Englehart's editorial cartoon in the Hartford Courant pissed me off. I guess that's what editorial cartoons are supposed to do. But the cartoon suggested two things which, unfortunately, make the current process of running for President an abomination, and an example of how our Democracy is broken.
The cartoon, in it's depiction of Nader as a dark-eyed lunatic, and Uncle Sam's depiction as satisfied that Nader should not be able to run, or speak for that matter, shows Englehart's clear approval of a broken system.
What's wrong with another potential run for the presidency by Nader?
The guy has done more good for this country than most politicians who have sat for a two hour luncy with a K Street lobbyist ever has.
First of all, Nader has the right to run. His run in the past has shown two things - that the two parties now in power have a complete lock on how the elections operate. He's also demonstrated what has been confirmed by the current congress, that there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties.
Nader has been castigated as a monomaniacal spoiler (and what human who runs for the office of president is not a monomaniac?). He's been accused of allowing George Bush to Al Gore in Florida, and thereby in the national election. C'mon. Gore defeated himself. He ran his campaign following the instructions of a DNC, and campaign consultants who didn't know what they were doing. Eight years later, Gore has an adoring public and a Nobel prize. Where was that Gore in 2000? Gore was abetted in the loss by Republican Party and Floridian dirty tricks, a complacent press and a Supreme Court which inserted itself where it should not have.
Nader ought to be treated as a national treasure. He's a man who speaks the truth when we don't necessarily want to hear it. He's not always right. He can be heartless in the pursuit of his principles. But he has principles and he sticks with them.
I recommend taking a couple hours out of your day to watch the documentary about Nader called An Unreasonable Man, and then ask yourself if it isn't better to be unreasonable in a world of injustice.
1 comment:
I interpreted the cartoon differently, but I don't know a whole lot about his politics, so I'm going to trust your judgment on this. I thought that it was criticizing the exclusion of candidates, and that the reader was supposed to be appalled by the implication that limiting speech is essentially what is done by barring third party candidates.
If democracy is going to work at all, people have to have the guts to allow it to actually work. And that means encouraging voters to be informed, encouraging voters to make real choices, rather than flipping a coin.
Post a Comment