You are hereForums / Daybreak by David Swanson / Forming A More Perfect Union / Ralph Nader on the G-20, Healthcare Reform, Mideast Talks and His First Work of Fiction, “Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!
Ralph Nader on the G-20, Healthcare Reform, Mideast Talks and His First Work of Fiction, “Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!
Ralph Nader on the G-20, Healthcare Reform, Mideast Talks and His First Work of Fiction, “Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!”
As the United States prepares to host the Group of Twenty nations summit in Pittsburgh later this week, we speak with longtime consumer advocate, corporate critic, author and presidential candidate Ralph Nader. Nader discusses Congress’s failure to pass any meaningful financial reform on Wall Street over the past year and critiques Obama’s healthcare reform proposal. Ralph Nader also talks about his first work of fiction, “Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!” Nader describes the book in terms of a practical utopia, a fictional vision that could become a new reality. [includes rush transcript]
- Login to post comments
-
- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version
Nader was dismissive of demonstrations at the summit, and how the demos didn't stop the attack/invasion/occupation of Iraq. (Which Chomsky calls the "democracy gap", an apt point.)
Yet he was suggesting massive organizing campaigns, true, he
was talking about changing Congress.
Mostly, what bothered me was his very idea could be used, and has been used (in slightly altered forms) by a fascist consortium of rich and/or corporations: picture parades, speeches, small organizing groups of youth...sound familiar?
Was used in Germany some decades ago. Nader didn't acknowledge that use in not distant past. Has been used in different form here by Rwing - I'm thinking Bund and more recent organizing. (Chomsky recently said on DemNow that he
was concerned with possible far right ...I am not sure what
word to use..."successes",which is my word; can't recall Chomsky's word, in response to where the country is at now.
No doubt, to me, was that, he too was thinking of the 1930s.)
So organizing is not limited to the progressives. I wonder
how progressives fare in ratio/table of organizing tactics
and success compared to Rwing/fascist in history. Here
and other places.
Recently, I was aggressively approached by a guy running up
to me, me in wheelchair being pushed by spouse, shoving a pamphlet into my face, as I said, "Get away from me.". We
had been passing a Lyndon Larouche table, in Manhattan.
As the guy ran into my face, really making me angry -in my face, in my space, in front of me; I noticed the pamphlet
had a picture of Obama with a Hitler mustache. That made me
yell "I hate Larouche". At least the ambiguity the Larouche
table-sitters try to use to deceive is removed.
Note: I am very critical of Obama, but the far Right is scary to me, a Progressive and Jew.
I'm especially intrigued by your encounter with some of the more ardent followers of Lyndon LaRouche, who's been making quite a splash in the media after being labeled as a "right-wing Anti-Semite", among other epithets, for the last thirty plus years or so.
You mentioned that a LaRouche supporter ran up to you, and shoved a pamphlet in your face. After having dealt with several LaRouche supporters over the years, I can safely say that this is "standard operating procedure" for them, and their overly aggressive form of political approach is becoming more prevalent as the days go by, as the American people experience even greater degrees of psychological collapse due to very high levels of fear, anxiety, instability and insecurity.
What makes your encounter with the LaRouche supporter even more interesting is they're currently taking credit for the so-called "mass strike" phenomena which has manifested itself in recent weeks with angry constituents attending various and sundry "town hall" meetings", where they shout and scream, demanding action from Senators and Congressmen to stop the bank bailouts, and to stop Obama's alleged "death care reform".
It's unfortunate, but, to a certain degree, LaRouche's supporters are taking advantage of an American population -- which is already suffering from ever increasing levels of psychological distress -- and are, in a sense, playing upon the American population's fears and anxieties that the nation which many of them took for granted is now collapsing before their very eyes, and that the America which their children and grandchildren (whom they also took for granted) will be living in won't be the same nation which they're now existing in.
The American people's highly emotionalized (and manipulated) reactions to various events and occurrences has spurred them into taking political action, but that political action is being taken based upon wildly emotionalized fear, anxiety and deep insecurity, rather than sound reasoning and rational thinking.
And this is where we have a problem ... as long as LaRouche and his associates continue to agitate the population's fears and anxieties by extremely aggressive and emotionally manipulative tactics (that Obama Hitler mustache picture got a rise out of you, didn't it? That was their intent ...) which puts the emphasis on emotional reactions, instead of the rationality and clear, calm thinking which they claim to honor so much, we'll eventually see an American population pitted against each other as both the Far Right's and the Far Left's supporters go tooth and nail against their fellow citizens.
So, Nader is definitely correct on this issue. Political action based on pure emotionalism is a dangerous game, because not only are those in power not going to listen, they could decide to quash any mass protest through various means, many of which won't be pleasant.
Also, the result of all of this politically-based emotional manipulation will be a new "Civil War" which will be anything but civil, and could tear the nation apart, with potential repercussions which could last for decades to come. A new "Civil War" should be something we should want to avoid at all costs, and the best way to do it is not to allow ourselves to be emotionally manipulated and exploited by those political forces who have their own agenda.
I read your reply. I only know Manhatttan, some of - and
over the years, from time to time a Larouche table pops up
on the West Side of Manhattan, and is totally ignored. The
aggression was directed at me, a sitting target, in a wheelchair (frequently done by religious looking for converts;
who better than someone disabled by illness?).
The Larouche material always consists of tacky, badly written handmade
signs covering the table. (I'm an artist for over 40yrs.) The picture of Obama with a Hitler
mustache being given out by a Larouche table (never more than 2 people), was a surprise. I doubt there are many Larouchites
in NYC. Thanks for the comment.