[Am-info] Re: questions of 'integrity'

[Glenn T. Livezey, Ph.D.]

In Re: what Glenn Livezey wrote [Am-info] Re: Global Resistance at home
Mitch Stone <mitch@accidentalexpert.com> wrote

>I'm going to resist this characterization, which became very popular
>among Democrats last year. Neither Nader nor anyone else is required 
>to make an excuse for running for public office, or ask permission 
>from the major parties, or consult with them with respect to campaign 
>tactics. His presidential run does not reflect on his "integrity." 
>Even if he did serve as a spoiler, this does not delegitimize his 
>effort. Last I checked, the two-party system was not an article of the 
>Constitution.

You've every right to resist. I celebrate the resistance. 
However, it appears I failed to state my case clearly. 
I did not suggest that Nader needed an excuse to run for office, nor
permission from the major parties, nor consultation on campaign tactics.
I did not say that his run for the presidency reflected poorly on his
integrity (though I do insist it DID reflect on his integrity). I did 
not say that his role as spoiler delegitimized his efforts, past or 
present. This isn't about the two-party system or any section of the 
constitution. This isn't about the legitimacy of Nader's legacy.

What I said was that this IS about the decisions that Ralph Nader 
made, in the face of a close race between Bush and Gore, when Mr. 
Nader knew he would not win, and that the ONLY role he could play was 
that of a spoiler for the Gore campaign. Under those circumstances,
Ralph Nader continued to declare that Bush and Gore were the twin spawn 
of the capitalist bosses that only he, Nader, could or would defy. 
Nader had a decision to make; what best to do to preserve and protect 
everything he had previously fought for, which likely would survive if 
not flourish in a Gore administration and which would most certainly 
would be threatened if not destroyed by a Bush administration.
No one can deny Nader's considerable efforts of the past, that legacy 
cannot be taken away from him, even as the gains for the American 
consumer can and are being stripped away. Even the worst of his 
excesses in the Corvair campaign cannot 'delegitimize' his efforts or  
accomplishments or even call into question his motives. 

No one can deny that the Democrats and Gore himself deserve much of the
blame for not earning a clear enough majority of support in 2000. They
played straight into the hands of the GOP by distancing themselves from
Clinton and every major accomplishment of his two terms. They allowed
the GOP to rewrite history and sew Hester's red "A" on the democratic 
ticket, while shading their own candidates from any serious inspection 
of their deeply criminal pasts. And millions of voters voted against
Clinton even though he wasn't even running for office. Not counting the 
5% that gained directly from anointing King George (made perfect sense
for them to back Bush), another 40% of the voting public apparently was
convinced that Clinton's one proven consensual sexual affair and the lie
to cover it, made Gore the evil one, leaving his enemies as their only
hope to "restore integrity to the White House". Now THAT is innovation.

Nader could have chosen to sacrifice his own campaign for the greater
good (or to defeat the greater evil - depending on your cynicism level).
But he didn't. And even after the fact he denied that his campaign had
any effect on the ultimate outcome. Ralph Nader chose to stick with 
what was best for Ralph Nader, and not what was best for the country. 
THAT is what I think reflects poorly on Ralph Nader's integrity. 
Now another cause he helped to organize and to grow is about to fall 
victim to that same poor choice in 2000. 

Microsoft and Bill Gates are to be left off with a warning to "play 
nice" from now on. No penalty, no sacrifice of ill gotten gains, no
change in his monopoly status. Just the declaration of another "level 
playing field" where all the referees wear GOP colors and their 
whistles, like their calls, lack balls.
 
George Bush, "Pope of the Capitolistic Church of the Free Market", 
has accepted the Bill's 'freewill' contributions, and issued a 
certificate of "special dispensation" absolving all guilt, past, 
present or future. 
And Ralph "Luther" Nader can't seem to find his hammer, or a nail, or 
paper, or pen, or the right door on which to post his objections.

Maybe there will still be some consumer rights to protect in 2004.
Maybe there will even be an election in 2004. 
Maybe.

Glenn  

-- 
Glenn T. Livezey, Ph.D.

University of Minnesota
Neuroscience Department
Room 6-145 Jackson Hall
321 Church St. S.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55455

(612) 624-2991 FAX 6-5009 
glivezey@lenti.med.umn.edu
livezey@bigfoot.com