Exposing the Real Ralph Nader

Exposing the Real Ralph Nader

There are a lot of things people don’t know about Nader.

Any time the name ‘Ralph Nader’ comes up, it is sure to stir controversy.  It is like waving a red flag in front of the Democrats.

We’ve heard it all.  “He’s too old”.  Let’s look at that one. Would it be acceptable to say: “He’s too white, too Hispanic, too black, too short, too tall…”. Ageism is one of the most destructive prejudices that can exist in any culture. It devalues and trivializes an entire class of people – sometimes those with the most experience and wisdom.

Other cultures understand this. They value their elders. Only in the United States do we not ‘get it’.  The current trend would put Nader on an ice floe and replace him with a kid who just spent four years at a keg party.  That is the view promoted by the culture.  

Now is a time when we should celebrate all who contribute to our survival, young and old.  Age is irrelevant at a time when a 29 year-old and other relatively young men are making enormous contributions. Not only is age irrelevant, but also we need to take another look at the ‘paper chase’. Edward Snowden has taught us that being a high school drop-out is not necessarily a bad thing. Self education will be the way of the future.  

We also hear: “Nader can’t get enough votes.”  The right come-back for that one is: “No shit”. (Sorry for the less than creative language there. That’s the only response I can come up with for that old argument.)  A more polite answer would be, if the voters were capable of critical thinking NADER would win any election with a land slide.  Holding any candidate responsible for the actions of voters is fuzzy thinking.  

Voters – not candidates – are responsible for every vote they cast.  Voters have created the current conditions by consistently voting for the ‘lesser evil’.  Never, never, never let them off the hook.   Every ballot has a ‘write-in’ option. There is no requirement to vote only for candidates selected by a Party. Voters have unlimited choice. Our survival depends either on ballots or bullets.  Bullets have no conscience. Voters should.

There are a lot of things people don’t know about Nader.  He is smart.  Most people know that.  Even his critics admit that.   Most do not know that he is guided by a strong sense of justice and morality.

Nader is one of the most egoless Statesmen this war weary nation has ever seen.  I can prove that. Back in the 1970s the Electric Company had plans to build a floating Nuclear Power Plant off the coast of Atlantic City. A small group of citizens in Cape May, NJ fought this proposal. They were getting no where until Nader came from his home in Washington and helped. He came at his own expense. No fanfare. No publicity.  The floating Nuclear Plant was never built.

Nader is motivated by conscience. The list of Conscientious Objectors to USA policies is growing – Greenwald, Assange, Manning, Hammond, Snowden, and many others.  Nader was one of the original COs.  

We owe him a lot. He might never go down in history as President.  Instead he will always have an even higher status… that of Super Statesman.  He is honest. He is moral.  He is uncorruptable. He cannot be bought.  That is more than we can say about those we vote for and elect.

ROSEMARIE JACKOWSKI

Rosemarie Jackowski is an Advocacy Journalist, Peace Advocate, and author of BANNED IN VERMONT.

dissent@sover.net

 

15 thoughts on “Exposing the Real Ralph Nader

  1. …but this:

    “A more polite answer would be, if the voters were capable of critical thinking NADER would win any election with a land slide.  Holding any candidate responsible for the actions of voters is fuzzy thinking.”

    Not sure that’s so polite, or a constructive way to get more votes for Nader or any candidate.  Smacks of just another kind of elitism akin to Romney’s 47% remarks: “I would win, but voters are too stupid” is counterproductive.

  2. As someone who has repeatedly poked fun at Ralph Nader and his supporters over the years, I have to say that here I wholeheartedly agree with Rosemarie’s analysis.

    Nader is an example of how Dems should address issues–Define the ENEMY, and attack the ENEMY!  Don’t sugarcoat it, or count on people like Obama and Sanders to do anything except talk.  Don’t suck up to, or give a pass to, a Rich Republican type (Shumlin) who wears a Dem hat. (There are so many Shumlins in the Dem Party nationwide, and all of them hate what Nader says and does.)  Don’t take your eyes off the ENEMY when a candidate says he/she is so much better than the alternative.  This is why we have the NSA scandal.  And if we wind up with a shithead Republican like Romney or Bush in 2017, it’s not Nader’s fault–IT’S OURS!

    Gee, how easy to blame the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the rip-offs by the Rich and Wall St., the loss of our civil liberties on that fucking Ralph Nader.  Yeah, the guy who spooked us about cars in the sixties.  Fucking Ralph, you made us all afraid of getting creamed while we were making out in the backseat.  That’s Un-American, Ralph.  Yeah, that’s what Ralph is: A trouble making Un-American.

    Duh…

    Here’s one for you, Rosemarie: Ralph Nader at Munich in 1938 instead of Neville Chamberlain.  Yes, that’s right, Little Dems–You DON’T COMPROMISE WITH THE ENEMY!  

  3. Yes, ducks and butterflies, or the lack thereof.  I noticed last spring/summer and now, this year, that there are no more ducks in the river in downtown Montpelier.  Same with monarch and other colorful butterflies.  Where are they?  Not to put Nader down, but I’m wondering today, because I just wrote a poem about it, how things would be today if Gore won in 2000?  2001 would have been the time to start serious action on Global Warming, and maybe Al would have done it.  I can’t remember how he campaigned on the issue.  All I remember is the crap about ‘moral values’ from Bush.  BUT, I do remember in 1999 going to a forum on Global Warming (not really a hot issue back then) and hearing the ‘expert’ say something to the effect that we only had about a dozen years before Global Warming became irreversible.  That would make it a 2011 deadline.

    So, perhaps we would have a different world now–not GREAT–but not as bad.  And another thing, stardust and rosemarie–although I wore a Nader button, I voted for Gore.  It would have been silly to cast a petulant vote with what was at stake back then.  Sorry, Rosemarie, but it’s true–when I vote against, I usually mark off a Dem.  I just hope Obama doesn’t hand over to Hillary a bunch of big negatives in 2016, like Bill burdened Gore with Monica and blow jobs.  We shall see.

    Where are the friggin’ ducks and butterflies?

Comments are closed.