THE NEW YORK TIMES VERSUS NADER--AND DEMOCRACY By Edward S. Herman(fwd)

I find choosing between supporting Gore or Nader very difficult and
complex.  I remain uncertain.  But here's a commentary from a prominent
left intellectual critiquing the NY TIMES dismissal of Nader:

dave smith
sociology, uci
editor, SOCIAL PROBLEMS

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 10:51:38 -0700
From: James A. Fujii <jafujii@uci.edu>
Reply-To: ETHNICSTUDIES@uci.edu
To: ethnicstudies@uci.edu
Subject: THE NEW YORK TIMES VERSUS NADER--AND DEMOCRACY By Edward S. H  
erman


>
>Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 10:00:51 -0700
>Subject: [OCCP] FW: THE NEW YORK TIMES VERSUS NADER--AND DEMOCRACY By 
>Edward S. H erman
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: JPilch7895@aol.com [SMTP:JPilch7895@aol.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 11:35 PM
> > To:   JPilch7895@aol.com
> > Subject:      THE NEW YORK TIMES VERSUS NADER--AND DEMOCRACY By Edward 
>S.
> > Herman
> >
> > THE NEW YORK TIMES VERSUS NADER--AND DEMOCRACY
> > >By Edward S. Herman
> > >ZNet (http://www.zmag.org)
> >  And here is today's ZNet Commentary Delivery.
> > >
> > >In its editorial, "Mr. Nader's Misguided Crusade" (June 30),
> > >the New York Times assails Nader's candidacy and campaign on
> > >grounds that are partly fraudulent and misleading (as I
> > >describe below). But it is also clear that this attack is
> > >based ultimately on the owners-editors satisfaction with the
> > >political and economic status quo, which Nader is calling
> > >into question. The editors claim that the two parties offer
> > >voters a "clear-cut choice," so that there is "no driving
> > >logic for a third-party candidacy this year." It follows for
> > >them that Nader is just an ego driven "spoiler," even though
> > >it is conceded that he has a "right to run."
> > >
> > >According to the Times, while Nader is close to Gore on the
> > >issues, he rejects him because Gore is "too much of an
> > >incrementalist." This misrepresents the serious differences
> > >on the issues, but it also ignores Nader's fundamental
> > >argument--that Gore and Bush are both hostages to big money,
> > >so that just as Clinton served the monied interests with
> > >only token gestures to the majority, Gore is sure to do the
> > >same. It is not Gore's incrementalism, but rather what Gore
> > >is likely to do given his and his party's financial
> > >obligations, that differentiates Nader from Gore.
> > >
> > >In his excellent acceptance speech at the Green Party
> > >Convention on June 25, Nader made numerous suggestions for
> > >needed policy changes--resting on "peoples" rather than
> > >"corporate yardsticks"--that neither Gore nor Bush have
> > >addressed. Among other matters, Nader mentioned: (1) An
> > >ending to the support of foreign dictators and the
> > >introduction of "foreign policies that support the peasants
> > >and the workers for a change." (2) A sharp reduction of a
> > >bloated military budget that is badly out of control, a
> > >situation resting on the fact that weapons manufacturers
> > >"foist weapons systems on the Pentagon, working with a
> > >PAC-greased supine Congress." Nader would finally declare
> > >that long elusive "peace dividend" that will surely continue
> > >to escape Gore-Bush. (3) Labor laws that "facilitate the
> > >organization of trade unions" and that provide the kind of
> > >statutory "social wage" that most European countries have
> > >had in place for many years. (4) Major public investments in
> > >schools, health clinics, mass transit, drinking water
> > >systems and other services that directly benefit the
> > >majority. (5) An attack on inequality via a revised tax
> > >system that no longer serves the corporate elite. (6) An
> > >ending of the "epidemic of silent environmental violence,"
> > >that rests on corporate domination, as in the continued
> > >subsidized logging of the national forests.
> > >
> > >Across the board, Nader laid out a philosophy and program
> > >that was sensitive to majority and not corporate needs. He
> > >also stresses the importance of relieving America's children
> > >from "the most intense marketing onslaught in history" and
> > >the dangers of "giving too much power to the merchant
> > >mind...because its singular focus and its self-driven
> > >impulses run roughshod over the more non- commercial values
> > >that define a worthy society." This attack on advertising,
> > >consumerism, and the "let-the-fur-fly" individualism and
> > >business culture that business domination has spawned must
> > >have sent cold chills down the spines of the editorial
> > >board.
> > >
> > >The New York Times never reproduced Nader's acceptance
> > >speech, although it has found endless space for trivial
> > >charges and counter-charges between Bush and Gore, fine
> > >details of their personal histories, and the status of the
> > >horse race between the approved duopolists. The blackout of
> > >Nader's speech made it easier for them to make the false
> > >editorial claim of little difference between Gore and Nader.
> > >But it also allowed the paper to keep the issues under
> > >cover.
> > >One of Nader's campaign aims was to force a discussion of
> > >major issues that the duopolists and their backers don't
> > >want addressed. In their treatment of Nader the Times has
> > >gone to some pains to evade those issues and to make like
> > >all the real ones are being debated between Gore and Bush.
> > >Thus, in addition to failing to give its readers Nader's
> > >acceptance speech, it has covered his campaign with great
> > >superficiality, not discussing his criticisms and programs,
> > >but reporting on his financial wealth ("Nader Reports Big
> > >Portfolio in Technology," June 19), his attack on the
> > >corporate financing of the presidential debates (June 20),
> > >and the possible effects of his candidacy on Gore's
> > >electoral prospects (June 22). So the Times not only refuses
> > >to evaluate Nader as a candidate in terms of his relative
> > >integrity and intelligence, it is unwilling to allow him to
> > >discuss basic issues in a public forum. It says his "only
> > >realistic role" this year might be to throw the election to
> > >Bush--but that may be because the Times (and its confreres)
> > >will not permit Nader to serve an educational function.
> > >
> > >But the Times's dismissal of Nader does rest in large
> > >measure on his policy positions and democratic philosophy.
> > >The editors are explicitly satisfied with the range of
> > >policy options Gore and Bush allow. When they claim that
> > >Gore and Nader are not far apart on environmental issues,
> > >they do not discuss whether or not Gore would follow up any
> > >promises with action--they do not review the Clinton record
> > >in this regard, or analyse the effects of financial
> > >dependency on the gaps between promises and realization. But
> > >that is because they don't care that much about the
> > >realization of any populist promises.
> > >
> > >The Times does allow that Nader is different on "trade"
> > >policy, with Nader the "protectionist" and Gore and Bush
> > >both allegedly better serving the interests of the working
> > >class. "Protectionism runs counter to much of what Mr. Nader
> > >has fought for over the years." (The editors note that
> > >foreign competition has had beneficial effects on the auto
> > >industry.) The Times bias here is long-standing, and so is
> > >their misrepresentation of the contesting positions and
> > >facts. The paper has long buried polls that show the working
> > >class opposed to the trade agreements that it and the
> > >corporate community favor. The editors can never put it this
> > >way, but essentially they claim that the working class
> > >doesn't recognize its own true interests, only big business
> > >and the Times do, and that by a coincidence once again
> > >what's good for GM is good for us all. They also distort
> > >Nader's position, which is not anti-trade, but is against
> > >rules that take the right to control foreign investment and
> > >trade out of the hands of democratic communities, in some
> > >cases giving them over to distant bureaucracies without
> > >democratic accountability.
> > >
> > >The Times speaks for the plutocratic establishment; Nader
> > >opposes that establishment; and the paper's news and
> > >editorial position hostile to Nader follows accordingly. But
> > >it also notable, and a bit more sinister, that the paper
> > >will not even allow Nader's positions to be honestly
> > >presented and the issues he wants to address to be debated.
> > >The plutocracy reaches deeply into constraining the public's
> > >right to know.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Find long lost high school friends:
>http://click.egroups.com/1/5535/12/_/426260/_/962988962/
>------------------------------------------------------------------------