Ralph Nader on the Media, Freddie, Gray, and Poverty by Norman Markowitz

Although   Ralph Nader's role in making it possible for George W, Bush to steal the presidency in 2000 and his subsequent presidential campaigns have seriously undermined his relationship with peoples movements, including the  respect he richly deserves for his leadership in  establishing a myraid of organizations fighting corporate power, from the Public Interest Reserach Groups to Citizen Action, this really fine article which I have cut and pasted below   is the old Nader in the best sensse.  Now, if only Ralph can connect his insights with a viable political strategy for 2016 and revive is tremendous talents as an organizer  in the coming struggles

 

Norman Markowitz

 

 

Suddenly, Baltimore - Wonder Why?

By Ralph Nader, The Nader Page

10 May 15

 

uddenly, the mass media is writing about or televising the conditions in West Baltimore. Conditions that Washington Post columnist, Eugene Robinson, summarized as decades long “suffocating poverty, dysfunction and despair.”

Suddenly, reporters and camera teams are discovering Baltimore’s inner city—crumbling or abandoned housing; mass unemployment; too many merchants gouging the locals (the poor pay more); too many drug dealers; schools, roads and sidewalks in serious disrepair; debris everywhere; lack of municipal services (which are provided to the wealthier areas of the city); and, as always, grinding poverty and its many vicious circle consequences.

Suddenly, media highlights a report by Harvard economists putting Baltimore County last among the worst counties in the U.S. for economic mobility.

Suddenly, The Atlantic pays attention to the reporting by the Baltimore Sun of police brutality in Baltimore against people and communities of color. “A grandmother’s bones were broken. A pregnant woman was violently thrown to the ground. Millions of dollars were paid out to numerous victims of police brutality.”

Suddenly, the Washington Post reports that life expectancy in 15 Baltimore neighborhoods, including the one where the innocent, young Freddie Gray lived (slain by the police for making eye contact and running) is shorter than in North Korea! The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health gets press for concluding that Baltimore teens between 15 and 19 years old face poorer health conditions and a bleaker economic outlook than those in economically distressed cities in Nigeria, India, China and South Africa.

Suddenly, the aggressive arresting practices of the local police and their climate of constant fear are the subject of detailed media presentations. Interviews with grieving, frightened residents in the neighborhoods shock viewers who are unfamiliar with Baltimore. Suddenly, viewers and readers come to the realization that these people of color are all human beings who for too long have had their plight overlooked and ignored.

Baltimore is an example of the harsh conditions created by a combination of white flight and loss of economic opportunities due to a shift of manufacturing off our shores to those of other countries that will allow their citizens to work for a smattering of pennies (facilitated by trade agreements like NAFTA and the World Trade Organization). The gap between rich and poor, between visibility and invisibility, is one of the largest in the country—a recurrent tale of two cities in modern America.

Suddenly, we see major reporting on the thousands of lead-poisoned children in Baltimore. Ruth Ann Norton, executive director of the Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning, says “a child who was poisoned with lead [from lead-based paint] is seven times more likely to drop out of school and six times more likely to end up in the juvenile justice system.”

Our first black president laments the cycle of poverty, but calls protestors who destroyed property, not lives, “thugs.” This is the same president who has spent tens of billions of dollars illegally attacking communities with civilians (“collateral damage”) in foreign countries. Such monies could have rebuilt our devastated cities, promoted programs and employment to help those in need in these very cities, and enforced laws against the corrupt political officials, and commercial and street predators who profit from the powerless poor and exploit poverty programs.

West Baltimore received a visit from the new Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, who said “we’re here to hold your hands and provide support,” without specifying resources beyond helping the city improve its police department.

Hundreds of pages in newspapers and hundreds of hours of television time were devoted to cover what the Reverend Donte L. Hickman Sr. called “the deterioration, dilapidation and disinvestment.”

And what brought the media attention? A couple hundred young men smashing windows and burning some stores, buildings and cars. Young men like Freddie Gray die often at the hands of some violent police in America’s inner cities without any subsequent media coverage or remedial action, but it took protests, civil unrest and fires to finally illuminate the interest of the nation’s media. How shameful! And how predictable will be the inevitable official inaction by the ruling classes once the embers dim, leaving the neighborhoods in despair.

When the poor neighborhoods of Washington, D.C. erupted in 1968, the great FCC Commissioner Nicholas Johnson said: “a riot is somebody talking. A riot is a man crying out: listen to me, mister. There’s something I’ve been trying to tell you, and you are not listening.”

If the plutocrats of America do not wake up to the daily, acidic results of excessive greed coupled with excessive concentration of power over the people, they will be fomenting what they abhor the most—cascading instability and disruption. In their parlance—that’s bad for business.


 

Post your comment

Comments are moderated. See guidelines here.

Comments

  • 'No one is scapegoating the Green Party and the Nader campaign by saying that it provided the context for Bush's stealing the election, because it did.'-- But Norman, good buddy, that is just what scapegoating is! The election was stolen due to the Green Party. N0-- there are many factors involved and the election was stolen. To single out one of the many factors, the Green Party, is exactly scapegoating. Historians of the 2000 election are still split on this issue. The real subtext behind the attack on Nader is the belief that the left should ally with the center i.e., support Democrats in the general election because the workers are not ready to support a third party. Your original support of Nader was correct and you should not have flipped. The Green Party had a right to run and its 90,000 votes were 90,000 votes that people wanted to cast for it. None of those votes 'belonged'' to Gore and he may not have won if Nader had dropped out. Some would have gone to Gore, some to Bush, many would have stayed home. Some statistical studies show that if Nader had dropped out Bush's lead would even have been greater than the 500 or so that has been given to him. The point is-- who knows? The fact is also that the statement that 'the Greens provided the context for Bush to steal the election'- is an opinion and not a
    statement of fact. It is also an opinion that that opinion is a bad opinion. It is also an opinion that historians in particular should preface their opinions with "in my opinion..." rather than state them as matters of fact.

    Posted by Thomas Riggins, 05/15/2015 11:55am (10 years ago)

  • Thanks to e.e w. clay for his intelligent comments.

    Tom, my friend, I think you are using polls in a somewhat sophist manner. Nader received 90,000 votes in Florida, where Bush was able to steal the election because the final tally before the recount had him ahead by around 1,500 out of over 10 million cast. Nader's vote in New Hampshire where no one was challenging anything, enabled Bush to carry the state. No one is scapegoating the Green Party and the Nader campaign by saying that it provided the context for Bush's stealing the election, because it did. Many other factors of course were involved. Let me say that I supported and voted for Nader in 2000 and was criticized for it, although my actions given our system didn't matter much in New Jersey.

    Posted by norman markowitz, 05/12/2015 4:16pm (10 years ago)

  • This is a good selection to republish-- marred only by the opening which reiterates the myth that Ralph Nader was somehow responsible for the fiasco in 2000 in Florida. Cf. The July 2002 analysis of the election in "Progressive Review" which shows that the pre-election polls put Gore ahead of Bush and that Nader's vote would not influence the election. In the actual election the Nader-Bush ratio did not change and the defection of voters from the Democratic Party from Gore to Bush resulted in the closeness of the election. There were 36,000 disenfranchised but eligible voters as well as many other factors we all know about that caused Florida to end up credited to Bush but it is not helpful to scapegoat the Green Party and somehow imply it should not have used its democratic right to run. It is simply idle speculation to maintain that if the Green Party had not run in Florida Gore would have won and it ill behoves progressives to point the finger at other progressives rather that at the reactionaries who were actually responsible.








    Progressive Review 's Undernews July 2002

    Posted by Thomas Riggins, 05/12/2015 9:01am (10 years ago)

  • There is much, seriously for which we can all applaud our president, Barack Hussein Obama for, in policy, environmentalism, law enforcement, Cuba and labor policy; unfortunately, there is maybe more, many in those same areas, we can disavow and denounce, not least of which is that pointed out above by social and consumer advocate leader Ralph Nader, as regards war pillage and the mass murder that imperialism's wars are, and have been.
    Maybe this should not surprise us, from a president that calls the peace advocacy and policy of an M L K, "unrealistic", in a world of war, racism, hatred, genocide and environmental destruction.
    Likewise, the president Obama calls the anti-capitalists and socialists, unrealistic generalists, who cannot hope to get anything done, since they are "out of contact" with today's realities.
    Further, the president admonishes those to the left of his administration, along with all those on the left, that if they think he and his will embrace sweeping changes in policy (maybe imperialist policy), we on the left have not been listening to his administration.
    At this, one wonders if the president Obama can listen and hear: Ferguson, New York, Baltimore- and his own Justice Department, the millions and millions of citizenry, here and internationally, who hear, feel, see and can touch the staggering and growing poverty alongside the spiraling military and growing corporate/military, police, prison, racist exploitation, corruption, with the profligate environmental pollution of the planet-to its tipping point of total destruction?
    If unable to hear, feel, see and touch, for some unexplained reason, who is actually "unrealistic"?
    That's capitalism and its imperialism.

    Posted by E.E.W. Clay, 05/11/2015 5:35pm (10 years ago)

RSS feed for comments on this page | RSS feed for all comments