Ralph Nader's Thoughts on Bernie Sanders & Hillary Clinton

For a long time, I was wondering what Ralph Nader's thoughts were regarding this particular election.

After all, Nader was the first fairly major candidate (at least in my lifetime) to really challenge the power politics of the major parties, and to expose the eerie similarities between the Democrats and the Republicans. I had heard those arguments before, but it had never before been broadcast on such a prominent stage.

It was refreshing, much like this campaign by Bernie Sanders.

Suddenly, there was a candidate that I agreed with most of the time, and could believe in. As Nader points out in this article, Sanders is free of major scandals. He is not someone that you have a hard time trusting or believing in. Here is a candidate that I would feel good about voting for.

That is not the case with Hillary. Yes, she is a woman, and yes, I would love to see a woman as president. However, for me, it seems far more important, far more urgent, somehow, to get somebody in the White House who will stand up to corporate greed and de facto corporate supremacy, and who is not themselves benefiting from the corporate control of the government. And yes, Hillary seems to be that kind of a candidate.

What makes her different than the other major candidates - the only real thing that I see that makes her different at all - is that she is a woman. True, that would be history, to see the first woman as president. However, she is otherwise a very typical politician, in that she is willing to say and do whatever to get elected. She wants universal healthcare and demands action when it seems politically convenient, then she blasts Bernie Sanders now for wanting the same thing, suggesting that it is unrealistic and would be disastrous for the country. She wants to promote freedom for the American people, but votes for the PATRIOT Act - twice! And, of course, she voted for the Iraq War. Of course, her followers try to turn that around, to make it sound not as bad as it is. But in truth, when she needs to place the cards on the table, too often it is clear that she is bluffing, and that is not something that you want in a politician, let alone a so-called leader.

To me, that makes her overly similar to the worst that American politicians represent, and these unfortunate realities about how much a part of the worst excesses of the broken political system Hillary is tends to override the historical significance of her being a woman. Again, I would love to see a woman in the Oval Office in the near future, and would vote for Elisabeth Warren if she were running. However, she is not, and what we have available instead is Hillary. What the country needs is real change to help detract from the far reaches of societal control that corporate America now enjoys, and bring it back to the American people. That would be a historical change worth fighting for - and not merely a surface deep, symbolic merely change for the sake of  the outward appearance of historical change. That is why I reject arguments from women - many of whom should frankly know better - that you are somehow sexist if you do not support Hillary. Utilizing that line of logic, would that make someone who does not support Sanders anti-Semitic? Perhaps you hate Latinos if you do not support Cruz or Rubio? Where does it end, anyway?

In fact, that kind of smear campaign - which is real smearing, as opposed to what Clinton is claiming that Sanders and his supporters are doing - is just one more bit of evidence that Hillary cannot be trusted and, for that matter, is the female version of her husband, who had earned his reputation as "Slick Willy." He was the biggest name among the Democratic candidates in the 1992 election, although many hesitated, feeling that he could not be trusted. Scandals followed him wherever he went, and it was revealed that he was a member of an exclusive, all-white golf country club. Still, at the time, I remember some people suggesting that Clinton was as close to a black president as the country was going to get. I wonder if the people who said that would remember it when he disparagingly suggested to Teddy Kennedy that there was a time when President Obama would have been carrying their bags?

Hillary seems eerily reminiscent of her husband, and with good reason. They have been the closest of political allies, to the point where, frankly, it seemed like the whole political profitability thing is what kept the marriage afloat. Would Hillary have tolerated all of her husband's affairs if he was not nearly as powerful as he became? For that matter, would she have stayed with him if he could not help her own political ambitions along? That whole exclusive focus on political viability is what made people not trust both candidate and President Bill Clinton, and it is what makes people not trust Hillary. Much like her husband's seemingly strange racial views, Hillary's interning for a known segregationist when younger is contrasted remarkably by the youthful idealism and action of her Democratic opponent, Bernie Sanders.

There are too many of those kinds of doubts about just how sincere Hillary is as an advocate of "the people." She certainly refers to them a lot, and rails against corporate America and the elite, billionaire culture, although she gladly takes their money, and then strangely supports legislation that benefits them at the expense of the mass of American people. She once loudly demanded a universal, single-payer, affordable healthcare system that would include all Americans, but now, dismisses Sanders and his supporters for demanding the same, and suggests that pragmatic, incremental change is more realistic and the better, more stable course for the country. Her husband repealed the Glass–Steagall Act while president, which limited the power of big banks, and Hillary has remained opposed to reinstating this legislation that truly would help to take power away from the big banks, and go far towards empowering the American people. And again, let us not forget that she supported the PATRIOT Act (twice), and empowered President George W. Bush to go ahead and invade Iraq, even when the grounds used to justify the invasion were far from clear and, as it turned out, completely fabricated. Is this the kind of "change" that we can look forward to if Hillary gets into office?

Also, this is not a recent trend, where she has done what most people feel is normal, growing more conservative with age. This is a woman who supported Barry Goldwater in 1964. She talked about this in the early 1990's, admitting that this was a mistake. And again, she is entitled to her opinion, as well as to changing her mind. What makes it suspicious, however, is that she seems to do so far too often for comfort, and that this coincides with what seems to be politically profitable. That whole thing comes up again, about just how slick the Clintons are, and how they always seem to land on their feet, despite the rather extreme contradictions between what they say and what they do.Hillary talks the good talk. Right now, she is measuring herself up against Sanders, and suggesting that she is, by all measures, the true progressive. Of course a few months ago, when she rather arrogantly assumed that she had the nomination in the bag, she considered herself a moderate. Back in 1964, she supported an extreme conservative. Whenever she feels it is convenient to do so, she switches sides, a little too easily for my tastes. 

Here she is, explaining her support of Goldwater, essentially laughing it off as the lack of good judgment of youth, even though one can certainly make the argument that she was at least old enough to know better:

These are some of the reasons and inconsistencies that prevent people from trusting Hillary. It is real. Yes, everyone is entitled to change their mind, but far too many politicians - and the Clintons are nothing if not politicians - do so seemingly only to profit politically from it. They moisten their fingers and then hold them to the air to get a feel for which direction the political winds are blowing, all while pretending to be leaders themselves. One gets the feeling that even positions now deemed extreme could become acceptable to the Clintons if the American people begin to feel strongly enough about it in terms of poll numbers.

It reminds me of a quote from John F. Kennedy, who once joked about American leadership:

"We don't want to be like the leader in the French Revolution who said, "There go my people. I must find out where they are going so I can lead them."

He was, of course, joking. Unfortunately, decades later, the joke is on us, the American people. And the people laughing are those who benefited from pulling the wool over people's heads. Can we really believe that the Clintons do not count as among the ranks of those who have benefited the most from the stagnant political situation that this country now finds itself in, when the major parties seem to resemble and agree with each other far too much for comfort? So far removed we are indeed from the days of Camelot. 

Nader was perhaps the first major figure to point out how uncomfortably close the two major parties seemed to be to one another. And of course, when you really think about it, how hard would it be for big corporations to invest enormous sums of money towards influencing key political figures (I refuse to call them leaders, as they are unworthy of that title)? When the biggest banks - and there are none bigger than Goldman Sachs - get a huge bailout package which the American people had to foot the bill for, and then within months, they continue the same sickening practices that contributed to the crisis that they created in the first place, would you not say that the joke is on us? And despite the better part of a trillion dollars that these monsters got, there they are on television and the radio, posing as respectable, law-abiding citizens and pills of the community, arguing that the government needs to cut welfare and other government "handouts." 

Politicians, of course, help to legitimize them, and the corporate supremacy system that they helped to create, and vigorously defend. Among those politicians is Hillary Clinton, who may very well be the next President.

Here is how Nader recently described Hillary Clinton:

“Cold and tired, redundant. Talks with a forked tongue. That’s why people don’t trust her.” Nader says that it took four years to get Clinton on board for a minimum wage hike. “That’s how Goldman Sachs she is.”

Sanders, for his part, is and long has been an activist, and he has remained remarkably true to his youthful idealism of the 1960's. There he was, marching for civil rights all of those decades ago. There he was, fighting the powers that be, in order to empower the average American.

Here he is now, in 2016, doing the same thing. He has been doing it all along, often the lone voice crying out against the outrages done in the name of the American people. He blasted Alan Greenspan before the financial crisis, when that became a popular thing to do, all of a sudden, once it became clear that those policies were not working out. Sanders knew it, and saw the crisis coming. Saw that elitism was not in the best interests of the country, even as politicians of both major parties congratulated themselves on the supposedly strong and booming economic growth, which a majority of Americans did not benefit from.

Sanders knows some things now, as well. He understands the political and economic realities facing the United States today, and he knows that it is a tough fight. But he also understands that his is a fight worth fighting for, certainly more than Hillary seems to. She and her husband seemed to have given up their youthful idealism of yesteryear completely in order to pursue power politics, and it has worked out well for them. They have both attained very high office and - wouldn't you know it? - they got quite wealthy in the process. Gone are the days when they seemed to hold up higher values for the country that they loved but felt needed real reform, as they now advocate politics as usual. She is seen as the establishment candidate for the Democrats for good reason, after all. As Nader suggested, “That’s how Goldman Sachs she is.”

To his credit, Sanders has remained on the outside, on the fringes. He has remained idealistic and honest, and his integrity has not really been called into question on any serious level. The biggest, and so far most damaging, charge leveled at him is that he cannot win the general election. Of course, many of the people who suggest such things also once suggested that Hillary herself was unbeatable, even though right now, she actually looks vulnerable. And many of the people who suggest that Bernie cannot win also dismissed Donald Trump, even though he has fairly consistently remained atop the GOP field. Now, they are warning about the very real dangers of a Trump presidency but, predictably, cannot admit that they might have been wrong about Sanders and his political viability. They will try to scare you away by suggesting that Sanders cannot win.

Always, the message is that he cannot win. But Nader suggests otherwise, and what he says makes sense. Take a look at what he said recently about this campaign:

“Bernie’s catching up. His only obstacle left is the Clinton’s control of the party apparatus and the superdelegates. If you had the George McGovern rules in '72, he would have very good chance of winning,” Nader says.

Do we want the candidate who had the integrity and presence of mind to put himself at risk and stand up for civil rights decades ago as a young idealist, or do we want the former, self-described "Goldwater girl?" Do we want the candidate who has consistently fought against elite interests and for the middle class, or do we want the candidate who cannot make up her mind whether she is a progressive or a moderate? Do we want someone who has proven that he cannot be bought, or do we want someone who explains away the millions that she conveniently takes from corporate special interests? Do we want someone we can trust for a change, or do we want the same old same old, politics as usual?

The truth is that Sanders is the only candidate from either major party with overall favorable ratings. Not a single other Democrat or Republican in this election can claim that. If we listen to the official sources in the two big parties and the media, the message is the same: Sanders cannot win. Read between the lines, and you might also get the impression that the American people themselves cannot win. 

It's time for a new message. And that message is coming from Bernie Sanders.

RALPH NADER ON THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL RACE: ‘BERNIE’S CATCHING UP’ BY GRANT BURNINGHAM ON 1/15/16:

http://www.newsweek.com/ralph-nader-bernie-sanders-416654