
http://hybridvigor.org
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/