Edward S. Herman

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.