Ralph Nader is still kicking
At 88 he's as cranky as ever and trying to start trouble in DC with a printed paper called Capitol Hill Citizen. In 2001 I interviewed him about 9/11 and its aftermath -- or at least I tried to.
First, here’s what Nader is up to today, courtesy of Politico:
Nader, now 88 years old, isn’t giving up. Instead, he’s decided to make one more bid for relevance using a medium that befits his old-fashioned approach to politics: the print newspaper.
Since April, Nader has been working with a team of about fifteen freelance writers and journalists to publish Capitol Hill Citizen, a new print newspaper that provides a decidedly un-mainstream look at Congress.
The paper’s coverage centers on the issues that Nader had devoted his career to exposing — and which, in Nader’s view, the mainstream press refuses to touch: the growth of corporate influence on Capitol Hill, the steady erosion of congressional power, the perennial corruption of U.S. lawmakers and, of course, the follies and failures of the mainstream political media.
The Citizen’s mission, said Nader, is to direct national attention toward the sort of big-picture stories that get overlooked by Washington’s scoop-obsessed press corps — and to do it without any of the bells and whistles of digital media.
***
Back in 2001 — after 9/11 but before the Bush-Cheney axis of evil took us to war in Iraq — Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan came to Pittsburgh to debate each other about what kind of third party the country needed. Buchanan was his usual pleasant self. Nader was his usual cranky self.
A lot of Buchanan and a little of Nader
Nov. 10, 2001
Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader, a disparate duo of third-party presidential candidates from the 2000 election, are coming to town Thursday for a debate at the University of Pittsburgh.
We thought it would be interesting, not to mention fun, to ask each of them the exact questions about U.S. foreign policy and President Bush's handling of the war on terrorism.
Reform Party man Buchanan happily played along, but due to an innocent misunderstanding, Nader did not.
The Green Party's candidate was prepared to be interrogated on the subject of Thursday's debate -- "What Kind of Political Party Does America Need?" -- but not willing to discuss terrorism or U.S. foreign policy.
Nader, who was cordial but insistent, did not want to play along, in large part, because he said those issues do not lend themselves "to very, very abbreviated Q&A's."
With the tape recorder still running on Thursday afternoon, however, I managed to extract a few comments from Nader on Sept. 11 and its aftermath.
FIRST UP, BUCHANAN
Q: What is your foreign policy?
A: I believe in an "America First" foreign policy, which is rooted in the tradition of Washington, Jefferson, John Quincy Adams and almost all the presidents of the United States up until World War I.
By that I mean, America should maintain a military second to none. But secondly, we should stay out of foreign wars and foreign quarrels which are none of our business, as Washington recommended in the "Farewell Address."
We are a republic and not an empire. I think the way to endure as a great nation forever is to avoid all the blunders made by all the other great nations and empires that entered the 20th century with us.
Briefly, in 1900, there were five empires and two emerging nations. The five empires were the British, French, German, Russian and Ottoman, and the two great emerging nations were Japan and the United States.
Only one survived the 20th century, and we succeeded by staying out of the great wars of the 20th century until most of the bloodletting was done and then entering and winning those wars. So I think we ought to maintain our distance from the quarrels of the world, to keep our republic.
Q: It's noon, Sept. 11, and you're president. What do you do and say and how do you carry on the war against terrorism from that point on?
A: Well, I don't want to second-guess the president going to Nebraska (laughing).
What do I say at that point? What I say is, "Look, not only is the Cold War over, fellas, the post-Cold War is over." The United States needs to see the world as it is and not as we would wish it to be. We need to review this idea of globalization, of free trade and of open borders to determine a single question: Are they incompatible with the freedom and security of the American people?
If they are, perhaps we've got to alter these policies and shape them more consistent with the needs of our country and our countrymen. I think we've walked into a new era and I think all questions are open and we Americans ought to begin to debate them.
In my judgment, we need a moratorium on legal immigration. We need to begin the systematic deportation of people who are here illegally, who despise our country. We need to review whether or not global interdependence is as good a policy as the old self-sufficiency and national independence were for the United States.
These are issues I've been arguing for years and I think Sept. 11 should cause everyone to take a look at them.
Q: What do you think Al Gore would have done, post-Sept. 11, that Bush hasn't done?
A: I really don't know what Mr. Gore would have done. I don't see how he could have done better than the president himself has done. He has shown real leadership qualities and has really established himself as the leader and resident of the nation, post-Sept. 11, in a way he had not after the Florida recount.
I think today the entire nation and the American people are not only comfortable with the president, I think they feel maybe the country made the right decision.
Q: What has President Bush done that pleases you most?
A: United the country.
Q: Least?
A: Ah..., Give me a week and maybe I'll think of one (laughs).
Q: To what extent did U.S. policy in the Mideast quote-unquote "cause" the terrorist attack?
A: U.S. support for Israel did not in any way cause the attack. But U.S. Mideast policy is, in large part, responsible for the loss of friendship and support throughout that region. But it did not cause the attack.
Q: Is America's Mideast policy in need of major changing and how so?
A: I think America's Middle Eastern policy should have been far more even-handed and balanced in the last 30 years than it has been. I think we have to decide whether we are going to be an honest broker, and whether we are going to be the peacemaker in the Middle East, or whether we're going to be a partisan. And if we're going to be a partisan, I think we're going to pay a hellish price.
Q: What message do you have for Osama bin Laden - that we can print in a family paper?
A: Make a good act of contrition (laughing).
AND NOW, RALPH NADER
Q: To give you a sense of what I asked Buchanan earlier today, here was the first question: "What is your foreign policy?" Second, "It's noon on Sept. 11. You're the president. What do you do and say and how do you carry on the war against terrorism?"
A: That's ridiculous, because you'll never know as much as you would know if you were president. You have no idea. When they say, "The Golden Gate Bridge is .... Or there's an alert," what does an outsider know?
It could be really hot information, details, a rumor. It could be trying to keep people supporting the president. Who knows? To ask an outsider how he or she would behave as an insider is an impossible answer. You can't answer it.
Q: Another question was, "What would Al Gore have done that George Bush has not done?"
A: He would have done the same. The Democrats are all in agreement. He would have done the same. They're all praising Bush. Nobody's proposing anything different.
Q: Another question was, "What has President Bush done that pleases you the most and the least"?
A: I don't know. These are ....
Q: No? OK. How about, "To what extent did U.S. policy in the Middle East quote-unquote 'cause' the terrorist attack"?
A: Well, as I say, I was told you wanted to interview me about the debate. The debate, as far as I know, is on third parties. You're trying to get me interviewing on a whole larger subject. So, I've got to demur.
Q: OK, I'm sorry. But I have you on the phone. You're hard to get. You're an important person. We're interested in what you have to say. Is there anything — before I let you go, or you get rid of me -- that you want to say in general about the way the country is handling this war on terrorism?
A: We've got to deal with this without giving up our constitutional freedoms and civil liberties, because that's what makes us strong and that's what makes us less likely to make mistakes.
More than ever, Americans should feel free to speak out and speak up — those with great experience in these matters and those who are the backbone of the country, the regular citizens.
Q: Is there anything you can say -- and I will let you go, and I appreciate your time — again in general, about America's Middle Eastern policy and whether it needs to be changed or ....
A: I don't want to get into this whole thing. If they ask about it (at the debate), fine. I don't like to be misled when I'm asked to call back a reporter. Now I'm not saying you did it deliberately.
Q: I didn't at all.
A: But when someone says to me, "Here's the list of reporters you've got to call back. This one's going to talk about the debate in Pittsburgh." Then I say, "I'm ready to talk about the third parties, not to switch gears."
Q: I understand. It's just a mis-communication. I thank you for your time, sir. Have a nice time in Pittsburgh when you come.
A: Thank you.
The ''American Experience'' debate sponsored by University of Pittsburgh Honors College, will be held at 8:30 p.m. Thursday on Pitt's Oakland campus. It's free, but by invitation only. Tickets, however, are available. Call (412) 648-2215.