Bad Ralph! Bad Ralph
From coast to coast, some big newspapers have been scolding Ralph Nader
lately. Why? Because he's running for president, and a lot of people --
according to a recent national poll, 7 percent of the electorate -- intend
to vote for him.
Yikes! The outspoken foe of corporate power is really making a nuisance of
himself. So, certain media heavyweights are now flailing at him with tons
of rolled-up newspapers.
"Ralph Nader's long history of public service championing the causes of
consumers, the environment and economic justice automatically commands
respect," the New York Times declared in its lead editorial on the last day
of June. "But in running for president as the nominee of the Green Party,
he is engaging in a self-indulgent exercise that will distract voters from
the clear-cut choice represented by the major party candidates."
Many millions of Americans are repelled by this "clear-cut choice" between
Al Gore and George W. Bush. But the Times proclaimed that "the public
deserves to see the major party candidates compete on an uncluttered
playing field." (What did we do to deserve this?)
In California, another prominent editorial -- starting from a very
different premise -- also ended up asserting that Nader hasn't earned the
right to be heard alongside the major party nominees. To its credit, the
San Francisco Chronicle acknowledged that Gore and Bush are "in broad
agreement on issues such as global trade and Social Security reform." And
the paper added that "it would be ideal to include Nader, and possibly
Reform Party contender Pat Buchanan" in the presidential debates planned
for October.
But the Chronicle endorsed the edict laid down by the Commission on
Presidential Debates requiring a minimum of 15 percent in nationwide polls.
"It's not too much to ask that a candidate reach this level to qualify for
debates," the editorial insisted. "The country wants to hear from the major
players."
Such elitist attitudes have fueled quite a few commentaries already this
summer. The menu is sparse, but don't worry about it: Settle for a
presidential candidate who doesn't represent you. Pipe down and eat your
peas, even if they're from the same corporate pod.
While the editorial writers at some newspapers seem content with the 15
percent barrier, others have recognized the value of moving beyond the
usual narrow spectrum. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, for instance, argued
that "open debates would be more issue-oriented." The Texas daily said that
"the two leading candidates should ask the commission to cut the
requirement in half, to 7.5 percent."
Meanwhile, an Arizona Republic editorial got to the corporate core of the
debates that appear set to exclude Nader: "Now that he's decided to run for
president in earnest, the two major parties seem bent on facilitating his
characterization of them as pawns of Big Money. AT&T, Anheuser-Busch and
Sun Microsystems are among companies whose tax-deductible contributions to
the Commission on Presidential Debates will fund this fall's debates."
Of course, some editorials are using the Nader campaign as a peg for
invective against overall progressive agendas. In a typical broadside, the
Omaha World-Herald charged that "Nader has associated himself with a
political organization, the Greens, whose official political platform,
adopted this spring, overflows with preposterous proposals and fantasies."
But the St. Petersburg Times in Florida recently underscored the potential
of a strong progressive challenge to Republicrat rule. "The Green Party
sometimes is loosely referred to as a fringe movement in American politics,
but much of what the Greens stand for is -- or at least should be -- part
of our political mainstream," the newspaper editorialized. "Is there
anything extreme about environmental protection? Universal health care?
Campaign finance reform? Civil liberties?"
As Democratic Party loyalists never tire of saying, Nader's campaign might
tip the presidential election over to Bush -- a real concern for those who
dread the prospect of a Republican in the Oval Office. Plenty of Americans
are apt to see a dilemma.
Twenty years ago, those who figured that the differences between Jimmy
Carter and Ronald Reagan would be insignificant were wrong. But on the
other hand, eight years ago, those who claimed that the Clinton-Gore duo
would bring an administration worthy of support were wrong, too. History
may seem to provide a foggy map for Election Day.
Ultimately, such judgments should be made by voters, not powerful media
institutions or corporate-funded debate commissions run by top Democrats
and Republicans. Whether editorial writers like it or not, the time has
come for truly wide-ranging debate.
Norman Solomon is a syndicated columnist. His latest book is The Habits of
Highly Deceptive Media.
