Nader continues to be the only candidate willing to break with the stranglehold on political thought and action. We might ask the question why all the candidates of the last two presidential elections been afraid to debate him. He may be off the radar but soon we may well have to start asking if there’s something wrong with the radar. Consider Nader’s issues:
1. Adopt a single payer national health insurance.
2. Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget.
3. Say no to nuclear power, solar energy first.
4. Crack down on corporate crime and corporate welfare.
5. Open up the Presidential debates.
6. Adopt a carbon pollution tax.
7. Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East.
8. Impeach Bush/Cheney.
9. Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law.
10. Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax.
11. End to ballot access obstructionism.
12. End corporate personhood.
OK, we'll have some fun...one at a time.
ReplyDelete1. Adopt a single payer national health insurance. -- Which one, since none have shown to be cost effective.
2. Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget. -- Platitude. Is the military budget any more bloated and wasteful than, say, the dept. of health?
3. Say no to nuclear power, solar energy first. -- Pandering. Solar, at this point, is still too expensive to compete with other forms of power generation. Why not wind first? Or biomass? Because they are all more expensive.
4. Crack down on corporate crime and corporate welfare. -- Appeal to the middle class. Is there more corporate crime than regular crime? Ask someone walking down an urban street, which crime poses a more serious threat to them?
5. Open up the Presidential debates. -- Um, OK? Not sure what this means, since I don't remember a closed debate, but...obvious reference to minor party candidates. A laudable but largely unworkable idea.
6. Adopt a carbon pollution tax. -- Not a real solution to climate change, since history has shown that taxes to prevent something rarely work and simply get passed along to the consumer. Look at cigarettes and booze.
7. Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East. -- Again, not sure I understand. Alter policy? Refine? Adjust? But reverse? Meaning, have none? I'll pass on this.
8. Impeach Bush/Cheney. -- So, his proposed election issue is to impeach the people he would replace? Seems like an enormous waste of resource, since they will be leaving soon anyway. Pander, pander, pander.
9. Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law. -- And replace it with...? Taft-Hartley added to the National Labor Relations Act a list of prohibited actions on the part of unions, so called unfair labor practices, where previously only such actions on the part of management were prohibited. On its face, seems balanced. Times have changed and Taft-Hartley needs a good housecleaning, but Ralph doesn't really say that, does he?
10. Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax. -- Warren Buffet likes it, but the devil is in the details.
11. End to ballot access obstructionism. -- This would require a federal incursion into state's rights. Lots of lawyers will get wealthy over this battle.
12. End corporate personhood. -- Again, such an extreme position that will prompt a quick rebuke -- are you saying, Ralph, that corporations are entitled to no protections or freedoms under the law? Remember, when Ralph talks about corporations, many (most?) think of Exxon, Haliburton, and other red meat for the masses names. Simply ending corporate personhood (an issue for the judicial branch, by the way, not the executive) cuts a wide swath through all manner of commerce.
I suppose you can have this sort of fun with most any candidate's platform. But Ralph, an otherwise smart guy, just makes it so damned easy to be dismissive.
Nader put GWB into the White House and you still love him? You "lefty" always find a way to lose.
ReplyDeleteOk, let's--I like fun!
ReplyDelete1. Adopt a single payer national health insurance. -- Which one, since none have shown to be cost effective.
>>in the first place, cost effectiveness should be determined different ways for some sectors of our society; profit is not a good motive for keeping our people healthy. That said, the above statement is not really accurate, see: http://pnhp.org/facts/myths_memes.pdf
for more detail, if you care to think a little more comprehensively about the problem.
2. Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget. -- Platitude. Is the military budget any more bloated and wasteful than, say, the dept. of health?
>>yes, it is. Both are wasteful, of course, but the total budget of the military dwarfs that of health, or anything else. Hence making the military more lean and mean would give us much more $ to spend on other things, while slashing health budgets would give us far less, and would also make our populations suffer more illness, work less, be less productive, etc.
3. Say no to nuclear power, solar energy first. -- Pandering. Solar, at this point, is still too expensive to compete with other forms of power generation. Why not wind first? Or biomass? Because they are all more expensive.
>>because we have to venture forth using all of these fomrs simultaneously. No more magic bullet, we have to use all forms of renewable energy together; even nuclear, which I am not opposed to in itself, is not a magic bullet, and it is far more dangerous, no matter how you look at it. If we could only think more long term about our energy needs, we might not have to farm out the building of renewable energy systems to other countries, as is the case with this project in AZ:
http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/technology/2008/02/21/big-solar-project-planned-for-arizona-desert.html
4. Crack down on corporate crime and corporate welfare. -- Appeal to the middle class. Is there more corporate crime than regular crime? Ask someone walking down an urban street, which crime poses a more serious threat to them?
>>False distinction. Corporate crime and individual crime are different categories altogether; if you were to show someone walking down the street the total cost of the Enron debacle and the total cost of all street muggings in the US, which number do you think they would consider worse for all Americans?
5. Open up the Presidential debates. -- Um, OK? Not sure what this means, since I don't remember a closed debate, but...obvious reference to minor party candidates. A laudable but largely unworkable idea.
>>Why is it unworkable? What is your support for this argument? here is support for the other side:
http://www.opendebates.org/
6. Adopt a carbon pollution tax. -- Not a real solution to climate change, since history has shown that taxes to prevent something rarely work and simply get passed along to the consumer. Look at cigarettes and booze.
>>false comparison. Individual consumption does fall when the price of goods are raised, though not much, hence cigs and booze are called "inelastic goods." Corporations, however, are not people, and they do not "consume" carbon the same way someone consumes a glass of scotch. Our motivations for smoking or drinking are many, a corporation's motivation for existing is singular: to profit (see #12).
7. Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East. -- Again, not sure I understand. Alter policy? Refine? Adjust? But reverse? Meaning, have none? I'll pass on this.
>>"reverse" doesn't mean much to me either, so I agree and pass also.
8. Impeach Bush/Cheney. -- So, his proposed election issue is to impeach the people he would replace? Seems like an enormous waste of resource, since they will be leaving soon anyway. Pander, pander, pander.
>>agree it's not an election issue; it is a war crimes issue, and I do believe we will see some of the folks at the Hague in the near future for authorizing torture.
9. Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law. -- And replace it with...? Taft-Hartley added to the National Labor Relations Act a list of prohibited actions on the part of unions, so called unfair labor practices, where previously only such actions on the part of management were prohibited. On its face, seems balanced. Times have changed and Taft-Hartley needs a good housecleaning, but Ralph doesn't really say that, does he?
>>Does he? what does he say? Characterizing an opponent this way a cheap rhetorical trick; if you want to counter his proposal, do so, but don't just.... PANDER.
10. Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax. -- Warren Buffet likes it, but the devil is in the details.
>>?What devil? What details? Have no idea what this means so can't effectively rebut.
11. End to ballot access obstructionism. -- This would require a federal incursion into state's rights. Lots of lawyers will get wealthy over this battle.
>>if I read this correctly, the fact that lawyers could make $ is enough to keep us from doing the right thing. Not sure I buy that. Also, this incursion might serve as a linchpin to help us iron out some of the state's rights mess we already suffer from--medical marijuana, anyone?
12. End corporate personhood. -- Again, such an extreme position that will prompt a quick rebuke -- are you saying, Ralph, that corporations are entitled to no protections or freedoms under the law? Remember, when Ralph talks about corporations, many (most?) think of Exxon, Haliburton, and other red meat for the masses names. Simply ending corporate personhood (an issue for the judicial branch, by the way, not the executive) cuts a wide swath through all manner of commerce.
>>not extreme at all, actually; you misunderstand the problem. Corporate personhood is the idea that corporations should have the same rights as individual citizens, which is utter nonsense and is based on a series of poorly written legal shenanigans (see: http://www.mcn.org/e/iii/afd/santaclara.html).
If a corporation were a human, they would be a sociopath, concerned only with their own profit and nothing else. Of course corporations should have legal rights, but not the same ones that citizens have.
Hey, that was fun!
barbarosa -- Excellent response. You should be the candidate, rather than Mr. Nadar. The point of my post was not to settle any issue, but rather point out how quick and easy it is to dismiss such broad strokes (platitudes, if you will). Ralph tends to talk this way with the belief that everyone knows what he is talking about. Clearly, most people don't.
ReplyDeleteSadly, in this age of sound-bite journalism and "how it affects my wallet" decisions making, a campaign platform like this will last mere minutes before it is laughed out of the room.
Ralph Nadar, I believe, is far more useful to the political debate as an observer and commentor, rather than participant.
Whatever it is that makes him unelectable has the effect of dampening his message everytime he enters a race and gets crushed. He has a better pulpit to urge change from the outside.
Pressed for time, so just a couple of comments on your comments...
-- You make the assumption that I equate cost effectiveness with profit. Sometimes, but not always. Even the most laudable government program should be cost effective. Look at NY, for instance. We have, by any measure, the most extensive public health care programs of any state. It is also stupidly expensive, causing a crushing burden on taxpayers of all sorts. Yet, our citizens are no more or less healthy than most any other state (a generalization, I know, but there will always be top and bottom in any measurement). Just because something is worthwhile socially doesn't mean we should over-spend on it.
-- Of course the military budget is the largest. My point, apparently poorly made, is that Ralph speaks in generalities. Cut it by how much? When? By cutting the budget is he advocating the immediate withdrawl of troops from Iraq? There are consequences for every action, and he doesn't seem to address them. (By the way, suggesting that we use money cut from the military budget to "spend on other things" is hardly a winning platform, especially in those states where taxes are already an albatros around the necks of citizens, like the Excelsior state.)
Regarding the carbon tax -- I would argue that individual consumption thus far has not changed much regarding one of the key issues here, gasoline consumption. Same is true with electricity usage, as well as natural gas usage for both home and industry. So, a carbon tax applied to whom? Energy producers? They will simply pass it along to consumers? Vehicular fuel use shows no signs of slowing dramatically, electricity consumption nationwide continues to climb despite record high prices, and natural gas marketers continue to push that fuel to record consumption levels.
Raising the price even higher might be a way to reduce consumption, but that is a plan that most assuredly will guarantee that you won't win an election. People vote with their wallets, as much as their hearts or minds.
More later...gotta run.