People need to start doing their research. They need to turn off the damn football game and read a newspaper (preferably an independent one). They need to see what is at stake here. These injustices that have been perpetrated on us in this dark decade are the first steps down an icy slope. It begins with illegal, unconstitutional wiretapping…It ends with martial law. It begins with unrepresented overtaxation…It ends with near-slavery. It begins with enforcing our imperialist aggression around the world…It ends with us playing the role of the Axis power in the next global war.

People may say, “Never. This is America.” I’m sure the Romans felt the same way. People in this country, of all levels of education, backgrounds, income, whatever, must realize this is where we are headed. We cannot sit back and hope the red, white, and blue will see us through. We need Ralph Nader. We need millions of him.

let’s hope that it will work, because the system that we have now is utterly dysfunctional.

Would you mind explaining how you see Fletcher departing from Nader? I perceive their views as aligned when it comes to the importance of organization, while Fletcher departs on the importance of third party runs without sufficient backing.

They certainly missed an opportunity by failing to cohere their electoral aims with the power behind the movement four years ago. As you say, solidarity is essential, and it’s also lacking, as is the motivation or fire in the belly.

Best to you.

But until now, the movement component has been absent and hence the lack of success or threat they pose to the established two party block dominance.

I have nothing but admiration for Nader and supported Nader’s run in 2000 and 2004. However admiration is not relevant to the discussion. What is relevant is understanding why Nader’s quixotic run was impotent this year and how it is being articulated per this article. Fletcher as you correctly point out recognizes the obstacles that third party runs faces. However Flecther departs from Nader when he recognizes the importance of organizations.

You state that the movement component has been absent. That is true today but four years ago there was a movement against the war in Iraq whereby Nader and the Greens failed to cohere into its electoral arm. The point I’m making is that the Left itself defused and diffused that opportunity. My question is since the Left squandered this rare opportunity how will any of these initiative survive the Left’s own inability to formulate solidarity.

I did look further into the November 5th initiative and do hope it will work.

Best wishes to you as well.

in reference to Rosa Parks, I believe that the use of “strategically” implies that it wasn’t random. Strategy itself can require immense organization.

On the other hand, simply voting can also be strategic, but doesn’t take much organization and in that sense would be acts of random individual, as you correctly identify.

Maybe, maybe not, Nader would agree that his strength is not running as a candidate after so many poor finishes, Fletcher certainly does. However, the present activism and organization with November5 runs parallel with what Bill Fletcher supports as viable organization, and he believes is precisely what is needed. Obviously Nader’s strategy to change politics as a political candidate has failed, but his willingness to change roles and move in the direction as an organizer which regular people can easily become a part of is a step in the right direction. You have to at least admire the man’s commitment after so many years as he’s stayed in the trenches, obviously with not as much to show for it as he’d like, but you can’t discredit his dedication and resilience.

True, Nader has not succeeded in building an effective movement behind his campaign, as such he’s certainly going to fall short of Perot’s 16%. However, Perot also had a shitload of cash to throw around and purchase prime spots in the media and buy his way into debates. That was more of a money effect, not necessarily viable organization whose constituents had a fire in the belly.

Fletcher, who admits to disagreeing strategically with Nader on a third party run, specifically addresses why it’s so dysfunctional; the two party blocks’ vested interest in keeping out minor parties, as he states. As we’ve seen, the only thing that has so far overcome that vested interest is cash, in the case of Perot. If these third parties were to actually establish a massive movement behind them, they’d likely fare a lot better. But until now, the movement component has been absent and hence the lack of success or threat they pose to the established two party block dominance. Accounting for that is likely the reason for Nader’s sensible and hopefully effective change of course.

As Nader points out, the lack of motivation is what is holding back effective movements. Until large numbers of the populace possess that fire in the belly, effective movements as such will continue to fail.

Best to you.

As of November 5, 2008, he received 658,963 votes which represents about 1% of the vote. In 2000 Nader received 2,882,955 votes which represented 2.74% of the popular vote (wikipedia).

Like I stated Nader running in coalition with the Green Party gave him his best results. Nader’s 2000 run also provided coattails in later election such as the Green Party win in New Paltz, NY and Matt Gonzalez near win in SF. Clearly Nader and the Green Party since 2000 has been heading in the wrong direction and has not presented themselves as viable alternatives which is why Obama was able to landslide on Tuesday.

Nader is a quixotic figure and that is the problem and Nader does not possess the resource of a Ross Perot to construct a political party and amass a 16% vote tally. He did better than 2004 but not even as close as 2000. Should that then be considered a repudiation since Obama won the election so handedly with the largest every turnout. Or should is Ralph making an error disparaging voters for not “having fire in the belly”. I disagree with this kind of rhetoric because perhaps Ralph himself is not doing the kind of reflection needed.

Perhaps Ralph, rather than running as an “independent” should compete in te Green Party primaries and if he doesn’t win he should run. In other words perhaps Ralph should compromise and work WITHIN an institutional framework. On the other hand the Green Party ran poorly in two consecutive campaigns (2004 and 2008). The Green Party should have relax some of the internal rules and got behind Nader. In other words what is not being said in the video is that the Green Party and Nader could have really been a viable alternative to the Democrats had they’d constructed an organized and united front (read: solidarity).

Or to put it bluntly I see no reflection by Nader and the Green Party of their own mistakes. Clearly IMO it is Bill Fletcher who nails the problem. What is needed is viable organizations that yields results which gives participants hope, confidence and “fire in the belly”.

These folks are Dem loyalists who bring “progressive ideas” into the Party where they can be sprinkled into the talking point lexicon. I don’t think they are intentionally “co-opting” but trying to “rehibilitate” the Party of FDR, to act more like FDR. They believe they’ve more or less found it in Obama – not without reservations – but they were silent under Clinton and many tried to shut up concerns when the 2006 Dems wouldn’t bring an end to the War and Occupation of Iraq. A massive support to mollify “anti-war” progressives was rolled out. So, intentional or not they are dangerous to the kind of sincere movement and activist strategies Ralph is laying out. Some of the writers for The Nation mag. are in the thick of this. Their outreach is through MoveOn.Org and they’re on KOS, Salon and Huffington Post. Not saying all are part of a planned conspiracy, but it is a dynamic that has so far undermined a progressive movement.

As we know, never underestimate the corporate elite and their minions. The fascism that Ralph notes, is perhaps pitched to a level that Mussilini could only imagine. The internet with it’s “democratization” cuts both ways. The “game is rigged” not just in electing officials but in organizing. Ralph is an enemy of the people – as Isben noted so keenly.