Political Notes #20

California Expert Software

Truth is Everything

Profoundly Alienated

In many marriages and other relationships, there comes a time long before death when it is best to part. Sometimes this is a result of aggravated incompatibilities, and other times just because we drift apart. At the bottom of all these estrangements and separations is a lack of interest and meaning in the relationship.

I have struggled most of my life to find meaning in my political and social relations with "mainstream" Americans. I admit to having felt estranged a good deal of the time. Now, finally, I have just lost interest. I give up: It isn't worth the trouble. I want and need a political divorce, and a Court Order preventing America from entering my home. I guess it really is "Yankee Go Home!"

No Dean Begets Nader

I endorsed Dr Dean's candidacy, and will still vote for him while he is on the ballot. He has withdrawn his name from consideration as the Democratic nominee, so he won't be on the November ballot.

Governor Dean's statement on Ralph Nader

posted 2/23/2004 on Dean's Blog for America

When I announced last week that I am no longer actively pursuing the presidency, I urged my supporters not to be tempted by any independent or third party candidate. I said I would support the nominee of the Democratic Party, because the bottom line is that we must defeat George W. Bush in November, whatever it takes.

This year, our campaign has made the case that, in order to defeat George W. Bush, the Democratic Party must stand up strong for its principles, not paper over its differences with the most radical Administration in our lifetime. In order to win, the Democratic Party must aggressively expose the ways in which George W. Bush's policies benefit the privileged and the most extreme ideologues.

I will do everything I can to ensure that the 2004 Democratic nominee runs as a true progressive, as a champion of working Americans and their hopes for a better future. I urge my supporters, and all other Americans committed to progressive values and honest government, to stick with us, and stick with the Democratic Party, so our cause can prevail in 2004.

Ralph Nader has made many great contributions to America over 40 years. But if George W. Bush is re-elected, the health, safety, consumer, environmental, and open government provisions Ralph Nader has fought for will be undermined. George Bush's right-wing appointees will still be serving as judges fifty years from now, and our Constitution will be shredded. It will be government by, of, and for, the corporations - exactly what Ralph Nader has struggled against.

Those who truly want America's leaders to stand up to the corporate special interests and build a better country for working people should recognize that, in 2004, a vote for Ralph Nader is, plain and simple, a vote to re-elect George W. Bush. I hope that Ralph Nader will withdraw his candidacy in the best interests of the country we hope to become.

Many of my supporters urged me to run as an independent, but I judged it the wrong thing to do. There is still time for Ralph Nader to stand with those in the Democratic Party who are building a progressive coalition to defeat George W. Bush. But time is running out. We can win only if we are united.

My Opinion of Nader

Despite my deep disappointment with Dr Dean's failure, I am not supporting Ralph Nader's run for President. I won't be voting for him, or John F Kerry, or John Edwards, or George W Bush.

But, I don't agree with Dr Dean on voting Democrat. I just cannot vote for anyone who supported the war. Maybe I will write in my name next Fall, or maybe I will vote Green.

I cannot support people running out of personal vanity, which is what I think Ralph Nader is doing. Poor Ralph, his time is past: he should rest on his laurels. That is my advice, despite my agreement with most of what he stands for. He just isn't the messenger we need in this election.

Vain or not, today's (2/23/04) NYT editorial Ralph Nader Does it Again is inappropriate, misguided and misleading. The NYT editorial implicitly peddles the idea that the "two party system" is the only possible way to handle politics in America. Last night, CNN's political editor, Bill Schneider, also heatedly spouted that line. So, once again, I am amazed that the liberal Establishment is quaking in its boots in fear of an outsider. For those people, Nader is truly "the spoiler."

I don't think we have to have a two party system, even if that has been the predominant form since the 1920s. Less than 100 years ago, TR formed the Bull Moose Party to press for his progressive policies. Republicans in this last century have always loved Tafts (conservative Ohioans), so they rejected TR's leadership, thus setting Progressives adrift. Since then, progressives have hooked up with FDR, then Henry Wallace, Adlai Stevenson, Eugene McCarthy, and George McGovern, and, lately, with the late Paul Wellstone and Dr Dean. Almost all losers.

What these losers have in common, and, I think in common with me, is they have different ideas about what's good for the country. They worried about the little guy and gal, not the big time bosses. What most of them wanted was a peaceable United States, not an Imperial power. They felt people should be able to get a decent education, make a decent living, get decent medical care, and live a decent life. If they were concerned about the welfare of business, it was only secondary to the business of welfare, the well-being of the people.

I don't believe Ralph Nader is a spoiler, even if I don't support him. I ignore emotional pleas about the two party system, because they are self-serving; nothing more. But, to hear the moans and curses from Terry McAuliffe and the liberal editors, one would think glorious Caesar was again attacked by the vile Brutus.

I think the truth lies elsewhere. If anything, Caesar and Brutus have swapped places, but the tragedy is both are far from pure. I agree with Ralph Nader: both the Democrat and Republican parties are corrupt, possibly hopelessly so. Wooden-headed Democrats had their chance to reform the party by voting for Dr Dean; but they are wooden headed. Instead, based on one poll and the emotional performances of Max Cleland and Kerry's old war pal, Democrats herded behind Kerry's bandwagon.

Whether Kerry or Edwards is the nominee matters little; they differ little on substance. Their major disagreement is over past trade policies, but now they agree on stopping job outsourcing. Both of them voted for the war, and generally support the on-going US Conquest of Iraq. Neither of them favors single-payer health care, and neither of them proposes a comprehensive health insurance plan. (They are for go-slow piecemeal reform.) Neither of them is against the Bush tax cuts, except the cuts for the rich. Neither of them approves gay marriage. Both of them support fixing the Patriot Act, not repealing it.

So, how do Kerry, Edwards and Bush differ? Mainly on things they haven't talked about, such as who would be nominated to the Courts and government positions. In this area, we know something about the ever-obnoxious George W Bush, but we have been offered few clues by the Democrats. So, it's a lottery. Bingo! You hope.

If Democrats had given Dr Dean a chance, I doubt Ralph would have run. But, they didn't. The Washington Establishment, with the help of the Media Establishment, mercilessly beat Dr Dean to death. To this day, they are still beating his political corpse. I barely remember the last time anyone was so treated: was it McGovern or McCarthy?

The hatred of people like Dr Dean is virulent, and infected the rank-and-file. Now, it will be vented on Ralph Nader. What that shows is just how hopelessly dysfunctional the major parties are. Once upon a time, third parties and minor candidates were the source of new ideas and reform. Today, they are the victim of "contracts" in which hit men do the bloodiest possible hatchet jobs. Let that be an inspiring example for everyone.

There is a common Asian saying, the distilled wisdom of people who've suffered despots for millennia: "The Nail that sticks out gets hammered down." Thus America, once 'the home of the free, the land of the brave.'

The response to Howard Dean, and now Ralph Nader, proves the case.

Purgatory

I have not been a faithful party person. Off and on, I register "declines to state" or Democrat or Green or whatever. Once upon a time, I was Peace and Freedom. After March 2, I'm going back to "declines to state;" that's "no party" in Oregon. I think being without party is the only place a thinking person can be these days.

Again, I agree with Ralph Nader: the parties are hand maidens of corporate interests. I feel the rejection of Dr Dean was the last chance Americans had to clean up the mess. Now, "apres moi, le deluge." I don't blame Ralph for running; maybe I should, too.

I stayed away from the Democratic party for 20 years until the mid-80s. Then, I thought there was an urgency to getting rid of Ronald Reagan, Star Wars and incredibly ignorant economic policies. I also received friendly responses from then-Congressman Vic Fazio. Taken together, I felt there was once again some hope in the Democratic party, so registered in it.

I worked hard and spent a lot of money to get Bill Clinton elected. As a Californian, I felt ill rewarded for my efforts: the recession continued to grind us into little bits and then dust until 1996. Then there was the great Monica sex debacle. And after that, George W and the 2002 election debacle. Most elected Democrats and their henchmen are arrogant or incompetent. They can't even run a good election.

The Democratic party serves corporate interests and special interests, even if they are different from those served by the Republican party. People like me get nowhere. The party Establishments do not care about winning or losing an election the way I care: almost all of them keep their jobs. I get to live, and maybe die, the problems. The casualty rate among Congressman is very low, maybe 1-2% every 2 years or more. Since incumbents feel immune from the vengeance by the electorate, and less than half those eligible vote, there is little incentive to change anything.

The United States is like the damaged space shuttle: a big bird doomed to a fiery end because not one tile can be repaired.

I feel trapped in something I never wanted. I feel relieved that I will unhook Democrats after March 2, when the last of my promises will expire. Somehow, I prefer the freedom of being "irrelevant."

I would like to be free, free at last. But, like the black men of Martin Luther King's dream, I only have a dream.

Hell

Next November, someone will get elected President for 4 years. The war in Iraq will go on, maybe at a little less vicious level than now. The American Empire will go on, maybe marching to a less somber tune. Americans will still be losing their jobs. Fewer and fewer of them will be able to afford medical care. Need I go on? All the basically bad stuff that is happening now will just keep happening.

We could have selected someone to haul us out of this tar pit. But we won't do that, not until those not yet sullied are dirtied and stuck with tar. Then, truly horrible screams will be heard in heaven and hell, but the pleas of the damned will go unanswered.

Most Americans think people like me and Dr Dean are angry. Ralph Nader is sullen. On C-SPAN, one lady, a Bush Supporter, commented on Dean's exit speech: 'We all knew [unpleasant] people like that in High School. We hated them then and hate them now.'

Who is angry? Who is hateful?

Underneath the low cliffs overhanging the beaches of Pompeii, thousands of years later we found the asphyxiated, cooked and pickled remains of masters and slaves, elders and babies. They never learned; they never had a chance.

February 23, 2004

Last update: 11/02/2007