Slate's Bizbox
the breakfast table: An e-mail conversation about the news of the day.

the breakfast table
entries
12345678910
from: James Fallows
to: Ralph Nader

Would You Support Edwards?

Posted Thursday, May 2, 2002, at 1:09 PM ET

Who are these people?

Welcome back to D.C., Ralph!

I'm impressed that you can still use the legal pad for composition. I won't even ask how your words magically assumed electronic form—I am enough of a veteran of Team Nader to be able to guess. Through decades of disuse my handwriting has atrophied to total dis-functionality. Not even I know what it says any more. Mike Kelly, the Atlantic's editor (this is my segue to mentioning that the Atlantic won three National Magazine Awards yesterday), was saying recently that the skill that would most immediately improve journalists' lives and work was shorthand. I realize that there are lots of ways to end the sentence, "The thing that would make journalists better is …" Still, he's right. Maybe it's not too late to learn.

Hey, on the priests, my initial bet was "two generations from now" for a shift from all-male celibates. That takes us to 2050, more or less. Let's hope we're both around to see who's right then.

We're nearing the end, and I have a long list of things I'd ideally like to ask you about. (For later reference: the great Washington Post piece about the fraud of college-admission "waiting lists," plus related pieces about rising college costs; another very good Post piece about the telecom fiasco, which is affecting the rest of the economy and which the Federal Communications Commission might try to deal with, if Michael Powell were so inclined; the ever-mounting scandal of brokerage firms, like Merrill Lynch, misleading their clients, which matters more and more as 401ks replace company pensions; a genuinely funny New York Times story about "rescue rats"; the struggle over one of the two most senseless weapons on the Pentagon's current wish list, the Crusader—for details on the other senseless project, the F-22, check the current Atlantic; and so on.) But I want to skip ahead to one big point, in hopes you can say something about it before we close.

It turns out that Nick Lemann's New Yorker profile of John Edwards is where we should have started this discussion. It's very good, as you would expect, and it establishes a number of obvious-when-you-think-about-them but important points. For instance: that the race for the Democratic nomination is officially underway, as of the Florida convention last month; that Gore is going to run, based on his speech there; that Gore's simple name-brand presence carries surprising weight; and that Edwards' chances are based on combining the best parts of the Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton models of winning the presidency. Carter was the fresh-faced moderate from the South, whose lack of a long record let people read various hopes into him. Clinton was the naturally talented political phenom. We're familiar with each man's problems—the point is, they established models of how Democrats could win.

But the surprising part of this portrayal of Edwards, which as the journalists say can "frame" discussion of him, is Nick's argument that he's planning to run … as a plaintiff's lawyer! Now, he actually is a plaintiff's lawyer; that's where he made his fortune. But rather than trying to explain this away or turn it into a twist—John McCain, war hero, running as man of peace—he actively embraces it. Nick's theory is that in the South, "liberalism" really is expressed by plaintiff's lawyers. This is where the little man makes his stand against the big corporate interest, this is where people stand equal before the law. It's Norma Rae even more than Erin Brockovich.

So, my question to you is: If he's the nominee, will you support him? Will you work for him to get the nomination, reasoning that Greens and Democrats together are more likely to win than either on its own?

Just curious, but genuinely curious.

See you,
Jim

the breakfast table
entries
12345678910
from: James Fallows
to: Ralph Nader

Would You Support Edwards?

Posted Thursday, May 2, 2002, at 1:09 PM ET
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
James Fallows is national correspondent for the Atlantic Monthly and author, most recently, of Free Flight. Ralph Nader, a consumer advocate, is author of Crashing the Party.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

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)


Washington Post