[Marxism] WHY NADER? by Peter Miguel Camejo

[Dbachmozart@xxxxxxx]

WHY NADER?

by Peter Miguel Camejo

Ralph Nader is not just a  possible candidate in the 2008
elections; he is an issue. "Why Nader?" is not  simply that he
has the greatest knowledge of major issues, that he has  done
more for the American people than any other candidate, and that
he is  a recognized figure for all Americans.

Why is Nader an issue? Because we  do not have free elections in
the United States. If, like almost all nations  that hold
elections, we had a runoff (as we do in most of our  cities)
Nader's vote in 2000 would have been immense, carrying with it  a
major shift in US politics. Most people have forgotten that
Nader's  rallies drew audiences far larger than the Democrats or
Republicans, and a  study that asked the question who do you
prefer, Nader or Bush, Nader or  Gore, Gore or Bush found that it
would have been a close three-way race if  the spoiler,
no-runoff, winner-take-all system was not in place.

The  no-runoff winner-take-all electoral system, while rejected
by the whole  world, creates in America a very sophisticated
totalitarian two-party  electoral dictatorship. It leads to the
majority not voting, and debates on  the real issues are crushed.
People ask, "But aren't the Democrats different  from the
Republicans?" Of course they are different; if they weren't  the
two-party system would not be effective. People have to have  the
illusion they are deciding who governs, that they have a choice.
But  once the electioneering is over, when the rubber meets the
road, a different  picture emerges.

Republicans fight for the most pro-corporate,  pro-war,
anti-democracy ideas possible, the Democrats make sure that  no
alternative voice appears; they try to coopt all mass social
movements  by trying to appear as though they sympathize. The
Democrats are the burial  ground of mass independent social
movements for progress and democracy. Once  in office, they serve
the same money-dominated corporate rule that exists in  North
America.

When Bush stole the elections in 2000, the Democrats  fought not
to investigate. They voted for everything Bush asked for on  all
major issues. On the Patriot Act, which violates the US
Constitution,  98% of Democrats in the Senate voted for it
without reading it. In the House,  they voted for a resolution
that stated "unequivocal support for George  Bush's conduct of
the war in Iraq". Right after the 2004 elections, in  January of
2005, the Democrats gave George Bush 39 standing ovations  during
his one-hour State of the Union address. Whenever Bush said  the
word "Iraq," the Democrats were on their feet, cheering before
he  finished the sentence.

In 2004, a massive wave among liberals and some  radicals arose,
demanding that Nader not run. Their position was to support  and
vote for John Kerry, a pro-war, pro-Patriot Act, pro-corporate
and  anti-environmental candidate.  While dead wrong, in my
opinion, groups  like Moveon.org, the Nation and individuals like
Noam Chomsky and Medea  Benjamin certainly had the right to urge,
given the circumstances, a vote for  a pro-war candidate and
campaign for that candidate. But they did something  quite
different when they urged Nader not to run.

What the great  liberal capitulation of 2004 said was that they
did not respect the right of  those who disagree with them to
have a candidate. They wanted their candidate  to win by
preventing another point of view from being heard. They  wanted
people to vote for their candidate even if they opposed him  by
preventing the voters to have a choice of a pro-peace,
pro-labor,  pro-civil liberties and pro-environmental candidate.
That is, they wanted to  win by doing something similar to what
the Republicans did in 2000: prevent  some people from voting for
who they wanted to vote for.

This  anti-Nader totalitarian campaign was unparalleled in
American history except  possibly when the first third party, the
Liberty party, appeared in 1840,  saying that they would not vote
for either of the two pro-slavery  parties.  At that time, most
abolitionists attacked the Liberty Party,  using the spoiler
argument.

The Liberty Party grew rapidly. It led to  the formation of the
Free Soil Party and eventually a major split in both  the
Democrats and Whig party and the formation of a mass third
party, the  Republican Party, which under Lincoln was quite
different than it is  today.

If you are registered Green, I urge you to vote for Nader in  our
primary as a way for the Green Party to once again stand up  for
democracy. Running Ralph Nader one last time is a statement for
peace,  for education, for the environment, for equal rights for
all, to save our  planet and for democracy. In 2004, the Green
Party ran a candidate who  publicly supported continued US
occupation in Iraq, arguing we could not "Cut  and Run," saying
on his web site that if the UN okayed it, he would support  US
occupation of Iraq. The UN has since given its tacit support to
the  illegal criminal occupation of Iraq.

For the Green Party to return to its  platform of opposing
imperialism and opposition to war, there is no greater  step it
could take in 2008 than nominating Ralph Nader. I did not want
to  run for office in 2004. I became Ralph Nader's Vice
Presidential candidate  precisely to oppose the totalitarian
campaign against free elections that was  supported by many of my
old friends. This primary will be our chance to stand  up for
free elections and a completely different vision of North
America  by voting for Ralph Nader.

--Peter Camejo, December  2007




**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes 
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism