As a former employee of a PIRG. I can respond to that part of this post. Ralph
did not receive any cash from the organization, unless it was indirectly from
literature sales. He was closely involved and offered advice, but had no power
other than that of argument and persuasion. To describe it as a cash cow for
Nadar is slanderous. It was a cash source for funding research, the topic of
which was decided by the students involved. No decision taken by the student
elected board ever went to an outside organization or individual for approval.
I don't know about Washington, but where I live a $100,000 home is pretty
modest. (and that is Canadian dollars!)
Rod
Louis Proyect wrote:
> This is the first in a series of 3 posts on the Nader campaign. In it I
> will take a close look at the career and political philosophy of Ralph
> Nader, drawing from David Sanford's "Me and Ralph" published in 1976,
> various websites, and newspaper articles on Lexis-Nexis. The goal is to try
> to get past the hagiography and achieve a more focused picture of who he is
> and what he stands for.
>
> Sanford was an editor at the New Republic in the 1960s before it was
> purchased by Democratic Party centrist and Zionist Martin Peretz, who
> steered it to the right. At the time the magazine still had some liberal
> credentials and employed people like leftists James Ridgeway and Andrew
> Kopkind, who departed after the Peretz accession.
>
> At one time Sanford and Nader were close personally and politically. The
> magazine was functioning basically as a pipeline for Nader's research.
> Sanford and Ridgeway, also a friend of Nader, were his two closest allies.
> Eventually Sanford and Nader had a falling out, but there is little
> evidence that it had anything to do with profound political differences.
> Sanford, like Nader, has remained a political liberal. This makes his book
> useful, since it is not filled with the kind of prejudice found in a study
> penned by rightist Ralph Toledando of the National Review. With the
> exception of Sanford and Toledando, all other books on Nader that I am
> aware of are exercises in hagiography.
>
> One of the key questions that Sanford addresses is whether Nader was
> dealing in Ford stock at about the time his book on General Motors was
> being published. The notion of hairshirt Ralph Nader playing the
> market--indeed taking advantage of what amounts to 'insider'
> information--is rather damning. When Ridgeway and Sanford confronted Nader
> with this allegation in 1972, he became livid.
>
> Sanford tracked down Nader's stockbroker (yes, Virginia, there is no Santa
> Claus) and raised the question of the Ford stock. From him he learned that
> it was Nader's mom who owned the stock, not Ralph. So when Nader
> categorically denied that he owned Ford stock, he was not answering with
> the kind of candor that one expects from a saint.
>
> Another part of the Nader hagiography is his humble life-style. During the
> 1960s, it was widely reported that he subsisted on $5,000 a year and lived
> in a $85 per month furnished room. In 1972 somebody reported to Sanford
> that Nader actually lived in a $100,000 house in a fancy neighborhood in
> Washington. Of course, nobody could really object to somebody living in an
> expensive house but concealing that fact in order to promote a monastic
> image is another story altogether.
>
> Investigation revealed that the house belonged to his unemployed brother,
> who seemed ill-equipped to make the mortgage payments on such an abode.
> When Sanford interviewed Stanley Hurwitz, who lived on the block, the reply
> was unequivocal: "Ralph Nader lives there, it's his home. I see him coming
> and going at odd hours nearly every day. I have never seen anyone behaving
> so strangely around his own home."
>
> In a very real sense, Nader's vision of a transformed America involves
> attorneys operating as "public citizens". This litigious vanguard will lead
> the unwashed masses into a better future. So it might be necessary to
> cultivate ties with this most precious social base. This might explain
> Nader's rather curious decision to remain neutral on the question of
> "no-fault" insurance, a measure that would decrease the revenue stream of
> many an attorney.
>
> When it was reported that the Naderite Center for Auto Safety received
> $10,000 from the American Trial Lawyers Association just before an
> important no-fault legislation was voted on (and defeated) in the Senate,
> many people judged that this amounted to a bribe. In exchange for silence,
> the Nader machine got a hefty payoff.
>
> Nader's defense involved disavowing any connection with the Center for Auto
> Safety. It should be pointed out that Nader eschews any kind of formal
> attachment to many of the organizations he has spawned over the past 35
> years or so. For example, Public Citizen, which is routinely described as
> Naderite in the press, does not include Nader on the board of directors,
> but it is also reported that Nader maintains an office in their building.
> Since there is virtually no point of disagreement between Nader and Public
> Citizen, his independence seems moot at best.
>
> Investigations revealed that ties between Nader and the Center for Auto
> Safety were real and visible to the inquiring eye. Not only had Nader
> founded the group, he had hired its director Lowell Dodge. Furthermore, the
> center was largely funded by the Consumers Union, upon whose board Nader
> sat. All in all, the interlocking connections between Nader and these
> various nonprofits operating in his orbit evoke the kind of overlapping
> that takes place in the corporate world, all calculated to deflect
> questions of accountability.
>
> This pattern of "plausible deniability" also extended into the Public
> Research Interest Group (PIRG), a campus group that Nader launched. The
> PIRG was largely designed as a cash cow for the Naderite empire. The idea
> was that after pro-Nader students would get 50 percent of the student body
> to vote for affiliation with PIRG, a mandatory check-off system would
> deduct a small amount from student fees. Anybody who didn't believe in the
> Naderite mission would be eligible for a refund, but it was calculated that
> most students wouldn't bother. This strategy is similar to that employed by
> book or record clubs that require you to send in a card indicating that you
> do NOT want the current selection, rather than a positive indication of a
> choice.
>
> When Penn State trustees turned down this scheme, Nader went on the
> warpath, describing it as "tyranny 1776 style" and calling the school a
> "citadel of fascism." A critic of Nader's plan wrote a piece in the July 7,
> 1975 Chronicle for Higher Education explaining the real stakes, which
> seemed to be more about the all-important bottom line rather than
> democracy. A check-off system would bring in $270,000 per year at Penn
> State, while a voluntary program would net about $30,000. As criticisms of
> this sort began to mount, Nader felt some pressure to create an escape
> valve. So, as in the case of the auto safety group mentioned above, Nader
> claimed that he had no real connections to PIRG. In an op-ed piece, he
> wrote "PIRGs are independent, student funded and student run...They are not
> to be confused with their supporters."
>
> Even if Nader's claim to keeping a monastic existence rests on shaky
> grounds, it is certainly the case that his employees have no choice except
> to live simply--considering that his wages are among the lowest in the
> nonprofit world. This makes it almost impossible to raise a family while
> being a Nader employee, a fact that combined with 80 hour weeks, leads to a
> high divorce rate. This kind of slave-ship regimen was challenged by the
> editors of Multinational Monitor, a Naderite publication. Not only were
> they tired of being poor, they objected to Nader's interference in the
> magazine's editorial agenda.
>
> When they attempted to form a union, Nader fired them all. The June 28,
> 1984 Washington Post reported:
>
> "Three editors fired by consumer advocate Ralph Nader's organization have
> filed charges of unfair labor practice against him, claiming he fired them
> primarily for trying to form a union.
>
> "In a bitter dispute at the Nader publication Multinational Monitor,
> Nader's group has changed the locks on the office door and attempted
> unsuccessfully to have the chief editor arrested, alleging he took away
> files on a crucial story.
>
> "Nader, in an interview, said the charges filed against him last month with
> the National Labor Relations Board are a 'ploy,' and that the reason for
> the firings was that the editors disobeyed his strict orders by publishing
> a highly controversial story about alleged bribery by Bechtel Corp. before
> Nader had a chance to read the final version.
>
> "The Bechtel story, which drew nationwide publicity in April, revealed that
> federal authorities were investigating whether the giant California-based
> multinational firm paid bribes to win approval of nuclear power plants in
> Korea during the time when Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger and
> Secretary of State George P. Shultz were top officials of Bechtel.
>
> "The firings have sparked numerous petitions and letters of protest to
> Nader from the Monitor's small but loyal liberal readership and have
> prompted threats of legal action on both sides."
>
> In an interview with Doug Henwood of Left Business Observer, fired editor
> Tim Shorrock states:
>
> "Nader's campaign against me was incredibly vicious. His top aides spread
> all kinds of rumors about me in Washington and managed to get me pretty
> well blacklisted from the public interest crowd (which actually was a good
> thing). They even tried to convince people I was a communist (!!!) out to
> subvert Nader's organizations."
>
> Turning now to Nader's political philosophy, we should right off the bat
> mention that his attacks on the WTO are commendable. Of course, this does
> not quite distinguish him from other opponents like Pat Buchanan, whose
> rhetoric on these questions matches Nader's. Perhaps this affinity has led
> Reform Party leader Jim Mangia to open up discussions with the Nader camp
> about a possible bid on the Reform ticket. The May 26th NY Times reports:
>
> "Jim Mangia, the Reform Party's national secretary, has been talking to
> Green Party leaders about Mr. Nader's interest in running as the Reform
> candidate. Despite Mr. Nader's leftward leanings, his politics are not so
> different from the Reform platform on issues like campaign finance reform
> and permanent trading status for China."
>
> In a nutshell, Nader is attempting to connect the dotted lines between the
> social movements and trade unions of today with the anti-monopoly and
> populist traditions of the pre-1917 left. This is the left of small
> shopkeepers, farmers and "citizens" who need to restore the vision of
> Jeffersonian democracy. In his Concord Principles found at votenader.com,
> he states:
>
> "Control of our social institutions, our government, and our political
> system is presently in the hands of a self-serving, powerful few, known as
> an oligarchy, which too often has excluded citizens from the process.
>
> "Our political system has degenerated into a government of the power
> brokers, by the power brokers, and for the power brokers, and is far beyond
> the control or accountability of the citizens. It is an arrogant and
> distant caricature of Jeffersonian democracy."
>
> I personally am somewhat suspicious of appeals to "Jeffersonian democracy",
> particularly in light of his treatment of the American Indian.
>
> "...but this letter being unofficial and private, I may with safety give
> you a more extensive view of our policy respecting the Indians, that you
> may better comprehend the parts dealt to you in detail through the official
> channel, and observing the system of which they make a part, conduct
> yourself in unison with it in cases where you are obliged to act without
> instruction...When they withdraw themselves to the culture of a small piece
> of land, they will perceive how useless to them are their extensive
> forests, and will be willing to pare them off from time to time in exchange
> for necessaries for their farms and families... As to their fear, we
> presume that our strength and their weakness is now so visible that they
> must see we have only to shut our hand to crush them..." (Classified
> Letter of President Thomas Jefferson to William Henry Harrison, Feb. 27,
> 1803)
>
> Turning to more recent history, it is also disconcerting to note--based on
> an exhaustive search of Lexis-Nexis--that prior to his 1996 Presidential
> bid on the Green ticket, Nader has never spoken out publicly on the cutting
> edge issues of the day: Nicaragua, El Salvador, Iraq, abortion rights, gay
> rights, affirmative action, etc. One can only suppose that taking a stand
> on crash-resistant auto bumpers might be less risky.
>
> Sanford actually explores this "tunnel vision" approach to changing society
> in the final chapter of his "Ralph and Me." After a visit to Ghana, Nader
> aide James Fellows began to have doubts whether Nader's approach mattered
> much when people in Africa were suffering famine, epidemics and warfare.
> Nader reassured him that these problems were insuperable; there's nothing
> that can be done. On the other hand, Fellows told Sanford that in Nader's
> view, "[C]ar safety or something like that, there's a marginal improvement
> that he can make."
>
> In my final post, I will make the case that despite all this the Nader
> campaign might be a positive development. Prior to that, I will supply some
> background on the Green Party, the topic of my next post.
>
> Louis Proyect
> Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
--
Rod Hay
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The History of Economic Thought Archive
http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html
Batoche Books
http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/
52 Eby Street South
Kitchener, Ontario
N2G 3L1
Canada
