|
Grex > Agora35 > #131: Steinem on Nader? A perspective worth considering. | |
|
| Author |
Message |
other
|
|
Steinem on Nader? A perspective worth considering.
| 
Nov 3 01:16 UTC 2000 |
TOP TEN REASONS WHY
I'M NOT VOTING FOR NADER
(ANY ONE OF WHICH WOULD BE ENOUGH)
by Gloria Steinem
President, Voters For Choice
10. He's not running for President, he's running for federal matching
funds for the Green Party!
9. He was able to take all those perfect progressive positions of the
past because he never had to build an electoral coalition, earn a majority
vote, or otherwise submit to democracy.
8. By condemning Gore for ever having taken a different position - for
example, for voting against access to legal abortion when he was a
Congressman from Tennessee - actually dissuades others from changing their
minds and joining us.
7. Nader is rightly obsessed with economic andcorporate control, yet he
belittles a deeper form of control - control of reproduction, and the most
intimate parts of our lives. For example, he calls the women's movement
and the gay and lesbian movements "gonadal politics," and ridicules the
use of the word "patriarchy," as if it were somehow less important than
the World Trade Organization. As Congressman Barney Frank wrote Nader in
an open letter, "your assertion that there are not important issue
differences between Gore and Bush is either flatly inaccurate or reflects
your view that...the issues are not important...since you have generally
ignored these issues in your career."
6. The issues of corporate control can only be addressed by voting for
candidates who will pass campaign-funding restrictions, and by conducting
grassroots boycotts and consumer campaigns against sweatshops - not by
voting for one man who will never become President.
5. Toby Moffett, a longtime Nader Raider who also served in Congress,
wrote that Nader's "Tweedledum and Tweedledee assertion that there is no
important difference between the major Presidential candidates would be
laughable if it weren't so unsafe." We've been bamboozled by the media's
practice of being even-handedly negative. There is a far greater gulf
between Bush and Gore than between Nixon and Kennedy - and what did that
mean to history?
4. Nader asked Winona LaDuke, an important Native American leader, to
support and run with him, despite his likely contribution to the victory
of George W. Bush, a man who has stated that "state law is supreme when it
comes to Indians," a breathtakingly dangerous position that ignores
hundreds of treaties with tribal governments, long-standing federal policy
and federal law affirming tribal sovereignty.
3. If I were to run for President in the same symbolic way, I would hope
my friends and colleagues would have the sense to vote against me, too,
saving me from waking up to discover that I had helped send George W. Bush
to the most powerful position in the world.
2. There are one, two, three, or even four lifetime Supreme Court
Justices who are likely to be appointed by the next President. Bush has
made clear by his record as Governor and appeals to the ultra-rightwing
that his appointments would overturn Roe v. Wade and reproductive
freedom,dismantle remedies for racial discrimination, oppose equal rights
for gays and lesbians, oppose mandatory gun registration, oppose federal
protections of endangered species, public lands, and water - and much
more. Gore is the opposite on every one of these issues. Gore has made
clear that his appointments would uphold our hard won progress in those
areas, and he has outlined advances in each one.
1. The art of behaving ethically is behaving as if everything we do
matters.If we want Gore and not Bush in the White House, we have to vote
for Gore and not Bush - out of self-respect. I'm not telling you how to
vote by sharing these reasons. The essence of feminism is the power to
decide for ourselves. It's also taking responsibility for our actions.
Let's face it, Bush in the White House would have far more impact on the
poor and vulnerable in this country, and on the subjects of our foreign
policy and aid programs in other countries. Just as Clinton saved women's
lives by rescinding the Mexico City policy by executive order as his first
act as President - thus ending the ban against even discussing abortion if
one received U.S. aid - the next President will have enormous power over
the lives of millions abroad who cannot vote, plus millions too
disillusioned to vote here. Perhaps there's a reason why Nader rallies
seem so white, middle class, and disproportionately male; in short, so
supported by those who wouldn't be hurt if Bush were in the White House.
Think self-respect. Think about the impact of our vote on the weakest
among us. Then we can't go wrong.
[Attributed to Gloria Steinem, unsigned, forwarded by email, and posted
without permission.]
|
| 56 responses total. |
other
|
|
response 1 of 56:
|
Nov 3 01:21 UTC 2000 |
I had not looked at this choice from this perspective, and once again, I am
pleased to have been notified of Gloria Steinem's input on a particular issue,
as I have found her style of addressing issues pleasingly thought-provoking.
I would love to know if anyone can substantiate or provide greater context
to the quoted Nader remark about "gonadal politics."
|
raven
|
|
response 2 of 56:
|
Nov 3 08:16 UTC 2000 |
Yep Nader said that and as un p.c. as it sounds I agree with it to
a large extent. I think sometimes the new, new left gets so wrapped
up in defending whatever "opressed" group they belong to that they
fail to see the global picture of domination of the world by global
capital flows regulated by groups like the WTO/IMF/NAFTA. If
we can't see the broader context that we are all a part of, it
really does little good, if the "pro-choice," or "anti hate crimes,"
forces win if our environment is being degraded and all of our
wages are being driven down by global trade.
Ofcourse I'm a white male (poor living under the poverty line) so
I must be some sort of patriarch according to the Steinem logic.
These sorts of arguments being tossed around by (upper middle class)
"feminists" far from disauding me from voting for Nader are just
pissing me off at the single issue democrats. Are woman supporters of
Nader part of the patriarchial conspiracy as well?
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 3 of 56:
|
Nov 3 13:48 UTC 2000 |
Thanks, other. I got this email too and hadn't gotten around to posting it.
I think it makes some interesting points. In particular that Nader's
candidacy is not because he thinks he can win, but because he wants financial
gain for the Green Party.
This also helped crystalize my vague unease about Nader as a true candidate.
One of my big concerns about Bush is his minimal experience for a national
office. Nader does not even have the coalition-building experience that Bush
has.
Nader would be ineffective even as a member of Congress. While I can
understand people wanting to "make a statement" by voting for him, there are
better ways to express frustration with the political process; ways that
actualy change the system.
|
scott
|
|
response 4 of 56:
|
Nov 3 14:41 UTC 2000 |
I don't have any problem with running for matching funds. Sort of like
running for a local seat before running for a national seat (OK, I'm not
forgetting that this is Nader's first run for office and he's shooting for
the top), parties have to start *somewhere*.
Point #1 in the list made no sense to me; "If we want Gore instead of Bush
in the White House"... don't vote for Nader. Well *duh*, if you like Gore
vote for Gore.
|
mdw
|
|
response 5 of 56:
|
Nov 3 21:41 UTC 2000 |
Actually, this is Nader's (at *least*) 2nd run for office. So far as
running for matching funds goes - in this country, the only way to
actually get a big % of the vote is to run a lot of very expensive TV
ads. There are two ways to be able to afford that, (1) be rich - this
is how Perot turned himself into a serious contender for the
presidential race 8 years ago, or (2) get federal matching funds, and do
a lot of begging. Bush is rich, so rich that he is able to turn down
those matching funds, which eases some restrictions on either the
spending, or the begging, or both. In fact, he is way outspending
everyone else in the race. Gore is doing the (2) strategy - a lot of
his begging is directed at corporations, which are oftentimes only too
happy to contribute to *both* candidates. Even between federal funds &
those corporate things, he still hasn't nearly as much as Bush.
Matching funds don't apply to *this* election, but the next one. One of
the big reasons Buchanan was keen on getting the reform party's bid was
because they had succeeded in getting federal matching funds for *this*
election due to their showing in the last election. Nader *has* no
corporate funding, so he has a lot less money to invest in all this.
Basically, his only hope is to get enough votes to get matching funds
next go-around, to fund his bid.
Basically, there are two things that could happen as a result of a good
Nader showing at the polls: either (1) the major parties start adopting
the parts of Nader's platform that they think gave him the big boost in
the polls, or (2) the major parties ignore Nader, and Nader does even
better or perhaps even wins a future presidential election.
Historically, (1) has been what happens whenever another party threatens
to become a big player. However, (2) is still possible - sometimes
upsets happen, and Jesse Ventura is a good example of this. Neither of
these are likely at *this* election. The best Nader can hope to do, is
to get enough votes, to qualify for matching funds, to run an even
bigger and better campaign *next* time. Perhaps that's not fair, but
for better or worse, that's how our system is setup, and I think Nader
is only being fair in saying so. At the very least, Nader is clearly in
it for the long-haul, something that couldn't be said for Perot.
So far as "gonodal politics" goes - I think it says mountains that
Nader's running mate is female and minority. A lot of this stuff is
kind of overblown, in that it's not something gov't spends a lot of time
or money doing, the issues are pretty well known, and it's even
well-known how public opinion pans out in the polls. There's no reason
to make this any more complicated than it needs to be, and there are a
lot of other thing that the gov't does that deserve a lot more
attention.
|
drew
|
|
response 6 of 56:
|
Nov 3 21:59 UTC 2000 |
Does anyone dispute that the abortion, gay, etc. issues *are* gonadal
politics?
|
carson
|
|
response 7 of 56:
|
Nov 4 00:00 UTC 2000 |
(Bush hasn't spent dime one of his own money on his campaign. neither
has Gore. so, when I begin reading Marcus's ridiculously long rant and
reach something like "Bush is rich so he doesn't have to beg" when I
*know* Gore isn't suffering in his personal finances [remember, his dad's
dead, so he pribly has a large part of whatever wealth Papa Gore
accumulated from tobacco], I stop reading. did people make up stories
about the antiChrist too?)
(Steinem's criticisms of Nader, if she did indeed write them, show a
narrow, misguided view of the political process. for one, the federal
matching funds are almost a prerequisite for running for president
credibly. seeing as most first-time presidential candidates don't go on
to win the Oval Office, making a dry run *and* getting matching dollars
for the next time seems like a pretty good plan to me.)
(plus, what the heck did Nixon vs. Kennedy mean to history? did it mean
that if Nixon had won the first time, he wouldn't have reached
Watergate-level desperation? Kennedy wouldn't have been shot? LBJ and
Ford never would have been president? isn't answering a question with a
question fun?)
(it seems to me that the author believes "reproductive rights" [whatever
*that* means] are the issue, and implies Bush is on the wrong side of the
issue. there are many people who feel that way, but there are others who
see a bigger picture and fault the candidates from that broader view.
these ten points don't convince me that the one-trick "reproductive
rights" pony is any better than the one-trick "environmental" pony.)
|