[Peace-discuss] Truths And Falsehoods About Ralph Nader's New Book

[David Johnson via Peace-discuss]

  Truths And Falsehoods About Ralph Nader's New Book

ralph-nader-2
Strategize! <http://www.popularresistance.org/category/strategize/> 
Corporatism <http://www.popularresistance.org/tag/corporatism/>, 
Politics <http://www.popularresistance.org/tag/politics/>, Ralph Nader 
<http://www.popularresistance.org/tag/ralph-nader/>
By Bruce E. Levine, www.truth-out.org 
<http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/25510-truths-and-falsehoods-about-ralph-naders-new-book>
August 14th, 2014
   Powered by Translate <https://translate.google.com>
6 
<http://www.popularresistance.org/truths-and-falsehoods-about-ralph-naders-new-book/#>
Print Friendly 
<http://www.printfriendly.com/print?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.popularresistance.org%2Ftruths-and-falsehoods-about-ralph-naders-new-book%2F>

Have progressives made a mistake of lumping all conservatives together 
and fueling their political energies into hating them? Or are there what 
Ralph Nader calls "anti-corporatist conservatives," who loathe 
undeclared, endless wars as much as progressives? And should 
progressives seek alliances with these anti-corporatist conservatives to 
oppose unnecessary wars, corporate welfare, NSA violations of our 
privacy, and many other issues where there is what Nader calls 
"convergence?"

Earlier this year, AlterNet 
<http://www.alternet.org/books/ralph-nader-wants-you-join-right-wing-libertarians-solve-americas-problems-what-could-possibly?paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark> 
published a C.J. Werleman <http://www.alternet.org/authors/cj-werleman> 
review of Ralph Nader's new book /Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right 
Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State 
<http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Emerging-Left-Right-Dismantle-Corporate/dp/1568584547/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1394573341&sr=1-1&keywords=nader+unstoppable>/ 
(Nation Books, 2014), that paints Nader as having lost either his mind 
or soul and become a dull-witted lackey for the Koch brothers. Yet, 
Nader's book is endorsed by Robert Reich, Cornell West, and other 
critical-thinkers on the left (along with conservatives opposing 
corporate cronyism). Whom should we trust?

Before Werleman begins his condemnation of /Unstoppable/, he assures us, 
"I like Ralph Nader. I like his politics and I like the causes he has 
championed," and he lists some of Nader's accomplishments, including 
auto and highway safety laws, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, 
the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration.

Then Werleman launches his attack: "But Ralph Nader wants liberals to 
back libertarian Republican Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky)". . . . But does 
Nader seriously believe liberals are prepared to sacrifice the other 90 
percent of their ideals to rally behind a neo-confederate, Koch 
brother-shill like Rand Paul?"

In fact, Nader never says this or anything close to this. The index in 
Nader's /Unstoppable/ reveals three mentions of Rand Paul on pages 43, 
92 and 109:

p. 43: "In 2013, Senator Wyden [D-Oregon] teamed up with Republican 
senator Rand Paul to introduce legislation that would legalize 
industrial hemp grown in the United States."

p. 92: "In fact, in 2013, a debate over the military and domestic use of 
drones broke out, sparked by Senator Rand Paul's twelve-hour filibuster, 
which brought together mainstream conservative and liberal think tanks, 
Republican and Democratic lawmakers, and citizen activists of both Right 
and Left."

p. 109: "In March 2013, Senator Patrick Leahy [D-Vermont], chair of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee and the new senator Rand Paul introduced the 
Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013, allowing judges to impose sentences 
below mandatory minimums."

Nowhere in /Unstoppable/ does Nader ask liberals to sacrifice any part 
of their ideals to rally behind Paul. In fact, Nader tells liberals just 
the opposite, telling them to be uncompromising in their principles, "To 
create a convergence that will work and endure, at the onset those from 
the Left should have a take-us-or-leave-us stance, indicating they are 
not ready to compromise their principles but will work with any 
good-faith conservative who shares this one goal."

After Werleman fabricates the premise that Nader is asking liberals to 
sacrifice their principles to back Rand Paul, he portrays Nader as naïve 
to libertarian goals such as deregulation and tax policies, and thus 
naïve to how horrible it would be to have them in power. Nader is not 
naïve at all, and that is why he is /not/ talking about forming a 
political party with libertarians, but forming coalitions and alliances 
on specific issues where there is convergence.

*Such Coalitions Have Worked to Increase Democracy*

The fact is that such convergences have already been successful, and 
this empowerment has been contagious -- most obviously with victories 
legalizing marijuana for recreational use in Colorado and Washington, as 
well as victories in marijuana decriminalization and medical use in many 
more states.

There are other areas that Nader's coalitions have had successes, and 
Nader begins /Unstoppable/ with one such forgotten successful 
convergence that resulted in the stoppage of a proposed nuclear power 
plant in the early 1980s.

The Clinch River Breeder Nuclear Reactor in Tennessee was estimated to 
cost $400 million in 1970; but by the early 1980s, $1.3 billion had been 
spent on it even before a tree was cleared from the 92-acre site, and 
the General Accounting Office reported that the project would ultimately 
cost taxpayers $8.8 billion. The Breeder Reactor was supported by the 
nuclear industry, and corporatist politicians in both the Democrat and 
Republican parties, especially Tennessee Senator Howard Baker (R).

The Breeder Reactor was initially opposed only by environmentalists, 
consumer groups and progressives. However, eventually libertarians and 
anti-corporatist conservatives began to oppose it on the grounds of 
protecting taxpayers from government waste. Working together, they 
formed an umbrella group called Taxpayers Coalition Against Clinch 
River. This umbrella group included the Friends of the Earth, the 
National Taxpayers Union, Public Citizen's Congress Watch, the Council 
for a Competitive Economy, the International Association of Machinists 
and Aerospace Workers, the National Audubon Society, the Union of 
Concerned Scientists and the Natural Resources Defense Council. 
Conservatives and libertarians successfully reached their fiscally 
conservative friends in Congress, while 
liberal/environmental/consumerist groups were similarly successful with 
their friends in Congress. On October 26, 1983, this coalition was 
victorious, as the US Senate vote 56-40 against any further funding of 
the Breeder Reactor. Nader points out that single-issue groups, such as 
opponents of nuclear power, can more easily converge with conservative 
organizations that oppose government boondoggles.

Another example of convergence that I have personally been involved with 
is the battle against the psychiatric-pharmaceutical-industrial complex 
and its expansionist diseasing/medicating of our humanity. Noteworthy 
figures in the history of this human rights/consumer rights movement 
include both Erich Fromm, the leftist psychoanalyst, along with Thomas 
Szasz, the libertarian psychiatrist, both passionate antiauthoritarians 
who confronted mental health professionals for coercing and controlling 
people (e.g., psychopathologizing homosexuality in the American 
Psychiatric Association's DSM until the early 1970s, and "treating" it).

*Obstacles to Coalitions and Convergence *

Nader is not naïve to obstacles to convergence, and he devotes a chapter 
to this issue.

One obstacle to convergence is that many would-be convergence advocates, 
across the political spectrum, have good reason to fear social and 
political ostracism. Nader offers the example of what the Republican 
Congressional leadership did to antiwar Republicans following President 
Obama's attack on Libya in 2011 (an attack for which he disregarded the 
War Powers Resolution Act). Obama's actions created an alliance of 
antiwar Democrat and Republican members of Congress who wanted to vote 
on a resolution by Democrat congressman Denis Kucinich requiring the 
president to withdraw from Libya within 15 days. Pro-war Republicans, 
with the support of pro-war Democrats, moved to squelch this resistance. 
Ultimately, a Republican leader of the rebellion against these pro-war 
forces, Republican congressman Walter Jones, had his seat on the House 
Armed Services Committee taken away by House Republican leaders.

Nader discusses why liberals often shy away from convergence. Often, he 
believes, it has to do with concerns over funding and peer pressure 
against certain associations. Nader points out that many liberal 
organizations receive funding from foundations with corporate-connected 
boards of directors who may, for instance, like environmental causes, 
but who do not oppose tax loopholes, corporate subsidies, or other areas 
beneficial to corporations. And Nader points out, "Moreover, there are 
liberal writers who may agree with some convergence, but reject it 
overall as a strategy because they do not want to give any credibility 
whatsoever to the ad hoc convergent partners from the right."

Pragmatically, there are times when alliances with certain individuals 
or groups can discredit a movement: for example, when human 
rights/consumer movement organizations are not well known to the general 
public and another well-known group or individual with highly negative 
baggage joins this struggle. An example that I'm personally familiar 
with is Scientology's efforts at allying with organizations battling the 
psychiatric-pharmaceutical-industrial complex. Scientology's reputation 
is so negative (with its pseudoscientific/financially exploitative 
auditing treatments, extraterrestrial creation myth, and Time 
<http://www.xenu.net/archive/media/time910605.html> and Rolling Stone 
<http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/inside-scientology-20110208> 
reports of it as a secretive, litigious, malevolent cult/racket) that, 
as investigative journalist Robert Whitaker points out, it would have 
actually been smart for drug companies to secretly fund this religion, 
so as to make it the face of opposition to Big Pharma's corruption of 
psychiatry.

However, movements such as opposing unnecessary wars and corporate 
welfare -- that are already supported by the majority of Americans and 
already include well-known credible people --  are not vulnerable to 
this kind of discrediting. When in 2010, Ron Paul joined with Barney 
Frank and others to try to reduce the military budget, did any 
progressive really believe Ron Paul's involvement discredited this 
movement? And when in 2013, Senator Wyden (D-OR) teamed up with Rand 
Paul to introduce legislation that would legalize industrial hemp grown 
in the United States, did any progressive believe that Rand Paul hurt 
this movement's credibility?

Perhaps the major obstacle to convergence is funding. Today, convergence 
has no infrastructure and no institutions to support it, and Nader 
believes that this is necessary for effective activism. With several 
decades of activism and political experience behind him, Nader argues 
that it is difficult to accomplish anything politically without serious 
money. And so Nader ends Unstoppable with a "Dear Billionaire" letter, 
hoping that some Warren Buffett type will have enough genuine public 
interest to fund the institutions required for convergence. It is 
painful to those of us who care about democracy that big money is so 
necessary to gain power, painful that Nader and ordinary people can't 
come up with it, and painful that the only option that veteran 
anti-corporatist quarterback Nader sees is this "Dear Billionaire" Hail 
Mary pass. Nader funded his earlier activism with the $425,000 that he 
scored in 1970 from a General Motors harassment lawsuit. However, it is 
sad but perhaps true that corporate authoritarian rule has become so 
omnipotent that it renders Nader's once cooler ways of gaining activism 
seed money impossible.

Among the Left, libertarians, and the American people in general, there 
is widespread opposition to: senseless, endless, wasteful, undeclared 
wars; corporate welfare, cronyism, handouts and bailouts; an insane drug 
war; the NSA and other violations of our privacy; NAFTA and other 
job/sovereignty destroying treaties -- and many other issues. However, 
/corporatists/  - a term used pejoratively by both Ralph Nader and Ron 
Paul 
<http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/1923:populist-alliances-or-senseless-wars-and-corporate-welfare> 
--  have effectively been able to divide and conquer American 
anticorporatists who agree on these issues. And liberal writers such as 
Werleman, perhaps unwittingly, are aiding and abetting this corporatist 
strategy.

No tyranny, including the current corporatocracy, wants diverse groups 
to recognize what they have in common and to work together. Tyrants and 
other control-freaks know full well that achieving even small victories 
can transform people from a psychology of helplessness, hopelessness and 
defeatism to a psychology of empowerment. Coalitions and alliances that 
result in victories can inspire people to seek even greater power and 
demand true democracy.

Bruce E. Levine <http://www.brucelevine.net>, a practicing clinical 
psychologist, writes and speaks about how society, culture, politics and 
psychology intersect. His latest book is Get Up, Stand Up: Uniting 
Populists, Energizing the Defeated, and Battling the Corporate Elite 
<http://www.amazon.com/Get-Stand-Populists-Energizing-Corporate/dp/1603582983/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1292688109&sr=1-8>.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20140815/72a4c357/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ralph-nader-2.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 36344 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20140815/72a4c357/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: google_logo_41.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2357 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20140815/72a4c357/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pf-button.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1848 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20140815/72a4c357/attachment-0001.gif>