Playing "What If"
From: James Fallows
To: Ralph NaderPosted Tuesday, April 30, 2002, at 6:45 PM ETWho are these people?
Hi Ralph,
A few days ago, I ran into somebody else, apart from you and me, who remembered The Water Lords. I loved working on that project, a "company town" profile of Savannah, but it ended in a surreal way. By the time the book came out, my wife and I were part of a labor gang in a jungle outpost in Ghana. She'd also been on the Savannah project, before we got married. On a trip to Accra for malaria pills and supplies, we picked up a moldy, sea-mailed "author's copy" of the book at the central post office. It seemed like some space capsule from a different universe. Of course, my previous Nader-project experience should have prepared me for the bizarre. On my first stint, I'd shared a dorm room with Ed Cox, a nice guy who mysteriously vanished most evenings. It turned out that he'd been going to the White House to court Tricia Nixon. I learned of this only when the newspapers announced their engagement. I've wondered for years: Had you known all along?
Back to the present. I score your first dispatch as conceding one point while leading me to concede another. The concession on your side involves agreeing to play "what if" with Green Party votes. Sure, the absence of a Green candidate helped the Democrat in Washington state, which in turn led to Jeffords and Daschle. That is, when forced to choose between a Democrat and a Republican, the Nader voters mainly went D. And if we extend that same logic to, say, the presidential race in Florida. …
The point I concede involves the role of tort suits in ending the priests' and bishops' coverup. The excesses of a litigious society are obvious to all. But a case like this is a powerful reminder of the imbalances of power that courts are meant to correct. I was tempted to say that it was a real-world counterpart to Erin Brokovich or A Civil Action until I remembered that those were actual cases, too. You could probably argue—and should, when people attack you for being litigation-crazy—that the pedophilia case would never have been broken without the threat of suit. It would simply have been too hard for newspapers to get real evidence and too risky for them to challenge the church without it.
On the subject of newspapers: No one has an excuse ever to feel bored, considering what's in the papers these days. The premier-designate of China visits the Pentagon, barely a year after the Pentagon was planning on China as its likely next big enemy. Interesting indications in the Washington Post and the New York Times about changes in the prevailing view of "government." A development in cell phone ergonomics that is quite addictive once you've seen it. A new kind of naval ship, part of the biggest boom in defense spending in a generation. The decades-in-the-making challenge to the power of the Army Corps of Engineers. The latest drama involving Monica Seles, an underappreciated athletic-character story. And we're not even counting the "Science" section or the French figure skating judge!
But the news I'm actually going to read tonight is The New Yorker—which I'll track down at the newsstand since my copy didn't come. My friend and former Atlantic colleague Nick Lemann has a profile of John Edwards that I want to read. Advance warning: I'll use this tomorrow to ask you how you'd put together a campaign against the Bush administration, if you really wanted to get 270 electoral votes. If you already have the answer—speaking for the Green party or the Democrats—feel free to tell us now.
More tomorrow, best wishes,
Jim F.
Playing "What If"
From: James Fallows
To: Ralph NaderPosted Tuesday, April 30, 2002, at 6:45 PM ETNotes From The Fray Editor:
Fray stars were out in force for this "Breakfast Table," proving that there's still a lot of strong feeling about Ralph Nader and the 2000 election. A post from the Ghost here, one from Kassandra here, and BML's contribution, here, all produced good threads (and some good arguments), as did Dilan Esper's contribution, below. RonK (of Seattle…) wasn't taking any prisoners on the subject of that Senator from Washington State, and other matters.
There's a nice post on trains from Lee, and the Fray team agrees with him that the train ride from Portland to Seattle is a winner: and that the trains go so slowly to those of us who have lived with European speeds. Publius makes the point that it is cars and trucks that did for the railway system, not airplanes.
Many many readers had comments on lawsuits. The problem is contingency fees says Trebor Ecilef. Econ Rocky's view is that "the largest legal cost is the loss of the business that is not done. By this I mean opportunities are missed because of perceived risks caused by the uncertainty of regulation and legal awards that could potentially be given." History Guy agrees with the Gerard Winstanley below: "Well over 90% of all lawsuits today, and I'd bet also in 1830, are debt collection actions…. The total number of cases has nothing to do with the impact of litigation on the economy." Leonard asks: If campaign finance reform kicks in and really does change the way money is raised in politics, will the Dems start to distance themselves from trial lawyers?...making tort reform more likely."
Reader Comments From The Fray:
There seems to me to be something tremendously anti-democratic about those who, like James Fallows, blame Ralph Nader for Gore's loss in the election. Essentially, that argument must rest on some sort of duty Nader has to stay out of the race so as to force liberal voters who didn't like Gore and didn't think he would be a good President to vote for him anyway.
I think it is quite arrogant of Fallows and other Gore supporters to say that liberals shouldn't have the opportunity to choose a presidential candidate who reflects their views. Fallows has his own vote to cast in the Presidential election; he doesn't have the right to dictate how others cast their votes. And if Gore failed to convince Nader voters to vote for Gore instead, that was entirely Gore's fault. And if we are going to cast blame, how about blaming the elites who run the Democratic Party who nominated a presidential candidate who was so weak he couldn't even carry his own state, and folks like Fallows for supporting such a loser?
--Dilan Esper
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
It's deliciously tempting to wonder what would happen if Nader was in office. All the corporate fatcats he'd take the hickory to--it's hard to even know where he'd begin. As obnoxious as America's energy, financial and health care oligarchs may be, however, I don't think society's ready to reach for his brand of problem solving just yet. If and when corrupt corporations and rent-seeking lobbyists become a serious drag on the prosperity and happiness of a majority of the American people, though, he'll be in for a renaissance.
By "serious", incidentally, I mean severe enough to outweigh the inefficiencies, costs, and oppressiveness of strong and intrusive government, which (as anyone but Nader himself could tell you) are quite considerable. I'd say a few more changes in the tax code, combined with 6 or 7 more Enrons would just about do it.
--Thrasymachus
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
It's often said the in the Good Old Days business deals were often made on a handshake, and a man was as good as his word. The first half of this statement is true. The second half is no more true than today. For that reason, the dockets of courts in the 19th century were chock full of "assumpsit" cases, occasioned by failures to fulfill promises (often not sealed with a written contract) to pay or provide goods and services. Because cash was scarce and banknotes constantly devalued or became worthless, even routine transactions were made on credit. So when someone didn't pay for that new stereo-opticon it didn't go to a collection agency: it went to court.
--Gerard Winstanley
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
(5/1)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Most Fast Food Restaurants Thrived During the Recession. Not Arby's.
Did Anti-Communists Really End Communism? Two Historians Say No.
Dear Farhad: How Does Facebook Know I'm Gay?
What Ever Happened to Hood Ornaments?
Are Doctors Allowed To Say They're Sorry?
Hitchens: Let's Not Get Sentimental About Communism
Notes From The Fray Editor:
Fray stars were out in force for this "Breakfast Table," proving that there's still a lot of strong feeling about Ralph Nader and the 2000 election. A post from the Ghost here, one from Kassandra here, and BML's contribution, here, all produced good threads (and some good arguments), as did Dilan Esper's contribution, below. RonK (of Seattle…) wasn't taking any prisoners on the subject of that Senator from Washington State, and other matters.
There's a nice post on trains from Lee, and the Fray team agrees with him that the train ride from Portland to Seattle is a winner: and that the trains go so slowly to those of us who have lived with European speeds. Publius makes the point that it is cars and trucks that did for the railway system, not airplanes.
Many many readers had comments on lawsuits. The problem is contingency fees says Trebor Ecilef. Econ Rocky's view is that "the largest legal cost is the loss of the business that is not done. By this I mean opportunities are missed because of perceived risks caused by the uncertainty of regulation and legal awards that could potentially be given." History Guy agrees with the Gerard Winstanley below: "Well over 90% of all lawsuits today, and I'd bet also in 1830, are debt collection actions…. The total number of cases has nothing to do with the impact of litigation on the economy." Leonard asks: If campaign finance reform kicks in and really does change the way money is raised in politics, will the Dems start to distance themselves from trial lawyers?...making tort reform more likely."
Reader Comments From The Fray:
There seems to me to be something tremendously anti-democratic about those who, like James Fallows, blame Ralph Nader for Gore's loss in the election. Essentially, that argument must rest on some sort of duty Nader has to stay out of the race so as to force liberal voters who didn't like Gore and didn't think he would be a good President to vote for him anyway.
I think it is quite arrogant of Fallows and other Gore supporters to say that liberals shouldn't have the opportunity to choose a presidential candidate who reflects their views. Fallows has his own vote to cast in the Presidential election; he doesn't have the right to dictate how others cast their votes. And if Gore failed to convince Nader voters to vote for Gore instead, that was entirely Gore's fault. And if we are going to cast blame, how about blaming the elites who run the Democratic Party who nominated a presidential candidate who was so weak he couldn't even carry his own state, and folks like Fallows for supporting such a loser?
--Dilan Esper
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
It's deliciously tempting to wonder what would happen if Nader was in office. All the corporate fatcats he'd take the hickory to--it's hard to even know where he'd begin. As obnoxious as America's energy, financial and health care oligarchs may be, however, I don't think society's ready to reach for his brand of problem solving just yet. If and when corrupt corporations and rent-seeking lobbyists become a serious drag on the prosperity and happiness of a majority of the American people, though, he'll be in for a renaissance.
By "serious", incidentally, I mean severe enough to outweigh the inefficiencies, costs, and oppressiveness of strong and intrusive government, which (as anyone but Nader himself could tell you) are quite considerable. I'd say a few more changes in the tax code, combined with 6 or 7 more Enrons would just about do it.
--Thrasymachus
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
It's often said the in the Good Old Days business deals were often made on a handshake, and a man was as good as his word. The first half of this statement is true. The second half is no more true than today. For that reason, the dockets of courts in the 19th century were chock full of "assumpsit" cases, occasioned by failures to fulfill promises (often not sealed with a written contract) to pay or provide goods and services. Because cash was scarce and banknotes constantly devalued or became worthless, even routine transactions were made on credit. So when someone didn't pay for that new stereo-opticon it didn't go to a collection agency: it went to court.
--Gerard Winstanley
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
(5/1)