SOMETIMES we mean what we say. Other times we say things only for the reaction they cause. When the Ralph Nader campaign attempts to portray the two major parties as one and the same, it does not really mean it. Instead, it seeks to provoke less-than-knowledgeable voters into believing this gross exaggeration.
No one should question Ralph Nader's commitment to the public good. Since the late 1960s, he has worked on behalf of consumers to make corporations behave more appropriately with the public in mind. He visited the University on Sunday to speak about his campaign and his vision for America. He addressed several topics of interest to students, notably the role of universities in American life and the merits of the war on drugs. His views on all these issues are perfectly valid, respectable points. But when Nader dares to blot out the differences between the two major candidates, he commits a major error and makes a reckless lie. It is fine for him to disagree with the two major parties, but when he does, he needs to tell the truth.
|
While his numbers in the national polls have dropped compared to their peak earlier in the summer, he stays on message and has developed a small but loyal national following, particularly among college students.
The problem is that Nader inspired much of this following with the annoying and often inaccurate refrain that "both parties are the same" or that "they have sold out to multinational corporations." On his Web site (www.votenader.org) he claims that "the two parties are converging more and more into a huge, vested-interest money pot and are turning their backs on very important needs of the people."
The parties are not the same. On most issues they are not even close. Certainly, on some issues the parties have a lot in common. Both major party nominees support free trade, for example. That does not mean they have "sold out." Both parties take that position because they, unlike Nader's side, recognize that free trade is good for our country. And while free trade is the only overwhelmingly important issue that both parties agree on, Nader has seized on it as a symbol of the lack of any difference between the two parties.
He could not be more mistaken.
One could spend all day outlining and poring over the fundamental differences between the two parties. It is more productive to highlight the differences between the parties on a few issues where Nader places a special emphasis.
Campaign Finance Reform
Nader gives the question of corporate money in politics the highest priority, or at least that is the impression one gets from hearing him speak. Of the two major party candidates, Vice President Al Gore is the only one who will eliminate soft money from American politics.
But it is shortsighted to criticize him for accepting soft money while pledging to ban it. It is unfair to ask him to unilaterally disarm in this race, particularly in the face of a money-raising machine like Bush. Nader is aware of this, yet chooses to ignore it.
Health care
On his Web site, Nader highlights the fact that "the United States was ranked 37th among nations in the world regarding the quality of health care it provides its people. This is not only embarrassing but also unacceptable." He's right. But he neglects to mention that Al Gore is the only candidate that supports a legitimate, functional Patients' Bill of Rights.
He also fails to mention that Vice President Gore is the only candidate who would protect the life of Medicare for when our parents' generation retires, so that you and I do not have to shoulder an even heavier burden 15 years from now and beyond.
Environmental Protection
As far as environmental protection goes, Texas is little better than an underdeveloped country. Houston now has the worst air quality in America, surpassing even L.A.'s infamous smog. Does Mr. Nader honestly believe there is no difference between electing two former oil executives (Bush and Dick Cheney) and a vice president who has a strong 25-year record on environmental protection? Of course he doesn't - Ralph Nader is far too intelligent to think that there is no difference. Yet he continues to make that insinuation because it benefits him politically, inaccurate as it is.
Nader has many valid things to say, even if one disagrees with them. But he should know better than to recklessly imply that both parties are the same. He knows very well they are not. His views about the other candidates are welcome. But when he shares them, he needs to tell the truth.
(Timothy DuBoff's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily.)
Read More
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 3 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 5 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | April 25, 2024Instead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
