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.
In 2000 and 2004, the Democrats beat themselves. The only campaign they ran in 2004 was one to silence Ralph Nader, the only anti-war Presidential candidate. Blaming Ralph is an easy substitute for lack of self-reflection.
1
February 01, 2007
Write comment
Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto:
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
