THE GOOD FIGHT

Reviewed 10/15/2004

The Good Fight, by Ralph Nader

THE GOOD FIGHT:
Declare Your Independence & Close the Democracy Gap
Ralph Nader
New York: ReganBooks, 2004

Rating:

4.5

High

ISBN-13 978-0-06-075604-8
ISBN 0-06-075604-7 294p. HC $25.95

Ralph Nader (1934- ): Born in Connecticut of immigrant parents. Magna Cum Laude graduate of the Woodrow Wilson School of International Affairs at Princeton University. Honors graduate of Harvard Law School. This brief biography summarizes his career and shows why he is the pre-eminent advocate for the consumer and the general public. He acquired that status the old-fashioned way: He earned it. Both in effectiveness and in longevity, his career is remarkable. His performance as presidential candidate, however, is another story. I think it is warranted, therefore, to ask, in both senses, "What makes Nader run?"

As I note in my review, despite John Kerry having won his three debates with George Bush (Nader did not take part), Bush is ahead in the polls. It is part of a persistent pattern in this country: Politicians promise great things to the people, then wind up making short-sighted decisions that benefit mainly the corporations which contribute massive chunks of cash to their campaigns. Those corporations also lobby the Congress incessantly for favorable legislation — while the majority of the public goes meekly along with its own disadvantaging. Ralph Nader understands this. I believe what that understanding causes him to feel can be expressed in a single word: outrage. I believe that outrage is what has kept him going these many years, fighting the good fight, trying against all odds to get the slumbering electorate to wake up and make just the modicum of effort required to turn the political process to its benefit.

Some of the specific things Nader is outraged about:

[Rant Warning]

One Good Rant Deserves Another

The rant above reflects Nader's concerns. This one is mine.

[Rant Warning]

There is much to admire about Nader: His accomplishments on behalf of consumers are legendary. So is the dedication he brings to the fight; he has not flagged for forty years. He is tireless in pursuing those who rip off the consumer, skilled at uncovering their depredations, clear and forceful in describing them to the public. But, in the final analysis, I regretfully conclude that he has become a marginal figure. The passion that drives him to such worthy efforts also makes him too intense to connect easily with the people he is determined to educate.

The presidential campaign of 2004 is unusual only in the sharp differences between the two leading contenders. What has not changed is the huge cost of such campaigns and the extent to which contributions from various "special interests" (read: big business) determine the outcome. It is part of a persistent pattern in this country: Politicians promise great things to the people, then wind up making short-sighted decisions that benefit mainly the corporations. George Bush is exceptional merely because he's done more of this than most. Ralph Nader understands a simple truth: that putting the public good first is not only morally right, but also the best thing for the bottom line — certainly in the long run, and probably in the short run as well. The fact that most members of the electorate don't understand this, that they can be hoodwinked time and again, that they fail to put forth even a modicum of effort to influence the political process to their benefit, is something about which I share Nader's outrage. I yield to no one in honoring his long battle for the public good. I respect his intention to bring this issue of overweening "corporatocracy" before the public during a presidential campaign. But I wish he had taken another course than becoming a candidate himself — for I fear he will in the end only succeed in diverting some of the votes that might have gone to Kerry, thereby assuring victory by Bush. Though Nader denies it, this is what happened in the 2000 election. Perhaps the best thing Nader could do now is to withdraw from the election and then turn his attention to setting up some institution that would carry on his important legacy of advocacy.

1 The figures given add up to $2,045.8 billion. The text, citing the work of Ralph Estes, puts the total at $3 trillion; presumably it includes items Nader doesn't mention.
2 This is Nader's interpretation, and I think it is disputable. The reason given by MSNBC was poor ratings. Some deduce from this that liberals cannot handle the talk-radio format. Another interpretation is that MSNBC wanted a liberal counterpart to their O'Reilly clone, and Donahue was not polarized enough.
Some articles on the firing are:
3 This quote by Nixon aide Charles Colson establishes the effectiveness of both Nader and Kerry: "I think we have Kerry on the run—but let's not let up. Let's destroy this young demagogue before he becomes another Ralph Nader." It was written in his notebook by Colson soon after Kerry testified to Congress about the war in Viet Nam.
Valid CSS! Valid HTML 4.01 Strict To contact Chris Winter, send email to this address.
Copyright © 2004-2024 Christopher P. Winter. All rights reserved.
This page was last modified on 24 August 2024.