Nader Nonsense

Is Ralph Nader kidding?

The fragmented Republicans, going against thirty years of history, seem poised to nominate John McCain, despised by much of “the conservative base,” whose image as a Maverick, though largely mythologized and undeserved, appeals mostly to moderates and party outsiders.

The Democrats, meanwhile, have narrowed their choice to a woman and an African American man. Despite being married to Bill, Hillary Clinton’s gender would represent a radical departure from our nation’s presidential history, and Barack Obama’s success has been powered by an appeal for a dramatic change in the way our leaders practice politics. Both have gathered massive crowds and generated record turnout in Presidential primaries, including large numbers of independent and first-time voters.

In other words, to differing extents, all three candidates represent radical, transformational change, and their success is a measure of the voter’s desire to alter the status quo.

Recently, however, Ralph Nader has decided to throw his hat into the ring and run for president, saying on MSNBC’s Meet The Press, “You go from Iraq, to Palestine to Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bumbling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts." He concluded, "In that context, I have decided to run for president."

Never has Nader’s egomaniacal arrogance been more starkly displayed. Despite a high probability that our next President will be an African American Democrat, Nader somehow sees Barack Obama as an undesirable insider. And yet Obama seems to embody so many of the principles Nader claims for himself. Obama was always against the Iraq war. Obama is a Washington newcomer, not yet entrenched in the culture of payola and cronyism. Obama is a champion of the little guy. Obama’s entire campaign has been crafted around the notion that the political process must change.

So when Nader starts whining and spewing his distaste for the presidential field, only two conclusions can be drawn. He is either incredibly stupid or wildly arrogant. Given his history of intelligent consumer advocacy, the only possible conclusion is the latter. By running for president, and hopefully appearing in debates alongside nominees who had to work hard to get there, Nader can stroke his own ego and insert himself into the political dialog regardless of the cost to the nation. Indeed, Nader is incapable of taking responsibility for the consequeces of his actions. His presidential bids in 2000 and 2004 likely cost the Democrats the presidency in at least one of those cycles.

And yet Nader sees no harm in this because he seems to see both parties as twin sons of different mothers. In other words, the world would be no different now if a Democrat had been president the last eight years.

This flawed and thoroughly absurd notion lies at the heart of the Nader deception. The truth is, our nation would be radically different in a host of significant and life-changing ways if George Bush had not been elected president. But for Nader to acknowledge this would also require him to acnowledge the part he played in getting Bush elected. And it would also rob his presidential aspirations of any weight.

The fact is, America has already been voting for radical change for months now, and Nader’s presidential bid will only serve to illuminate his vast insecurity and bottomless need for relevancy. This time, his candidacy will not be a deciding factor in the election, and the voters will once again recognize that Ralph Nader is, in fact, irrelevant.

We can only hope that no organization is spineless enough to allow him on stage for any of the debates.

- JT Compton
.

The Hillary Anger Mystery

“Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back To The White House?” That’s the question Maureen Dowd asked in her New York Times column today. And as much as I revere Maureen’s abilities as a writer and cultural observer, her take on the Clinton candidacy mirrors the current position of the rest of the media establishment; they despise Hillary Clinton and seem willing to go to any length to eviscerate her.

For the life of me, I can’t figure out why.

Sure, I understand why narrow-minded conservative rednecks dislike her after hearing decades of demonizing smears and conspiracy theories from losers like Rush Limbaugh. He’s blamed her for everything bad under the sun. But for people with more than two brain cells to rub together, why do some bear such an intense rage against her?

The same journalists (and some moderates, for that matter) who spit while saying her name still want to treat convicted felons like Scooter Libby with a modicum of respect, and they continue to approach demonstrably despicable public officials like Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales within the framework of decency. But not Hillary.

I’m sure it’s been psychoanalyzed to death, but it still amazes me, the dismissive, flash-anger response to her. I’ve never heard anyone give a well-considered, meaningful account of their negative feelings. All I’ve heard are vagaries and superficial annoyances.

“She’ll do anything to get elected.” And the others won't? To suggest that any candidate won't do anything more or less than Hillary to get elected is entirely bogus. They’ve all equivocated and calculated and strategized—that’s what modern politics require.

“She’s secretive and conniving and mean.” Really? In what ways that are materially different than any other politician running? Please. Rudy can be as mean as a snake, and Huckabee's attacks on Romney were schoolyard nasty. The current Bush administration is the most secretive and opaque and mean-spirited in our lifetime, even worse than the disgraceful and un-American presidency of Richard Nixon. It bends credulity to think that Hillary will relinquish her party’s history of greater presidential transparency than the Republicans. This entire criticism is a hollow dodge.

“She’s crying her way to the White House.” So far, she’s only teared up once. Meanwhile, Rudy is 9-11-ing his way to the White House, Huckabee is Jesus-ing his way to the White House, and Obama is rhetoric-ing his way to the White House. How many more times will Obama shout “We’re changing the world!” before people realize it’s just a hollow slogan.

To be sure, I like Barack Obama. He’s a magnificent orator and would make a better President than any of the Republicans. But then any of the Democrats would. The Republican field is a mostly backward looking, militaristic, small-government-obsessed group of old-school white country-club types. Just like George W. Bush, more of the same. But though Obama talks a good talk, he’s done nothing to convince me that he will be able to translate his pie-in-the-sky rhetoric, his new paradigm, into actual results.

And everything in my experience tells me that new paradigms are usually a recipe for disappointment. Remember the Internet bubble? It was supposed to be a new financial paradigm, and legions of tech weenies spread across the corporate landscape scolding non-believers who questioned the new model of the dot com boom. Yet after the tech bubble burst, it turned out there was no new paradigm. The rules of finance were just as valid then as ever.

Remember the Iraq invasion? The post 9-11 world requires a new paradigm, a new way of deterring enemies from striking us. Or does it? Turns out, the same old rules still apply. When you break it, you own it. When you invade, you become the monster your enemies have always accused you of being. When you kill innocent civilians, no matter what your intentions, you create legions of new enemies. When you force Democracy at the point of a gun you get something worse. No new paradigm here.

So whatever new paradigm Obama is touting, I remain a skeptic. Meanwhile, I know that Hillary is a hard worker and a shrewd coalition builder. She’ll choose good people for the important roles in her administration, not for the Bush reason that they gave a lot of money, but because they can do a good job. She’ll reverse so many of the grotesque and lamentable policy disasters of the Bush mess. And talk about change--Obama’s mantra--a woman president represents just as revolutionary a change as an African American male president.

Meanwhile, I’ll continue to wait for the bile-spewers to put their bitterness of Hillary into a meaningful and beyond-hearsay rationale. So far, they haven’t come close. They've simply spun stories that create controversy and drama to sell "news" but are unsupported by facts. Don't be hatin'!

- JT Compton
.