[Mb-civic] Ralph Nader & the Progressive Agenda

[Barbara Siomos]

Progressive Agenda 
Ralph Nader and the Progressive Agenda 
by H. Bruce Franklin
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~hbf
 
                It's certainly easy to
understand why right-wing Republicans are eagerly bankrolling Ralph
Nader's presidential campaign. It's much more difficult to comprehend
how any progressive person can possibly support the Nader candidacy.
 
                In "Nader Emerging as
the Threat Democrats Feared," a front-page New York Times article on
October 15, Nader is quoted as saying "We lose to win, eventually" in a
fight that goes on "until the agenda is won." As part of this fight, he
claims that his campaign is producing "great data" to use after the
election to fight unfair ballot-access laws. He thus proves that of the
three candidates for president, the one most out of touch with reality
is Ralph Nader. An election victory for Bush will make it impossible to
change unfair ballot-access laws and will block every part of a
progressive agenda for many years to come. Why?
 
                If George Bush is
elected, he and his gang will have the official stamp of approval from
the American people (perhaps with help from Diebold), a Republican
Congress, legislation in place for a police state, a thoroughly
compliant media, at least two upcoming vacancies on the Supreme Court,
and an unhindered opportunity to pack the rest of the federal judiciary
with fanatical right-wingers. That packed federal judiciary alone will
be enough to prevent progress on any legal front. Environmental
protection will be decimated, legal challenges to the tortures carried
out daily in the hundreds of Abu Ghraibs in the American
prison-industrial complex will be tossed out, basic Constitutional
rights and liberties will be jettisoned, the disenfranchisement of poor
people will accelerate, and there will be no legal way to prevent the
right-wing forces in power to steal any election they choose, whether by
electronic voting machines or more old-fashioned methods such as purging
voter rolls or tossing out thousands of ballots.
 
                To get some sense of
what a packed right-wing federal judiciary can mean, consider just this
one case. In 1985, Paul House was convicted of raping and murdering a
neighbor. The only significant evidence against him was that the semen
in the body of the victim, Carolyn Muncey, matched his blood type. House
was sentenced to die. Subsequently, thanks to the development of DNA
science, it was proven that the semen from the rape of Mrs. Muncey was
that of her husband. In an appeal brought before the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, six witnesses destroyed
the rest of the prosecution case and brought forth persuasive evidence
that Mr. Muncey was the murderer. Mr. Muncey, they testified, was an
alcoholic who frequently beat his wife. Two witnesses said he had
confessed to killing his wife while drunk. A third witness testified
that Mr. Muncey had asked her to supply him with an alibi for the
murder. Of the fifteen judges, seven had been appointed by Democrats.
Six of those decided that the new evidence clearly established that Mr.
House was innocent, and the seventh came out for a new trial. All eight
judges appointed by Republicans upheld not only the conviction but also
the death sentence. Four of these judges were appointed by George W.
Bush. Mr. House is now scheduled to die.
 
                So, Ralph, would you now
like to go before the Sixth Circuit to argue about unfair ballot-access
laws? Or environmental protection? Or the rights of prisoners? Or
corporate malfeasance? Or Constitutional liberties?
 
                The door toward a
progressive agenda may be about to close. The only way to get a foot in
that door is to get George Bush out of the White House. And the only
legal way to do that is to elect John Kerry. And, by the way, George
Bush is right about one thing: John Kerry is indeed a liberal, with a
92% score from Americans for Democratic Action.
 
                Of course it's true that
a President Kerry would not willingly bring a speedy end to the Iraq
War. But at least we would have a fighting chance to force him to give
up that imperial venture.