Ralph Nader and the Progressive Agenda
By H. Bruce Franklin
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Sunday 17 October 2004
It's certainly easy to understand why right-wing Republicans are eagerly bankrolling Ralph Nader's presidential campaign. It's much more difficult to comprehend how any progressive person can possibly support the Nader candidacy.
In "Nader Emerging as the Threat Democrats Feared," a front-page New York Times article on October 15, Nader is quoted as saying "We lose to win, eventually" in a fight that goes on "until the agenda is won." As part of this fight, he claims that his campaign is producing "great data" to use after the election to fight unfair ballot-access laws. He thus proves that of the three candidates for president, the one most out of touch with reality is Ralph Nader. An election victory for Bush will make it impossible to change unfair ballot-access laws and will block every part of a progressive agenda for many years to come. Why?
If George Bush is elected, he and his gang will have the official stamp of approval from the American people (perhaps with help from Diebold), a Republican Congress, legislation in place for a police state, a thoroughly compliant media, at least two upcoming vacancies on the Supreme Court, and an unhindered opportunity to pack the rest of the federal judiciary with fanatical right-wingers. That packed federal judiciary alone will be enough to prevent progress on any legal front. Environmental protection will be decimated, legal challenges to the tortures carried out daily in the hundreds of Abu Ghraibs in the American prison-industrial complex will be tossed out, basic Constitutional rights and liberties will be jettisoned, the disenfranchisement of poor people will accelerate, and there will be no legal way to prevent the right-wing forces in power to steal any election they choose, whether by electronic voting machines or more old-fashioned methods such as purging voter rolls or tossing out thousands of ballots.
To get some sense of what a packed right-wing federal judiciary can mean, consider just this one case. In 1985, Paul House was convicted of raping and murdering a neighbor. The only significant evidence against him was that the semen in the body of the victim, Carolyn Muncey, matched his blood type. House was sentenced to die. Subsequently, thanks to the development of DNA science, it was proven that the semen from the rape of Mrs. Muncey was that of her husband. In an appeal brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, six witnesses destroyed the rest of the prosecution case and brought forth persuasive evidence that Mr. Muncey was the murderer. Mr. Muncey, they testified, was an alcoholic who frequently beat his wife. Two witnesses said he had confessed to killing his wife while drunk. A third witness testified that Mr. Muncey had asked her to supply him with an alibi for the murder. Of the fifteen judges, seven had been appointed by Democrats. Six of those decided that the new evidence clearly established that Mr. House was innocent, and the seventh came out for a new trial. All eight judges appointed by Republicans upheld not only the conviction but also the death sentence. Four of these judges were appointed by George W. Bush. Mr. House is now scheduled to die.
So, Ralph, would you now like to go before the Sixth Circuit to argue about unfair ballot-access laws? Or environmental protection? Or the rights of prisoners? Or corporate malfeasance? Or Constitutional liberties?
The door toward a progressive agenda may be about to close. The only way to get a foot in that door is to get George Bush out of the White House. And the only legal way to do that is to elect John Kerry. And, by the way, George Bush is right about one thing: John Kerry is indeed a liberal, with a 92% score from Americans for Democratic Action.
Of course it's true that a President Kerry would not willingly bring a speedy end to the Iraq War. But at least we would have a fighting chance to force him to give up that imperial venture.
-------
Jump to TO Features for Sunday October 17, 2004
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Print This Story
E-mail This Story