August 24, 2004
While doing some research for my FNR Decision 2004 post, I came across a link to an interview Pat Buchanan conducted with Ralph Nader. It was actually very interesting. Nader is an intelligent guy, and as the lead-in says, "a conviction politician." He's making a play for conservative voters who are disappointed with George W. Bush, and he has some interesting points about why conservatives are (or should be) disappointed with Bush:
Here are the issues. One, conservatives are furious with the Bush regime because of the fantastic deficits as far as the eye can see. That was a betrayal of Bush’s positions, and it was a reversal of what Bush found when he came to Washington.Conservatives are very upset about their tax dollars going to corporate welfare kings because that undermines market competition and is a wasted use of their taxes.
Conservatives are upset about the sovereignty-shredding WTO and NAFTA. I wish they had helped us more when we tried to stop them in Congress because, with a modest conservative push, we would have defeated NAFTA because it was narrowly passed. If there was no NAFTA, there wouldn’t have been a WTO.
Conservatives are also very upset with a self-styled conservative president who is encouraging the shipment of whole industries and jobs to a despotic Communist regime in China. That is what I mean by the distinction between corporate Republicans and conservative Republicans.
Next, conservatives, contrary to popular belief, believe in law and order against corporate crime, fraud, and abuse, and they are not satisfied that the Bush administration has done enough.
Conservatives are also upset about the Patriot Act, which they view as big government, privacy-invading, snooping, and excessive surveillance. They are not inaccurate in that respect.
And finally, two other things. They don’t like “Leave No Child Behind” because it is a stupidly conceived federal regulation of local school systems through misguided and very fraudulent multiple-choice testing impositions.
And conservatives are aghast that a born-again Christian president has done nothing about rampant corporate pornography and violence directed to children and separating children from their parents and undermining parental authority.
If you add all of those up, you should have a conservative rebellion against the giant corporation in the White House masquerading as a human being named George W. Bush. Just as progressives have been abandoned by the corporate Democrats and told,”You got nowhere to go other than to stay home or vote for the Democrats,” this is the fate of the authentic conservatives in the Republican Party.
Some of those issues were addressed in terms of Nader's positions earlier in the interview, and he had some interesting things to say, but he certainly didn't address them all. What he also failed to do was take that statement and really make his case for why disenchanted conservatives would like his take on those issues.
Posted by JohnH at August 24, 2004 05:51 PM | TrackBackRalph Nadar made seatbelts manditory in vehicles (and since then, he kinda got weird).
Posted by: Craig at August 26, 2004 12:21 AMVery interesting, John. I have to tell you, though, that I was framed for my last two comments...I never wrote them. Either someone used my computer or they just replaced my name...However, curiously, they are questions I would have asked. And, of course, after reading your anti-Bush campaign, I am definitely up for the debate. I'll get back to you on my response....
Posted by: Margaret at August 26, 2004 08:30 AMMargaret framed? *looks for Kacey*
Well sorry to have fallen for the trick, but since you're up for it, let's go.
Care to start by explaining why conservatives shouldn't be bothered by the things Nader mentioned in the quote above?
Posted by: John at August 26, 2004 12:28 PMOoops....I skipped over the last paragraph, John. I was skimming and thought you shared the same position as Nader. Now I see that may not be the case. So, what is your position? Pro or anti our current administration?
Posted by: Margaret at August 26, 2004 02:45 PMJohn, are you trying to play devil's advocate on both sides?
Posted by: Margaret at August 26, 2004 02:50 PMWho, me?
I just thought he had some interesting points... I didn't really say whether I agreed with all of them or not, and I didn't say I was promoting Nader. I'm keeping you guessing!
I would like to know your thoughts on what he had to say, though...
Posted by: John at August 26, 2004 02:59 PMFirst of all, Nader brought up issues running the gamut of political controversy. So, I feel like I should respond to each individual assertion. However, my general feelings are these: He made some pretty strong comments, particularly about the NCLB, porn, and taxes. When I went back to the interview to examine anything that backed up these statements, there was nothing - just merely strong statements. And I am frankly not convinced that conservatives are as upset as he purports. I think the leftists are upset - but certainly not for these reasons. I do agree with him on the issues of personal responsibility and parental authority. However, I think he is speaking for the wrong group. Personal responsibility rather than personal entitlement is a crux of the conservative stance. The extreme leftists are the ones, however, who seem to live for personal entitlement - it seems as though he should be saying they are the ones who are upset. And, I certainly would not call this administration a regime.
As far as referring to Bush as a corporate Republican, I can't find any numbers that back that up. What I can find, however, is that Bush's total net worth is far less than many of our previous presidents and substantially less than Senator Kerry's assets. Kerry is the one who is supporting billions of overseas production - with his own millions.
As far as pornography, things go one step at a time. Bush can't fix everything overnight. I think it is obvious what his personal stance on porn is. At least he got oral sex out of the White House and oral prayer in. One step at a time. Plus, we are at war right now in case no one noticed.
I know this is scattered. I need to look up some things.
First of all, Nader brought up issues running the gamut of political controversy. So, I feel like I should respond to each individual assertion. However, my general feelings are these: He made some pretty strong comments, particularly about the NCLB, porn, and taxes. When I went back to the interview to examine anything that backed up these statements, there was nothing - just merely strong statements. And I am frankly not convinced that conservatives are as upset as he purports. I think the leftists are upset - but certainly not for these reasons. I do agree with him on the issues of personal responsibility and parental authority. However, I think he is speaking for the wrong group. Personal responsibility rather than personal entitlement is a crux of the conservative stance. The extreme leftists are the ones, however, who seem to live for personal entitlement - it seems as though he should be saying they are the ones who are upset. And, I certainly would not call this administration a regime.
As far as referring to Bush as a corporate Republican, I can't find any numbers that back that up. What I can find, however, is that Bush's total net worth is far less than many of our previous presidents and substantially less than Senator Kerry's assets. Kerry is the one who is supporting billions of overseas production - with his own millions.
As far as pornography, things go one step at a time. Bush can't fix everything overnight. I think it is obvious what his personal stance on porn is. At least he got oral sex out of the White House and oral prayer in. One step at a time. Plus, we are at war right now in case no one noticed.
I know this is scattered. I need to look up some things.
Honestly, the more I read through what he said, the less I think he really understands what conservatives are all about. There are a couple points I agree with, though.
The first is his comments about the deficit. The Bush presidency has been plagued with runaway spending, which does not follow conservative (small government) ideology. I understand that some leniency should be granted given September 11 and the need to increase our security, but I do think Bush has made mistakes in this area.
The second is regarding the Patriot Act. I do believe that it goes too far and there have been documented examples of its excesses affecting ordinary, innocent citizens. One of the founding fathers said something to the effect that a citizen who is willing to give up freedom for security deserves neither...
What are your thoughts on No Child Left Behind? I think Nader has a point here that it is federal meddling in local systems, which also doesn't seem to mesh with conservative ideology. However, the general public does put some measure of responsibility on a president for the state of the educational system. Could he have come up with a better solution than NCLB? I really can't say since I am not well-read enough on the subject.
Posted by: John at August 26, 2004 04:21 PMWell, I think the intent of NCLB is very good. However, the education system will never be able to take the place of good parenting. Teachers can't teach AND raise the kids who have no positive parenting at home. It's kind of a catch 22 - we have to do something -- so we set these goals in NCLB which are very good in theory but fairly unrealistic for children who have no positive home support. NCLB does work (very well, in fact)in cases where there is home-school collaboration. NCLB specifically empowers parents to have the utmost involvement in their education.
One of the important contributions of NCLB is accountability. It holds all educators accountable for every individual's child's academic progression. Unfortunately, the documentation required essentially reduces the actual time spent with children by about 50%.
I do think, though, that NCLB is the best solution we have right now to a problems that educators frankly can't control...
By the way...have you considered the possibility that Nader could be a girly-man economist?
Posted by: Margaret at September 1, 2004 11:31 AM