Is Ralph Nader a "good guy"?

[RCA]

I saw him on Bill Maher this past Friday and he came across as an honest person. Am I missing something?

[CurtisLow]

I saw him on PBS tv and he was taking about how bad our country is doing and in the two hours he was talking, he never once talked about Dr. Paul. Just how everyone in our government is so corrupt.

I voted for him some time ago, he seems to be for the people.

[Richard in Austin]

Somebody out claims Nader has a dark side:

http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm

I wouldn't know, myself. But I don't instinctively trust him like I trust Ron Paul. YMMV.

[m4ff3w]

I will never forgive Nadar for "Unsafe at any speed."

[McDermit]

I supported him some years ago, but never looked into his record or positions much. And as R in A said, I don't trust him like I do RP. There's a gut feeling with RP that isn't there with any other politician.

[Kregener]

He is, and always has been, a socialist bliss-ninny.

[nayjevin]

yup, i saw him on c-span -- sounded like an RP running mate, at times -- but leans more socialist on some issues. he's more liberal than my comfort zone, but he sealed it for me by not mentioning ron paul ONCE with several intuitive times to do so. that's inexcusable in my book.

[Richie]

Although he has done some good, Nader is a socialist. It would be REALLY interesting to have him as President (granted - we had a Congress that kept him under control), but I think I'll pass.

[susano]

He is anti globalism and corporatocracy. I believe if you put Ron Paul and him in a closed room for a few hours, we'd have running mates.

'Corporate Socialism'


By Ralph Nader

Thursday, July 18, 2002; Page A29


The relentless expansion of corporate control over our political economy has proven nearly immune to daily reporting by the mainstream media. Corporate crime, fraud and abuse have become like the weather; everyone is talking about the storm but no one seems able to do anything about it. This is largely because expected accountability mechanisms -- including boards of directors, outside accounting and law firms, bankers and brokers, state and federal regulatory agencies and legislatures -- are inert or complicit.

When, year after year, the established corporate watchdogs receive their profits or compensation directly or indirectly from the companies they are supposed to be watching, independent judgment fails, corruption increases and conflicts of interest grow among major CEOs and their cliques. Over time, these institutions, unwilling to reform themselves, strive to transfer the costs of their misdeeds and recklessness onto the larger citizenry. In so doing, big business is in the process of destroying the very capitalism that has provided it with a formidable ideological cover.

Consider the following assumptions of a capitalistic system:

1) Owners are supposed to control what they own. For a century, big business has split ownership (shareholders) from control, which is in the hands of the officers of the corporation and its rubber-stamp board of directors. Investors have been disenfranchised and told to sell their shares if they don't like the way management is running their business. Nowadays, with crooked accounting, inflated profits and self-dealing, it has proven difficult for even large investors to know the truth about their officious managers.

2) Under capitalism, businesses are supposed to sink or swim, which is still very true for small business. But larger industries and companies often have become "too big to fail" and demand that Uncle Sam serve as their all-purpose protector, providing a variety of public guarantees and emergency bailouts. Yes, some wildly looted companies that are expendable, such as Enron, cannot avail themselves of governmental salvation and do go bankrupt or are bought. By and large, however, in industry after industry where two or three companies dominate or presage a domino effect, Washington becomes their backstop.

3) Capitalism is supposed to exhibit a consensual freedom of contract -- a distinct advance over a feudal society. Yet the great majority of contracts for credit, insurance, software, housing, health, employment, products, repairs and other services are standard-form, printed contracts, presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Going across the proverbial street to a competitor gets you the same contract. Every decade, these "contracts of adhesion," as the lawyers call them, become more intrusive and more insistent on taking away the buyers' constitutional rights to access to courts in favor of binding arbitration or stipulate outright surrender of basic rights and remedies. The courts are of little help in invalidating these impositions by what are essentially private corporate legislatures regulating millions of Americans.

4) Capitalism requires a framework of law and order: The rules of the economic game are to be conceived and enforced on the merits against mayhem, fraud, deception and predatory practices. Easily the most powerful influence over most government departments and agencies are the industries that receive the privileges and immunities, regulatory passes, exemptions, deductions and varied escapes from responsibility that regularly fill the business pages. Only those caught in positions of extreme dereliction ever have reason to expect more than a slap on the wrist for violating legal mandates.

5) Capitalist enterprises are expected to compete on an even playing field. Corporate lobbyists, starting with their abundant cash for political campaigns, have developed a "corporate state" where government lavishes subsidies, inflated contracts, guarantees and research and development and natural resources giveaways on big business -- while denying comparable benefits to individuals and family businesses. We have a government of big business, by big business and for big business, even if more of these businesses are nominally moving their state charters to Bermuda-like tax escapes.

"Corporate socialism" -- the privatization of profit and the socialization of risks and misconduct -- is displacing capitalist canons. This condition prevents an adaptable capitalism, served by equal justice under law, from delivering higher standards of living and enlarging its absorptive capacity for broader community and environmental values. Civic and political movements must call for a decent separation of corporation and state.

In 1938, in the midst of the Great Depression, Congress created the Temporary National Economic Committee to hold hearings around the country, recommend ways to deal with the concentration of economic power and promote a more just economy. World War II stopped this corporate reform momentum. We should not have to wait for a further deterioration from today's gross inequalities of wealth and income to launch a similar commission on the rampant corporatization of our country. At stake is whether civic values of our democratic society will prevail over invasive commercial values.

Ralph Nader is the founder of Public Citizen.

http://www.essential.org/features/corporatesocialism.html

[PennCustom4RP]

I will never forgive Nadar for "Unsafe at any speed."

Why, this prolonged the life of the Corvair by 4 years, GM was ready to scrap the model, but couldnt because Nader wrote that book, and didnt want to appear that he was correct. The 66-69 cars were great.

An excellent Corvair website

http://www.corvaircorsa.com/index.html
Corvair Corsa

[hard@work]

Somebody out claims Nader has a dark side:

http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm

I wouldn't know, myself. But I don't instinctively trust him like I trust Ron Paul. YMMV.

I could have written all of that myself. There's nothing there really. Paper money.

:)

[huchahucha]

As mentioned before, Nader is more than somewhat "anti-business", as he advocates over regulating just about everything. I read one of his books (I think it was The Good Fight) where he put up his defense on why it was perfectly justifiable for a McDonalds customer to sue the company for an obscene amount of money because she spilled hot coffee on herself - claims the coffee was hotter than any sensible person would expect.

As a politician I think he is a good guy, because if nothing else he is rocking the boat, trying to shake up the system. He is also the perfect model of why RP cannot run on a third party ticket. In the last Presidential election he ran as an Independent and was perceived as a threat to John Kerry. Depending on the state, a third party candidate has to get a petition with so many names before that candidate can get on the state ballot. Nader would go out and get the names on his petition, then the Kerry campaign would sue to contest the petition. The end result was the Nader campaign was tied up in court for the entire election.

As for RP and Nader being running mates, I think that is like trying to mix oil and water. (if you don't know, oil and water don't mix well at all - just makes a big mess)

[sunny]

I saw him on Bill Maher this past Friday and he came across as an honest person. Am I missing something?

not really.......he's blatantly socialist........lotsa government!

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

He's a socialist anti-capitalist scumbag who wants to tell everyone how to run their lives.

He's run as a "Green", which basically means he believes in the global warming myth.

I'd just assume Ron Paul have nothing to do with this cretin.

[Omnis]

He wants to control people through legislation.

Ron Paul has said that Ralph would be best in the private sector. I agree with this. He should focus his energy on promoting consumer groups instead of hijacking government.

[mport1]

I saw him on Bill Maher this past Friday and he came across as an honest person. Am I missing something?

He might be a nice person, but he is a socialist.

[max]

He might be a nice person, but he is a socialist.

I believe he is sincere but very misguided on economics.

On the issues of foreign poilcy and Israeli influence...He is dead on...but if he were president, we'd have peace...but no prosperity because he is a socilaist.

[Bossobass]

I suspect anyone who gets his start from a huge out of court settlement from General Motors. (Ross Perot, whom I met and discussed this very thing with is another who immediately comes to mind)

I believe Nader is a paid smoke screen to assure the American public that consumer protection is alive and well, even though we with half a brain know that that is untrue.

The main reason I object to Nader is that he has never made a single attempt to pass the torch. It's always about him, and only him. He has no proteges, he is mentor to no one, in all his years of consumerism. Anyone who has ever worked under him has verified his dictatorial approach to management of his various causes. Only he is allowed to select the targets, and the targets are exposed in only the fashion he dictates.

It's just my opinion from many years of observation of the Nader thing, so take it for what it's worth and with a grain of salt.

Bosso

[VIDEODROME]

I think Nader is sincere in his views and he's not running for office just for the sake of gaining power. He sees corruption and waste and wants to stop it. I voted for him in 2000 because he appealed to me more then Bush or Gore. (No he didn't steal my vote :p).

Politically I'd say he is fairly close to Dennis Kucinich. Sure both are socialist, but I do think they might offer change and less corruption. I figure under Hillary for example we would just have a lot of tax and waste, but under Nader or perhaps Kucinich we would at least get something for our money.

Basically I think that under Nader or Kucinich we would just become more like Canada.

As for Nader as a person though he does have a few flaws. I think he is a driven workaholic. I also sometimes think his political direction is flawed because he has never run for a lower office that I'm aware of. Another thing is for Nader it isn't just about justice anymore. I think for him he has a grudge against the government. It's become personal for him.

[Maverick]

As mentioned before, Nader is more than somewhat "anti-business", as he advocates over regulating just about everything. I read one of his books (I think it was The Good Fight) where he put up his defense on why it was perfectly justifiable for a McDonalds customer to sue the company for an obscene amount of money because she spilled hot coffee on herself - claims the coffee was hotter than any sensible person would expect.


Well...that may be because the lawsuit actually was legit. I found out not that long ago that the case was hardly as frivolous as the media made it out to be. McDonald's knew damn well that they should've been holding the coffee at temperatures of about 120-130 degrees, but they make it a point to tell all of their stores to keep the coffee somewhere around 180. At that temperature, it's quite possible to cause 3rd degree burns. Which it did in this case. The woman had to have skin grafts and all that; bad stuff.

Basically, it was just overblown and seriously misrepresented by the media as some kind of frivolous lawsuit so they could pass off this "tort reform" crap on us. Which means that when you or I have a legitimate beef with some company, it would be even harder for us to make a case.