Why Nader has to run

Ralph Nader has to run because there are issues that must be addressed that will not be addressed adequately by either of the traditional parties. Both traditional party candidates will be biased in their approach due to the interests they represent. A candidate is needed that can deal with these issues without the bias that both traditional parties naturally have.

These issues, a few of which I will outline below, are of greater importance then the issues that the current candidates are addressing. If they are not addressed they will make whatever solutions that are reached in the more popular topics of debate trivial. Thus, it is necessary that a candidate run that can address these more critical issues.

I want to outline a few examples.

We are on a likely road to disaster with the environment. It cannot be denied that the course that humanity has taken over the past few hundred years has disrupted the natural balance of the world ecosystem. Anyone with an understanding of systems (it could be a swamp or a stock market, they are all the same) knows that when a system becomes unstable, the results are unpredictable and in the vast majority of cases, there is a destructive result on that system.

We have created an unstable system. We cannot predict the results.

The traditional candidates will not address this adequately as they have too many interests that benefit from the status quo and are opposed to meaningful change. A candidate is needed that is not tied to these interests.

Another example. We have created a world economic system that is dependent upon credit as its engine of growth. The US in particular has consumed off of borrowed money for most of the decade. The fruits of this are about to bear.

Again, we cannot be certain of the outcome. Our world economy is a system in disequilibrium. There can be no certainty of where it will end up as it returns to equilbrium. However, we must be aware of the potential outcomes, some of which could be devastating. The traditional candidates will not recognize the instability of our system. Again, they are too closely tied to interests that benefit from the status quo. Additionally, they are advised by individuals who have too much vested in the success of our current system to recognize its flaws.

Third. The economic system that we have put in place has removed barriers to trade. This has had good and bad effects. What cannot be argued is that it has allowed companies to locate facilities where labour is most cost-effective. This is a simple truism. There is a huge discrepancy in wages between countries. Without the traditional barriers to trade, this cannot last. A new equilibrium must be found. The adjustment of wages to find this new equilibrium will likely be painful to US citizens.

Both of the traditional candidates are unlikely to address this adequately for two reasons. First, they are too closely tied to interests that have benefited from this disequilibrium. Second, both candidates are influenced by current free market philosophy, which will discourage intervention.

So these are a few issues. There are others. But these serve the purpose of highlighting the fundamental difference between Nader and the other candidates. Nader is not tied to interests that will influence his decisions on these key issues.

We have reached a point on each of these where creative solutions are required. We need solutions that go beyond the traditional framework, and for this a candidate is required that is not bound by this framework. And as I have already said, if they are not addressed adequately, the issues that currently are being discussed and debated by the traditional candidates will become trivial.

- posted by Sigurd10/19/2004 01:58:00 AM