Nader On The Run

Ralph Nader has announced his campaign President as an independent. In 2000 and 2004 I supported Nader’s run for the presidency. By 2000, progressives tiring of the Clinton triangulation and reactionary policies, wanted to send a message and looked like the possibility of the growth of a third party as alternatives to the Democrats. To the “horror” of these “progressives” George W. Bush was anointed the presidency. The result was a backlash by “progressives” against Nader and third parties in general. By 2004, “progressives” demobilized the burgeoning anti-war movement against the War in Iran and discourage support behind Ralph Nader’s anti-war movement using the “spoiler” canard in order to back the pro-war Democrat, John Kerry.

The ridicule and vitriol directed towards Nader by “progressives” reveals their hypocrisy. Celebrity “leftist” such as Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky supported the so-called “Anybody But Bush/Safe State” strategy in 2004. This strategy essentially states that if you live in a “blue” state it’s OK to vote for Nader. However if you live in a “swing” state to vote for John Kerry. The result of that strategy was the re-election of Bush.

The failure of “progressives” to mobilize against the Iraq War and to put forward a policy front left opened a void now being filled by Illinois Senator Barack Obama. Obama inspiring rhetoric is rich with abstractions. Unfortunately Obama’s specifics are very centrist and does not go far enough. His health care maintains the current profit-based private insures and avoid single-payer Medicare-for-all. While Obama has mentions drawing down U.S. presence in Iraq, he has suggested increasing the military. Military spending consumes over 50% of the operating budget and the U.S. spends more on the military than the combined spending of all nations. With the weaken economic condition, reducing military spending and directing it to social and infrastructure spending will stimulate the economy and improve economic conditions. Essentially Obama policies are slightly to the left of Hillary Clinton and doesn’t go far enough to impact real progressive change.

With Nader in the race, those issues will get address and his position, voice, and inspiration are what we deadbeats need.

“War” is the “Economy”

The race for the Presidency, especially on the Democratic side, has generated a lot of interest. The conventional wisdom assumed that Hillary Clinton would cakewalk to the nomination by Super Tuesday. Barack Obama insurgency campaign clearly upset that notion and has extended the length of primaries and the net effect has increased public interest in politics this election cycle.

However when listening to the mainstream media and especially the questions posted by the “debate” moderators do you ever wonder why when the topic of the “economy” is raise why the spending on the War In Iraq and military spending generally is never posed as an economic issue. For example, the Friday February 29th edition of Democracy Now, featured Joseph Stiglitz, the 2001 Nobel Prize winner of Economics and co-author of the new book The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict. His book conservatively estimates that the War in Iraq has conservatively cost the U.S. $3,000,000,000,000.00 ($3 trillon). So why haven’t the talking heads and pundits address the war as an economic issue?

Not only does the War In Iraq need to end but a reassessment of all military expenditure. From an economic standpoint, military spending is extremely wasteful because it offers has no multiplier effect. A bomb or a tank or a warship, for example, offer has no use value that adds to the overall economy unlike a road, bridge, schools or levies.

For years, military spending is the “third rail” of politics and has distorted the dialog. “Spending” has come to mean social spending and “entitlements” which both parties want to cut. However over 50% of the federal budget is dedicated to military spending and it has been estimated that 80% of the debt is the result of past and present military spending.

It is clear that “war” is the “economy” and has retarded the nation of its progressive potential and in the process turning us into a nation of deadbeats.