June 30, 2000

Letters Editor

The New York Times

New York, NY

Subject: A letter to the editor re. “Mr. Nader’s Misguided Crusade ” - your June 30, 2000 editorial

Dear Sir,

I wish to thank you for finally dropping your “liberal” mask.  Now all of your readers see that when the New York Times editors preach “democracy,” they actually mean “plutocracy.”  That the Times’ “liberal” idea is not all that different from that of any communist dictator who also offered his people a choice - a red or a crimson star.  Or a bayonette in the rib cage.

In your June 30 editorial “Mr. Nader’s Misguided Crusade,” you say that, “Ralph Nader's… running for president… will distract voters from the clear-cut choice represented by the major party candidates, Vice President Al Gore and Gov. George W. Bush.”

Really?  A “clear-cut choice” - between a red and a crimson globalist stooge? 

Besides, what’s wrong with Nader pulling votes from Bush, if “W” is really all that different from the Times’ favorite candidate - Gore?   After all that’s how Clinton got elected - twice (!) - even though he never came close to getting 50% of the vote.  I don’t recall the Times decrying Ross Perot’s “spoiler” role in 1992 and 1996 when your favorite “liberal” candidate benefited from Perot’s pulling votes away from George Bush, Sr.

On the other hand, giving American people REAL choices beyond those dished out by the plutocratic “demo farce” is troubling you?  Because they might “distract voters?”  Distract from what?  From being dumbed-down by the Times’ editorials?

But what seems to be really troubling the Times is that not one, but two “spoiler candidates” may keep “distracting voters” in this election.

“We are equally reluctant to see the main election choices clouded by the spoiler candidacy of Patrick Buchanan on the Reform Party ticket, an effort that seems likely to pull votes from both Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush. …There is no driving logic for a third-party candidacy this year, and the public deserves to see the major party candidates compete on an uncluttered playing field,” the Times keeps railing.

“Uncluttered playing field?”  So that “Rocky’s Rockettes” may rock no matter what the American people think?  After all, there is no discernible difference between Algore and Dubya. 

And then, finally, the terrifying moment of truth; the moment the Times editors’ “liberal” masks fell to the ground… “The only realistic role he (Nader) can play this year is to tilt swing states like California in a conservative direction.”

So that’s what’s troubling you about Nader?  That he may be helping the “conservatives?”  Tisk, tisk… Lest you’ve forgotten, “demo” stands for “people.”  And “democracy” stands for the rule of the people.  Which contrasts the New York Times editors’ wishful “demo farce” played out “on an uncluttered playing field.”

This may come as a surprise to the Times, but this nation was not born at a Hollywood cocktail party.  It was born at a Boston Tea Party to which no filmmakers or bankers were invited.  After all, the latter owned the rotten tea…  The folks who gave birth to this “land of the free and of the brave” were “distracted voters.”  Very distracted…

I can see why totalitarian “liberals” may be also very distracted by that history lesson.

  Best regards,

Bob Djurdjevic, Founder, Truth in Media, Phoenix, Arizona

-------

 THE NEW YORK TIMES

      June 30, 2000

Mr. Nader's Misguided Crusade

 Ralph Nader's long history of public service championing the causes of consumers, the environment and economic justice automatically commands respect. But in running for president as the nominee of the Green Party, he is engaging in a self-indulgent exercise that will distract voters from the clear-cut choice represented by the major party candidates, Vice President Al Gore and Gov. George W. Bush. His candidacy will be especially harmful for Mr. Gore, the contender closest to Mr. Nader on the environment and other issues. This political reality casts doubt on Mr. Nader's claim to be driven by policy differences rather than ego.

 We are equally reluctant to see the main election choices clouded by the spoiler candidacy of Patrick Buchanan on the Reform Party ticket, an effort that seems likely to pull votes from both Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush. Of course, both Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Nader have the right to run. But given the major differences between the prospective Democratic and Republican nominees, there is no driving logic for a third-party candidacy this year, and the public deserves to see the major party candidates compete on an uncluttered playing field.

 It is especially distressing to see Mr. Nader flirt with the spoiler role. For years, few Americans have made a more cogent critique of the Washington influence game and the abuses of corporate power. From his early attacks on automobile safety records to his most recent advocacy of campaign finance reform, he has elevated issues and sharpened Americans' awareness of flaws in their political system. Mr. Nader acknowledges that on his traditional issues, Mr. Gore would promise more progress than Mr. Bush. But because he regards Mr. Gore as too much an incrementalist, Mr. Nader is saying in effect that he would choose outright defeat for the Democrats over small steps forward on those issues. That is a kind of irresponsibility that more befits a Ross Perot than someone with Mr. Nader's record and professed concerns.

 Mr. Nader may argue that he will force Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush to be more sensitive to election fund-raising reform and environmental issues. But the fact is that they have defined broad differences on these two issues without his help. The main economic issue that divides Mr. Nader from the major-party candidates is trade, and there, both Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush have positions that are better for the wage-earning voters that Mr. Nader claims to represent. For he and the Green Party are against all the recent trade agreements, including American membership in the World Trade Organization.

 Mr. Nader clearly expects to use the trade issue to win votes from disenchanted union members and other workers. But protectionism runs counter to much of what Mr. Nader has fought for over the years. Foreign competition has been a factor in forcing the automobile industry to become more productive, fuel-efficient and profitable. There are also far more American workers whose jobs depend on exports, and whose families are able to buy less expensive goods imported from overseas, than there are those dislocated by trade.

 No doubt the last seven years under Mr. Clinton have been trying for liberals. Mr. Nader's opposition to the death penalty, his scathing critique of Democratic Party fund-raising and his willingness to embrace unorthodox positions like the gasoline tax may all have the effect of enlivening the public debate. But the only realistic role he can play this year is to tilt swing states like California in a conservative direction.

 Such an outcome would be contrary to the policy thrust of his career and add an unbecoming chapter to his legacy as a conscience-driven crusader. 

Feedback: Home: Search:

Also, check out... TiM Letter to Mclean's Magazine, CIA and KLA Ties, His Disgrace, Artemije, How Gen. Clark Misled the World, Death on the Danube, Reverse Fascism, Racism of the New World Order,  Death of the City, Cavorting with the Enemy (Albright), Toward a New Multipolar World in the New Millennium, Stitching Together the New World Order Flag

Or Djurdjevic's WASHINGTON TIMES columns: "Chinese Dragon Wagging Macedonian Tail,"  "An Ugly Double Standard in Kosovo Conflict?", "NATO's Bullyboys", "Kosovo: Why Are We Involved?", and "Ginning Up Another Crisis"

Or Djurdjevic's NEW DAWN magazine columns: "Washington's Crisis Factory,"  and "A New Iron Curtain Over Europe"