So left he's almost right: Nader Goes Around the Bend!

[presence]

Ralph Nader, the legendary anti-corporate crusader, is the father of many regulations and even more nonprofit advocacy groups. How odd that this liberal hero has authored a book that lavishes praise on right-wing stalwart Pat Buchanan and approvingly cites Grover Norquist, George F. Will, and the Cato Institute.
In Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State, Nader lays out an agenda to bring together conservatives, libertarians, and liberals in the battle against corporate welfare, rampant surveillance, and the military-industrial complex.


http://reason.com/archives/2014/06/29/nader-goes-around-the-bend


Auditing the Defense Department, curbing corporate welfare, reforming taxes, and breaking up "too big to fail" banks-all of these could certainly find cross-ideological agreement.



He wants to give taxpayers standing to sue in courts, "push community self-reliance," "defend and extend civil liberties," and rein in presidential war powers.

Unstoppable accurately diagnoses some of the venality of today's politics, including corruption on the right. Nader winningly groups problems under the labels of "corporatism" and "corporate/statism." He praises principled conservatives and libertarians, and points out how "conservatism" is often abused and twisted to serve the powerful. "The corporatist Republicans let the libertarians and conservatives have the paper platforms," but then they "throw out a welcome mat for Big Business lobbyists with their slush funds who are anything but libertarian or conservative in their demands."


This sort of conservatism often trumps other conservative values, such as free markets, limited government, or the humility to eschew central planning. It's the kind of conservatism that championed, for example, the 2008 Wall Street bailouts. The financial industry's giant institutions were revered as accomplishments of capitalism and engines of growth, rather than being correctly pegged as government dependents.

more (including criticism) at source

[Natural Citizen]

I think Reason is complete garbage.

[presence]

I think Reason is complete garbage.

I feel the same way about the NY Times that doesn't mean its not a noteworthy starting point for discourse on liberty

[Natural Citizen]

I feel the same way about the NY Times that doesn't mean its not a noteworthy starting point for discourse on liberty

Could be it's just the half-wits that make up their user/reader base that annoy me. Of course, Reason and it's authors are surely aware of the disconnect to reality that comes with their target demograph and I can even excuse mouthing off a shortsighted opinions over the internet based upon what is likely ignorance or simply just being mis/disinformed in the first place. I think the folks over at Reason seek to cash in on ignorance and even attempt to further mislead their readers because of these shortcomings. It's really just an extension of the left-right paradigm. So many times I've felt like signing up over there just to mop the floor with the commentors who I would view to be operating as political agents provocateur. Whatever though. More power to them. Or less, such as the case may be.

[georgiaboy]

Ralph was recently interviewed at length on C-SPAN's "Q&A" show. The interview was primarily to discuss this book, but it covered his early life and career also.

I came away having new found respect for this guy.

Would love to see him and Ron Paul on a panel discussing solutions together.

Here's the link to the C-SPAN interview. http://www.c-span.org/video/?318980-1/qa-ralph-nader

[VIDEODROME]

He's an interesting guy and I did wind up voting for Nader in 2000.

[mczerone]

Liberty: solutions so obvious you can even arrive at them with 100% wrong presumptions.

[georgiaboy]

CATO hosted Nader to discuss this book.

Really interesting left/right discussion on attacking corporatism with tangible ideas.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?320183-1/book-discussion-unstoppable

[acptulsa]

He was right about the Corvair's rear suspension, too, imo.

He might be misguided, but he's not completely broken. He's right more than twice a day.

[Ronin Truth]

How does that work out? So Commie he's almost Fascist?

[VIDEODROME]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMWG1P0p0SA

[pessimist]

Ralph was recently interviewed at length on C-SPAN's "Q&A" show. The interview was primarily to discuss this book, but it covered his early life and career also.

I came away having new found respect for this guy.

Would love to see him and Ron Paul on a panel discussing solutions together.

Here's the link to the C-SPAN interview. http://www.c-span.org/video/?318980-1/qa-ralph-nader

i watched an interview of his a few years ago, and agreed with nearly every word he said, but then again i am not conservative or a right-winger.

i like how he rejects the democratic establishment, and doesn't kiss any ass. Nader is awesome. i think many conservative folks would be surprised at how much they'd be in agreement with him on many issues.

[amy31416]

I have only a few problems with Nader. What I do appreciate about him is that he has principles (some that I don't agree with), and that he's anti-establishment.

I'd rather have him for president over Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney.

[Uriah]

My first vote for president was for Nader. Nader to me is like Kucinich with differences of course. I admire and respect them both just as much as I do Ron Paul. Any one of these men in office would be infinitely better than what we've had for the last several decades as president.

[invisible]

The problem with guys like Nader and Kucinich is the same problem that you have with all honest liberals: they're very good at identifying what the real problems are, but their solutions are entirely wrong (usually bigger gov't / more regulation).

[invisible]

He was right about the Corvair's rear suspension, too, imo.

He might be misguided, but he's not completely broken. He's right more than twice a day.

What was supposedly wrong with the rear suspension? Someone loaned me a copy of UAAS about 15 years ago, and I don't remember anything he said about the suspension. Most of what I remember was his arguments about what would supposedly happen in a collision. That said, Corvairs were very cool cars! I almost bought a really sweet 1961. About 25 years ago, somebody had one who lived near my girlfriend at the time. Maroon with white interior, and the only things wrong with it were a little dent on the hood (looked like hail damage) about the size of a quarter, and there was an age crack in the vinyl dashboard cover. Otherwise it looked like it had just been driven off the showroom floor. I finally caught the guy parking it one day, and asked him if he'd sell it to me. He said he had bought it a year ago from some little old lady, and had just last week agreed to sell it to a friend for $700. Then, about a year later, I had another near miss, this time on a mint 1975 Norton 850 Commando (with the electric start) for $300....sigh.... I haven't seen any deals like those for a long, long time.

[acptulsa]

What was supposedly wrong with the rear suspension?

The short answer is swingarms, at least through 1964. Swingarm suspension on an automobile is not at all like the system of the same name on motorcycles. There is no CV joint between the half shaft and the wheel. So, during hard cornering, the centrifugal force acting on the car pushes on the center of the rear outside wheel, while the tire maintains traction at the bottom of the wheel. This tends to cause the rear wheel to change camber, because on a swingarm suspension it can change camber, which leads to the inside end of the half shaft literally lifting the rear of the car up in the same way a pole lifts a pole vaulter. And that, in turn, leads to enough positive camber to cause the outside rear tire to roll over off of its tread and onto its sidewall. It also narrows the rear track, and has an obvious effect on the center of gravity. All three of these things are immensely undesirable during hard cornering.

Live axles are considered less than ideal because the rear wheels are connected, so if one hits a bump in hard cornering the other could momentarily lose traction as well. But live axles keep their wheels perpendicular to the road, unlike swingarm systems, and cannot raise the car's center of gravity.

Other rear-engine cars of the era also used swingarm rear suspension, and Ford's Twin I-Beam introduced similar problems in a front suspension system, but none of them were offering primitive turbochargers and none of them were selling their cars (or, in Ford's case, trucks) as sporty, sweet-handling things. Chevrolet was making those claims about the Corvair.

Sorry it requires some technical knowledge to understand this post. If someone wants an explanation understandable by laymen, say so, and I will try harder to find some useful diagrams. Like I say, this really is the short explanation. If a few pictures can't be found, I fear the 'simple' explanation would run upward of three thousand words...

[CaptUSA]

The problem with guys like Nader and Kucinich is the same problem that you have with all honest liberals: they're very good at identifying what the real problems are, but their solutions are entirely wrong (usually bigger gov't / more regulation).

Exactly. They're honest enough to understand that government involvement causes problems, but then think the best way to fix them is to get the government more involved.

It's not that they see the problem with central planning; it's that they would like to be the ones to create the plan.

[mad cow]

The problem with guys like Nader and Kucinich is the same problem that you have with all honest liberals: they're very good at identifying what the real problems are, but their solutions are entirely wrong (usually bigger gov't / more regulation).

Exactly.Nader was nothing more than a big Government Statist.

Don't want a Corvair?Don't buy a Corvair.Yes,it is that simple.The free market will take care of design flaws,leave Big Brother Government out of it!

[georgiaboy]

yeah, if you listen to the CATO talk, there's one point (discussing third party ballot access & equal/fair treatment) at which Ralph decries the FEC and says it should be abolished and replaced with something better.

The libertarian/conservative on the panel - Tim Carney, Washington Examiner - jumped in to point out the clear difference between him and Nader: where Nader still looks to the regulators to 'get it right the next time', we know it's better to just eliminate the alphabet soup altogether.

Salient moment.


ETA - that Tim Carney guy seemed really astute, with realistic, Rand-esque ideas for how to begin chipping away at corporatism. I think he listed Ex/Im Bank, Ethanol, and Sugar as areas where new policy could get wide support from red blue.

[invisible]

The short answer is swingarms, at least through 1964.

Ah, ok. I thought they changed it earlier, after the first year or two of production, right after Porsche and VW made that improvement to their cars. So unfortunate that UAAS killed the Corvair, Americanizing the air cooled rear engine concept was ahead of it's time. Just think of what could have happened if the model had lasted another 5-10 years, into the muscle car era.

[acptulsa]

Ah, ok. I thought they changed it earlier, after the first year or two of production, right after Porsche and VW made that improvement to their cars. So unfortunate that UAAS killed the Corvair, Americanizing the air cooled rear engine concept was ahead of it's time. Just think of what could have happened if the model had lasted another 5-10 years, into the muscle car era.

It lasted through 1969, which was definitely the 'muscle car era'. And wonderful things did happen, though of course General Motors deserves none of the credit.

Years ago I was working at a gas station when one of the newer, much better looking, non-swingarm Corvair two door hardtops came in. It had no back seat; instead, there was a big box there covered in black vinyl to match the front seats and door panels. So, having my evil suspicions, I asked the guy what he had in that box.

A 327.

He opened the back deck and showed me the transaxle, which was mounted bass-ackwards, and the electric fan-equipped radiator mounted right in the airflow where the engine used to be. It was slickly done.

No, neither air cooling (which doesn't hold engine temperature constant enough for optimal combustion) nor turbocharging relatively small engines (torque is important in drag racing) ever meant much to the madcap mavens of muscle. But I'd gladly pit that man's Corvair against any street legal Corvette made before the turn of the millennium in pretty much any kind of race. Especially if the track had curves in it.

It remains to this day the only Chevrolet which ever made me drool.

[invisible]

Didn't know that, I thought the last model year for the Corvair was '65 or '66, and they killed it right before introducing the Camaro as a replacement. The mid engine 327 mod is an interesting one, never heard of anyone doing that before! Must have been a hell of a lot of work to shoehorn it in, figuring out how to configure the cooling system must have been a bitch. Would you really not drool over a sweet 1963-5 'Vette? Or a cherry '67 Camaro? Seriously?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Dirty heathen. Repent!

[acptulsa]

Would you really not drool over a sweet 1963-5 'Vette? Seriously?

A plastic body, a transverse leaf spring (a la the Model T), aerodynamics like a wing and known to decrease downforce at speed, notoriously weak driveshafts known to break at the front U-joint (talk about pole vaulting!)...

Seriously. Not a trace of spittle wasted there. Ever.

BTW, '65 (the restyle year) was the first year for the real independent rear suspension. Unfortunately, that was too late for the Pontiac Tempest--it had gone live axle by then.