Nader
Still In The Crosshairs
By Mickey Z.
01 February, 2007
Countercurrents.org
I was at the gym, walking by
a television tuned to one of the many insipid morning chat shows...but
that's not what stopped me dead in my tracks. What got my attention
was the guest: Ralph Nader. I watched the host begin the interview with
yet another rehash/accusation/question about the 2000 election. You
know the drill by now: Nader spoiled it for Gore, ruined his own legacy,
blah, blah, blah. It's been repeated so often that most Americans accept
it all as fact.
After having read New York magazine the night before, that first question
was all I could stomach. You see, David Edelstein, the magazine's film
critic, just reviewed An Unreasonable Man, a new documentary about Nader.
The self-important Edelstein spoke of receiving an invitation to see
the film and meet Nader afterwards. "I wrote (that) I couldn't
make it," said Edelstein, "but to leave my seat vacant in
the name of the Iraqi and American dead."
Left unsaid, of course, is his belief that Nader cost Al Gore the election
and that Gore would never have invaded Iraq. While neither point can
ever be fully proven true or false, I do have a question for Edelstein:
If Al Gore cares so much about the Iraqi dead, why didn't he speak out
against the murderous sanctions when he was vice president? A half-million
dead Iraqi children and Gore did not say one fuckin' word in public
to condemn it. I'm also wondering if, during the Clinton-Gore years,
Edelstein peppered his film reviews with similar self-righteous political
statements. How about when Clinton bombed Iraq in response to an alleged
plot to assassinate Bush
the Elder and ended up killing Leila Attar, that country's best-known
female artist? What did the millionaire morning chat show hosts and
the haughty New York magazine film critic say about that? Better question:Were
they even aware it happened?
"What we have with Edelstein is the typical liberal phenomena:
blame Nader instead of facing the facts," says Joshua Frank, author
of Left Out: How Liberals Help Re-elect George W. Bush. "The reason
Nader even made any headway in 2000 was due to his ability to tap into
the mounting anti-globalization movement that was launched in Seattle
one year earlier. Progressive, and even radical voters saw Nader as
their chance to hold the neoliberals' feet to the fire."
Also in his "review," Edelstein declares Nader to be "obviously
nuts" for making the assertion that there wasn't "a dime's
bit of difference" between Bush and Gore. This statement is presented
as an article of faith as Edelstein offers no evidence. Why should he
when probably 99.9% of his
readers agree with him?
"Nobody can say Gore wasn't a neoliberal," says Frank. "He
supported NAFTA, pushed WTO/China legislation-Al Gore was a proud New
Democrat for many years and that was only part of it. Under Clinton/Gore
environmentalists got the Salvage Rider and the derailment of Kyoto.
The working poor got welfare reform. Labor got free trade. And Iraqi
kids got deadly sanctions. Those are the reasons Nader had such a powerful
campaign in 2000. I think if liberals can't face that, they are the
ones who are 'nuts'."
Take-home message: If all those Gore voters had pulled the lever for
Ralph, we all would've been spared both the Bush administration and
the Nader witch-hunt...plus, David Edelstein could to stick to writing
about film.
Mickey Z. can be found on the Web at http://www.mickeyz.net.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights