A Critique of Ralph Nader's Response to ADL's Abe Foxman
In his response letter to ADL director Abraham Foxman, Ralph Nader mentions Jewish Voice for Peace and other Jewish groups (Tikkun, Rabbis for Human Rights, the Refuseniks, etc.). I think this bespeaks success of Jewish dissenter organizations in getting across an alternative message about the American Jewish response to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Much of what Nader says about dissent on Mideast issues rings true -- particularly his argument that members of Congress who may be deeply troubled by Sharon's policies don't have the freedom to disagree with them publicly without becoming targets of AIPAC's powerful political lobbying machine.
On the other hand, what Nader says (and what Thomas Friedman and many others before him have said) about US policy being held hostage to Israeli policy is erroneous. Over the years, the US has pursued policies in the Middle East that serve our government's narrow ideological and economic interests. That successive US administrations have tended to hew closely to Israeli policy is less due to politicians' concern for the American Jewish vote (although this may be the case in certain circumstances) than to the geopolitical coalescence of American and Israeli interests. These interests have to do with asserting a political order in the Middle East that both Israeli and US administrations have seen as useful to their own hegemonic aims -- no matter how shortsighted such approaches tend to be. It is vital that thoughtful critics of Israeli and American policy in the Middle East be able to articulate this distinction, and not the inverted and mystifying view that Israel simply controls the US, an argument which runs parallel to Judeophobic myths of the past.
As for Nader himself -- I am gratified that his political campaign refuses to walk in lock step with the Republicans and the Democrats on foreign policy matters. I'm pleased that his political antenae have picked up what the mainstream parties refuse to avow: that many critical-minded Americans (including a great many dissenting American Jews) reject the current US policy in the Middle East. John Kerry, by contrast, has done an extremely poor job of creating and articulating a meaningful distinction between his perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and those of George Bush's administration. Indeed, the Democratic candidate seems to model his policy positions and, just his disturbingly, his rhetoric, ever more perfectly on the Republicans' examples.
Would I vote for Nader for this reason? I don't think so. I have been impressed by Nader's consistency in advocating a 'third option' that would scramble the "Tweedledee and Tweedledum" character of the American two-party system. He has certainly focussed attention on domestic issues that the major parties ignore, particularly universal healthcare and a living wage -- and now, on our deeply misguided Middle East policy. I fully agree with Nader that having only two options necessarily impoverishes Americans' political choices and reduces our ability to understand how political issues are framed in public discourse.
On the other hand, Nader's candidacy may achieve the opposite of its putatively progressive goals if he ultimately contributes to Bush's reelection this year. The current administration has shown itself to be an arch-conservative wolf in moderate sheep's clothing that places corporate interests above the public interest. We can ill-afford four more years of this administration's wanton mendacity and destructive social and foreign policies. Nader can argue that these are the stakes in any election cycle and that the creation of a viable third party cannot wait; I would counter that he may do more harm than good for the third-party option if he serves as the spoiler in an election as deeply ideological as this one. I have been far from impressed, moreover, by the way Nader has gone about martialing support for his candidacy by accepting donations from big-donor Republicans who view him as a useful spoiler for the liberal vote (see, for example, this Newsweek expose).
In short, I thank Nader for bringing new attention to failed Middle East (and other) policies that the Democrats and Republicans cannot be allowed to sweep under the carpet. I particularly appreciate his mention of JVP and other progressive Jewish and/or Israeli groups. And I recommend that he devote his energy to badgering the major parties into reconsidering such issues and formulating saner policies. But this doesn't mean that I'll vote for Nader. In fact, I very much hope that Nader withdraws from the running -- but only after he collects as much Republican cash as he can get and gives the Kerry campaign a black left eye.
--Lincoln
On the other hand, what Nader says (and what Thomas Friedman and many others before him have said) about US policy being held hostage to Israeli policy is erroneous. Over the years, the US has pursued policies in the Middle East that serve our government's narrow ideological and economic interests. That successive US administrations have tended to hew closely to Israeli policy is less due to politicians' concern for the American Jewish vote (although this may be the case in certain circumstances) than to the geopolitical coalescence of American and Israeli interests. These interests have to do with asserting a political order in the Middle East that both Israeli and US administrations have seen as useful to their own hegemonic aims -- no matter how shortsighted such approaches tend to be. It is vital that thoughtful critics of Israeli and American policy in the Middle East be able to articulate this distinction, and not the inverted and mystifying view that Israel simply controls the US, an argument which runs parallel to Judeophobic myths of the past.
As for Nader himself -- I am gratified that his political campaign refuses to walk in lock step with the Republicans and the Democrats on foreign policy matters. I'm pleased that his political antenae have picked up what the mainstream parties refuse to avow: that many critical-minded Americans (including a great many dissenting American Jews) reject the current US policy in the Middle East. John Kerry, by contrast, has done an extremely poor job of creating and articulating a meaningful distinction between his perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and those of George Bush's administration. Indeed, the Democratic candidate seems to model his policy positions and, just his disturbingly, his rhetoric, ever more perfectly on the Republicans' examples.
Would I vote for Nader for this reason? I don't think so. I have been impressed by Nader's consistency in advocating a 'third option' that would scramble the "Tweedledee and Tweedledum" character of the American two-party system. He has certainly focussed attention on domestic issues that the major parties ignore, particularly universal healthcare and a living wage -- and now, on our deeply misguided Middle East policy. I fully agree with Nader that having only two options necessarily impoverishes Americans' political choices and reduces our ability to understand how political issues are framed in public discourse.
On the other hand, Nader's candidacy may achieve the opposite of its putatively progressive goals if he ultimately contributes to Bush's reelection this year. The current administration has shown itself to be an arch-conservative wolf in moderate sheep's clothing that places corporate interests above the public interest. We can ill-afford four more years of this administration's wanton mendacity and destructive social and foreign policies. Nader can argue that these are the stakes in any election cycle and that the creation of a viable third party cannot wait; I would counter that he may do more harm than good for the third-party option if he serves as the spoiler in an election as deeply ideological as this one. I have been far from impressed, moreover, by the way Nader has gone about martialing support for his candidacy by accepting donations from big-donor Republicans who view him as a useful spoiler for the liberal vote (see, for example, this Newsweek expose).
In short, I thank Nader for bringing new attention to failed Middle East (and other) policies that the Democrats and Republicans cannot be allowed to sweep under the carpet. I particularly appreciate his mention of JVP and other progressive Jewish and/or Israeli groups. And I recommend that he devote his energy to badgering the major parties into reconsidering such issues and formulating saner policies. But this doesn't mean that I'll vote for Nader. In fact, I very much hope that Nader withdraws from the running -- but only after he collects as much Republican cash as he can get and gives the Kerry campaign a black left eye.
--Lincoln
posted by Lincoln Z. Shlensky at 11:42 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home