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

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

The John Edwards Question

Posted Thursday, May 2, 2002, at 6:04 PM ET

Who are these people?

Good afternoon, Jim:

Let's start with your observations about the Democrats—Gore, Clinton, and the newcomer, John Edwards. Gore is going to run because he and many Democrats believe he won in 2000, and he certainly did win the popular vote. But he ran an awful campaign and appeared to more than a few voters as a person who did not know who he was. At the convention he exclaimed that he was "his own man," but as the three debates with Bush showed, he did not answer that question—"Which man is that?" Gore beat himself in so many ways that some Democrats close to him have stopped counting. He had every advantage over the Texas governor, except one—he did not know how to be as folksy and loose a fellow as Bush—note the debates again.

Clinton is a vastly overrated politician. He got the reputation as what you called a "naturally talented political phenomenon" because he got out of scrapes of his own making, and he was blessed in 1996 with Bob Dole who signaled loser from early on—some of these signals involved his trademark humor. Clinton presided over the loss of Congress by the Democrats to the Republicans. As head of his party he saw it lose many key statehouses and governors' seats. He shored himself up by picking up some key issues from the Republicans and thereby leading his party into look-alike land. But then, for Clinton, politics has always been about him rather than also building a party and a social justice movement. (For more, see my book Crashing the Party; see also the Robert Reich op-ed piece in the March 11, 2001, Washington Post on the decline of the Democratic Party—he uses much stronger language.)

John Edwards was a very good trial lawyer and talks populism in a fresh though not very specific way. If he makes a difference should he receive the nomination and be elected president? His senatorial record can shed some light on that question. Sure, on the limited number of votes that come to the floor, he registers progressive. But has he introduced or supported fundamental reform legislation on health care, labor rights, consumer protection, military-budget reform, corporate crime (one of his specialties as a tort lawyer bloated corporate welfare hundreds of billions of dollars), access to government by ordinary citizens … ? No, instead he has been very cautious—letting his new style and fresh looks lead the way rather than what he could have done, proposed and articulated for a deeper democracy. He along with all other Democrats, except Sen. Feingold, voted for the notorious so-called U.S. Patriots Act that will haunt our civil liberties tradition in many ways unless repealed.

A couple of years ago, I was asked about John Edwards in North Carolina, and I replied—"He is capable of becoming a lot better than he is at present." Meaning—sure, if the citizenry organizes to restore popular sovereignty over corporate sovereignty in the councils of government, Sen. Edwards would rise to the occasion. But that is not transforming leadership—to use James M. Burns' words; it is still heavily reactive. Just read the Wall Street Journal and you cannot avoid concluding that Big Business gives out its marching orders in a bipartisan manner to Democrats and Republicans alike—enough for getting their way over the few dissenters.

The Democratic Party, as a party, has not responded to the growing, though still not large yet, defections of its progressive voters to the Green Party. It is entirely free to take away the issues from the Greens—that is, if the corporate Democrats free the party to do so. Not likely. A whole new political reform movement, coming from an aroused and motivated citizenry, is long overdue. The two parties have had their chance to shape up and declined. The necessities of too many people in our country have been ignored, and the injustices too long fostered by two parties marinated in the same business cash that is proliferating vastly from election to election—or shall we say from auction to auction. I do not see Edwards willing to take on such entrenchment.

By the way, commentary on our exchange is coming in, and those who are lending their opinions on the tort system may wish to log on to www.centerjd.org for current research.

Today's New York Times carries a column (Page 27) by William Safire on Bush's reversal regarding a key privacy principle. Bush told Safire during the campaign he was for giving consumers and patients an opt-in right. Now his government is pushing opt-out. Opt-in means consumers have to give affirmative consent to have personal data sold to other parties.

The Wall Street Journal reports on D-1 that Hawaii is poised to regulate the maximum price of gasoline—a cap to counter the oil giants privately regulating supplies.

Nice exchanging with you, Jim. Look forward to your next book.

Signing off,
Ralph

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

The John Edwards Question

Posted Thursday, May 2, 2002, at 6:04 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