The nag and the crank who changed America

It's easy to call names behind the mask of anonymity. Online, the anonymous cowardly epithet is everywhere. On newspaper editorial boards it's been going on for years.

Newspapers defend the practice of anonymous editorials, claiming consensus. That's bullshit of course. If a publisher wants something written, it gets written. If a corporate owner wants something written, it gets written.

Most recently, Karen Hunter, the Hartford Courant's reader representative explained how editorial decisions are made, and how these editorials are written. The explanation came on the heels of the Courant's editorial praising the hiring of ex-con, ex-governor John Rowland as an economic development director in Waterbury. The most telling line in the entire piece is:

When the board cannot reach a consensus, the editorial page editor usually has the final say (although the publisher has the ultimate say).

I've been told that during the 2004 Presidential campaign, the endorsement of George Bush as the candidate of choice by the Courant came after the entire editorial board, unanimously voted for a Kerry endorsement, and the publisher mandated a Bush endorsement.

Which leads me to the unnecessary trashing of a great American in today's Courant.

Although he has not declared his intention to run, The Hartford Courant has joined a chorus of fabulists who have decided to characterize Ralph Nader as "spoiler," "nag," "narcissist," and "crank."

He's a spoiler because he's reputed to have lost the election for Al Gore. Of course, Al Gore couldn't even win his home state of Tennessee in a campaign run by consultants and equivocators, and he refused to challenge the voting irregularities in Florida. Nader, for his part, did not actively campaign in Florida, nor was he the only independent candidate to do so. In the end, of course, Nader had every right to run, and still does. It's America, land-of-the-free, etc., remember?

The Courant should be praising Nader, who despite pressures to compromise his ideals, has created a significantly safer and more sane country. Consider auto seat belts, airbags, labelling on food, lower lead in the environment, no smoking in public buildings and you're just beginning to scratch the surface of the list of accomplishments. Maybe the Courant should try to find any other single individual who has made such a significant impact on the country in his or her lifetime.

Now, one of Nader's goals is to shine a light on the negative impact of corporate power, and the way the two-party system has created a broken Democracy, and the Courant scolds him for trashing his own legacy.

The editorial is shameful. But more shameful for the fact that the things that Nader suggests, careful investigation of political and corporate leaders, is the job once done, and now ignored by our major newspapers.

From a newspaper which has embraced George Bush, John Rowland and Creepy Joe™ Lieberman, this is a little hard to take.

The Courant says that Ralph Nader is the new Harold Stassen. More likely he is a Galileo to the catholic views of the media. Ralph Nader is a hero, and we should hope for a few more like him, and a few less like our elected leaders.