OPINION & EDITORIAL
Candidates spew monotone rhetoric in absence of much-needed Nader
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Chris Dols:
- Scapegoating immigrants (April 15, 2005)
- Protest far from treasonous (April 20, 2005)
- Socialism needed for egalitarianism (April 28, 2005)
- Help for hurricane victims stuck in Iraq (September 15, 2005)
- Flaws in Beckstrom argument again (October 14, 2005)
Related Stories:
- Responsibility for voting on students (October 29, 2004)
- There may be no winners, but Kerry came out on top of Bush (October 4, 2004)
- Debates full of 'strategory' (September 27, 2004)
- Kerry, Bush fail the public; Nader best choice Tuesday (October 28, 2004)
- Kerry reveals very little in Show Me State (October 11, 2004)
by Chris Dols
Monday, October 4, 2004
As Ralph Nader predicted, Thursday night's show was more of a joint press conference than a debate. Jim Lehrer can pick at rhetorical differences between Bush and Kerry for 90 minutes or 90 days. Either way, it is what they share, not where they differ, that was so evident in Thursday's "debate." Kerry made it crystal clear that whatever criticisms he has voiced about the war, he is not for pulling out of Iraq. If anything, Kerry previewed himself as the smarter, stronger occupier of Iraq. Further, am I the only one who noticed Kerry's warning shots for North Korea as unilateral alternatives to Bush's multilateral approach? Or how about Kerry's promise to double the size of the American Special Forces? Ask Haitians what they think of the US Special Forces. Maybe after hearing, Madison's Kerry supporters would take off those "Real Deal" stickers.
The point is that Bush and Kerry agree on the 'what' and the 'why' — especially when it comes to U.S. foreign policy. Debates over how and when aren't what we need. It is the 'what' (i.e. the doctrine of preemption, occupation and militarism) that has killed over a thousand Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, thousands of Afghanis, tens of thousands of Iraqis and, yes, American foreign policy is to blame for the 3,000 dead on Sept. 11. The 'evil-doers' don't hate our freedom, they hate our leaders' back-stabbing foreign policy, and found an abhorrent way of making a point of it. Neither Bush nor Kerry want to pull out of Iraq, and thus are for condemning tens of thousands more to their death.
After considering this, it becomes quite evident why Bush and Kerry's handlers who staged Thursday's "debate" don't want Ralph Nader to take part. While over half of the country wants to see Ralph in the debates, Bush and Kerry know that keeping Nader marginalized takes priority over giving the real issues a hearing. The primary reason that the two-party corporate duopoly, as Ralph likes to call it, works for the American ruling class is that no left-wing challenge can emerge. And that's what make's Ralph's populist message so important.
If Ralph were in the debates, the two pro-war candidates would have been shamed in front of millions. Who else would bring up the racist witch-hunt of Arabs and Muslims that has paralleled this War on Terror? Who is bringing up the billions of tax-dollars funneled into Lockheed Martin and Halliburton (just to mention two contributors to the Kerry campaign) that could otherwise be spent on education, jobs, and health care? I do understand that this first debate was to focus exclusively on foreign policy, but this upholds precisely the false divisions that Bush and Kerry wish to maintain between America abroad and domestically. Over 60,000 Americans die each year from occupational disease and work-related injuries. To talk about keeping America safe, you have to talk about this. The more money we spend on the military, the less can go towards upholding workers' rights, providing affordable education and the kind of single-payer health care that Ralph Nader calls for.
Lastly, as proof that Kerry is more of a supplement than an opposition to Bush, why weren't the words "torture" or "Abu Ghraib" mentioned in this "debate?" Abu Ghraib is perhaps the most damning evidence of this occupation's illegality, immorality and its leaders' incompetence. Why no mention? Kerry fundamentally agrees that what the United States is doing in Iraq is worth the torture, the death and the ruin of Iraqi society. He doesn't say he wouldn't do it, he just says he can do it better … and that's a scary prospect.
Chris Dols (cdols@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in civil engineering.
Anonymous (October 3, 2004 @ 10:57pm):
"Who is bringing up the billions of tax-dollars funneled into Lockheed Martin and Halliburton that could otherwise be spent on education, jobs, and health care? " Actually, Kerry did.
I agree that Bush and Kerry were too similar in this debate, but there were still important differences that emerged (at least the American public thinks so). Remember, though, that foreign policy is the area where the two have the most in common. I think we'll see much larger differences in the next two debates - on minimum wage, healthcare, education, the death penalty, writing discrimination into the constitution, campaign finance reform, gun control, abortion rights, jobs issues, taxes, etc.
Anonymous (October 4, 2004 @ 3:19am):
Excuse me, but how exactly would Nader plan to pull out of Iraq? The entire country would certainly fall into chaos within days, if not hours. We broke it, now we gotta fix it, like it or not.
Anonymous (October 4, 2004 @ 9:13am):
Contrary to most Naderites' and some Democrats' beliefs, there ARE Republicans out there that are honest, fair, hardworking, and have the needs of the American public in mind. And contrary to said Naderites' beliefs and monotone rhetoric (incessant complaining IS monotonic, isn't it?), Democrats and Republicans DO have different ideas, views, and opinions. Norm Coleman and the late Paul Wellstone. Ann Richards and George W. Bush. Even Russ Feingold and John McCain have fundamental political differences. The sheer fact that they don't try to knock each other's heads off is not a sign that they agree on everything.
Nader and his followers have ideas that are different from most politicians, yes. However, those ideas are also different from most American PEOPLE. THAT'S why we see votes for Nader as wasted votes, because he's not on par with the majority of Americans, and will therefore not get elected. It's standard game theory.
*chuckle*
Just ask a business student. Honest. They don't bite.
-William Northend
Anonymous (October 4, 2004 @ 10:26am):
"Contrary to most Naderites' and some Democrats' beliefs, there ARE Republicans out there that are honest, fair, hardworking, and have the needs of the American public in mind."
That's true. They're called "Republicans for John Kerry."
Anonymous (October 4, 2004 @ 12:50pm):
I'm not going to claim to have read your entire article, it got boring, but here's the deal. We have a two-party system. Sorry. It's not going to change any time soon. This election is a "lesser of two evils" contest. Ralph Nader will never be elected president. However, all the wide-eyed, unwashed, Mifflin Street Co-op Shopping Greenie Crazies, can't seem to believe that. In their adorably stupid "I Can Make a Difference!" idealist world, Nader would be elected President, and there would be peace and love. Everyone wants peace and love, but it's not ever going to be a reality... The bottom line? A vote for Nader is equivalent to a vote for Bush. A vote for Kerry is, at least, NOT a vote for Bush. Anyone voting for Nader may as well stay home, drinking Organic Soy milk, and plotting to overturn "Corporate America." At least if Kerry is in office, we can begin to restore foreign relations, which will be crucial in re-forming bonds with other countries, and we can work on repairing the environment (aka Kyoto Treaty), and advance stem-cell research.
Anonymous (October 4, 2004 @ 1:45pm):
To 2nd posting.
You are judging Nader's plans, have you listened to him, don't you think he had all the rihgt to be on the debate, I mean, don't you think you had the right to have Nader on the debate. Nader is not losing much, it's your right to pluralism and freedom fo choice being violated.
I like your commitement to fixing Iraq, However. I just do not think either Bush or Kerry have that intention, keeoing troops there is different that fixing the country.
Anonymous (October 4, 2004 @ 2:40pm):
to the person who posted: "We have a two-party system. Sorry. It's not going to change any time soon."
third party candidates don't run with the sole intention of winning the presidency. they run to put certain issues on the table that wouldn't otherwise be there. this is a GOOD thing, and this article is absolutely right in pointing out that we'd all be better off had nader debated.
on another note, i actually agree that electing kerry is a step (small though it may be) in advancing CERTAIN issues like stem-cell research and the environment. but your ad-hominem attacks and bitter, wild-eyed ranting aren't going to convince anyone of your point.
Anonymous (October 4, 2004 @ 11:20pm):
Kerry brought up the fact that we are spending money on military that could be spent on education and jobs? Really? Was that the part of the debate where he called for expanding our military?
