NADER’S PHILOSOPHY HURTS DEMOCRACY

NADER’S PHILOSOPHY HURTS DEMOCRACY

1. “PUBLIC INTEREST” ADVOCACY UNDERMINES DEMOCRACY

Dan M. Burt, President of Capital Legal Foundation, ABUSE OF TRUST: A REPORT ON RALPH NADER’S NETWORK, 1982, p. 8.

“Public interest” advocacy has become one of the signs of our times. It embodies an inherent distrust of traditional political and social organizations to represent the public adequately and to wage the fight for the “common good.” “Public interest” groups seek an alternative means of influencing decision-making in both government and industry. This most often takes the form of intervention in the regulatory processes of the federal, state, and local governments. Testimony is often given on behalf of the “public interest” before congressional committees and federal regulatory panels. In some cases, the groups elect to fight the issues out before the courts.

Dan M. Burt, President of Capital Legal Foundation, ABUSE OF TRUST: A REPORT ON RALPH NADER’S NETWORK, 1982, p. 20

What is clear is that Mr. Nader and his network distrust the current political and economic system in the United States, and seek to change it. They do not put much faith in the democratic process that has been America’s unique tradition for the past 200 years—that is, the political votes we cast regularly at the ballot box, and the economic votes we make every day with our money at the cash register, at the bank, or in the investment markets. Our diverse, de-centralized political, economic, and social system, with its heavy reliance on individual choice, is not considered adequate to achieve the “public interest” or the “common good.”

NADER IS ELITIST AND TOTALITARIAN

1. NADER’S ADVOCACY TRANSFERS POWER FROM INDIVIDUALS TO ELITES CLAIMING TO SPEAK IN THE “PUBLIC INTEREST”

Dan M. Burt, President of Capital Legal Foundation, ABUSE OF TRUST: A REPORT ON RALPH NADER’S NETWORK, 1982, p. 20

Instead, Mr. Nader and his groups seek a greater politicization of life in America, where more decisions will be made by a few to affect the many. Government would have an especially large influence on the functioning of the economy and, in turn, on our daily lives. In this regard, a new elite of un-elected, professional “public interest” advocates would acquire a substantial amount of power to make decisions in both the private and public sectors. In sum, America would become a more centrally governed and less free, individualistic nation. “Public interest” advocates would become new power-brokers, and their ideology would have immense impact on political and economic activities and society as a whole. Ralph Nader seeks nothing less than a transfer of power in America, away from the individual and into the hands of the government and “public interest” groups.”

Dan M. Burt, President of Capital Legal Foundation, ABUSE OF TRUST: A REPORT ON RALPH NADER’S NETWORK, 1982, p. 135

In place of our system of modified and limited individual choice and private enterprise—we certainly recognize and welcome much of what FDA, SEC, EPA and similar agencies do—the “public interest” groups would appear to want more politicization of life in America. In other words, government would probably become more authoritarian or even totalitarian by encroaching more on our private lives as workers, employers, and consumers. And it has been and would be a government they run. This is a distinct political ideology, which has been and remains in vogue in Western thought. But it is a radical departure from U.S. political tradition of the last 200 years, and it does not square with the common view of the nature of the public interest.

NADER’S ANTI-CORPORATE AGENDA IS UNDESIRABLE

1. NADER’S OPPOSITION TO TRADE AGREEMENTS HURTS DEVELOPING NATIONS

Paul Krugman, Professor of Economics at MIT, PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, July 25, 2000, p. A-19.
Everyone knows about Nader's furious opposition to global trade agreements. But it is less well known that he was equally adamant in opposing a bill removing barriers to Africa's exports -- a move that Africans themselves welcomed, but which Nader denounced because of his fear that African companies would be "run into the ground by multinational corporations moving into local economies." (Most African countries would be delighted to attract a bit of foreign investment.) Similar fears led Nader to condemn South Africa's new constitution, the one that ended apartheid, because -- like the laws of every market economy -- it grants corporations some legal status as individuals.

2. NADER IGNORES THE CONTRIBUTIONS CORPORATIONS MAKE TO OUR PROSPERITY

Laurence D. Cohen, columnist, THE HARTFORD COURANT, October 22, 2000, p. C3.
That's the problem with Ralph. He isn't like you and me.   Michael Kinsley, editor of Slate, had it right when he characterized the Nader reason-for-being as "irritating others for the public good." But you
can't create a public good until you recognize the reality of a private good, the product of freedom to acquire and strive and create for personal gain.  Because multinational corporations go their amoral way, because chemical companies have to put their gunk somewhere, because insurance companies have to say no to some doctors sometimes, we are the happiest, healthiest, most prosperous nation in the world.

NADER PRACTICES A RHETORIC OF FEAR AND OVERSIMPLIFICATION

1. NADER’S ANTI-CORPORATE RHETORIC OVERSIMPLIFIES THE ISSUES

2. NADER IS A NATIONALIST WHO EXPLOITS AMERICANS’ FEAR OF IMMIGRANTS

Patrick O’Neill, columnist, THE MILITANT, March 6, 2000, p. 3.

Nader's 1996 campaign was marked by nationalist themes. The North American Free Trade Association treaty means "we're exporting jobs--probably about 350,000 to 400,000" to Mexico, he said. He complimented rightist politician Patrick Buchanan, now vying for the Reform Party presidential nomination, saying he has "learned a lot in the last few years about corporate power." At the same time, Nader presented his campaign as a "pull to the left" for the Democratic Party. According to the February 21 Green Party news release announcing Nader's bid, in 1996 he "received nearly 700,000 votes and finished in fourth place, although limiting his campaign spending to under $5,000. In 2000, the Nader campaign intends to raise $5 million dollars." The campaign will have similar themes to the effort of four years ago. Nader says he will concentrate on "democracy, concentrated corporate power and the excessive disparities of wealth." The Green Party's press release states that "Nader's advisors claim that his campaign will help turn out the vote and could assist the Democrats in taking back Congress." Nader will invoke "the message of last year's Seattle demonstrations against the WTO," reads the statement. Those demonstrations were led by union officials and liberal and environmental activists, who put forward economic nationalist slogans that drew favorable comment from Buchanan.