Al Kern, Host [AK]:  Good Morning Nick.  Welcome to Iowa Talks.

Nicholas Johnson [NJ]: Well, thank you very much.  Welcome, David, to Iowa City from a one-time Texan here.  I remember the days when we had "Dollars for Democrats," and that meant literally one dollar at a time going door to door.  Those days are long since behind us.

I don’t think you mentioned in the opening, but my understanding is you are going to be at the law school today also.

David Cobb [DC]: Oh, that’s right.  Thank you for that.  I will be at the law school.  I’m not sure exactly what the time is.  If you’ve seen a flyer, I would appreciate if you would share it with the listeners.

NJ: Well, it’s around noon.  But I’m embarrassed to say I don’t know exactly either.  It’s probably at 12:00 or 12:20, something like that.

What I wanted to ask is what do you – I’ve known and worked with Ralph Nader for 40 years – but what do you say to the Democrats who tell you, "I would love to support Ralph, but a vote for Ralph is a vote for George Bush and I just can’t stand that prospect."

DC: Listen, that’s a good question.  It is, though, a very narrow question.  It is a question that has been focused and created in the public mind by the corporate media itself.

By that I mean that, first, it presumes that there are fundamental differences between Al Gore and George Bush.  And although there are differences, they are not fundamental differences.  Both Al Gore and George Bush are both in agreement on the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, World Bank Issues. They are both in fundamental agreement on genetically modified organisms and genetically tampered foods.  They’re both in fundamental agreement on the death penalty. They’re both in fundamental agreement on economic policies and decisions that allow 20-25% of the children of this country to live in poverty.  They are both in fundamental agreement . . .

NJ: And appointments to regulatory commissions you might add.

DC: That’s a very good point.  The fact of the matter is that we’ve allowed the creation of a regulatory state where most of the decisions that actually impact and effect people’s lives are actually being made in these regulatory agencies.  And, as you say, they are both in fundamental agreement on those issues and many more.  The fact of the matter is, in a very real way, there is not enough of a difference between Al Gore or George Bush to really get overly concerned about the distinction.

NJ: All right.  But you are not going to convince a "yellow dog Democrat," as we used to say in Texas, to that proposition even if it’s true.

DC: Right. Fair enough.

So what I say is this: let’s take a look at American History at large.

And I’m going to give you, sir, a list of what I will call progressive moves forward in American history.  I’m going to start with the abolition of slavery, women’s right to vote, the 40-hour work week, the creation of the Social Security Administration, pure food and drug laws, the end of child labor, the creation of workers’ protection laws.  Pretty impressive list, would you agree?

NJ: And you can add anti-trust.  The regulation of the railroads that came out of Iowa.  And Iowa's James Weaver was actually one of the presidential nominees in 1892 of a third party.

DC: Here is a caller who knows his history.

And of course what all of those policies and progressive moves forward have in common are that they were all initially proposed by and supported by a third party movement.  They only became public policy and law when those third parties were able to achieve enough votes to get the attention of the ruling elite.  And, sir, the really important thing to note about that is "enough votes" translates typically into five to ten percent of the vote.

My point is, if people want to see universal health care – that is single-payer health care where all Americans get adequate health care – if they want to see a living wage paid so that everybody who works a 40-hour work week is able to rise up above the poverty level, if they want to see family farms saved in this country, if they want to see an end to the WTO, IMF and World Bank policies that threaten American sovereignty, if they want to see meaningful environmental and labor protection laws enacted and enforced, if they want to see any fundamental change in this country, all we have to do is convince about ten percent of the American people to vote for Ralph Nader, and we will create the political climate that enables us to actually move forward in this country.

NJ: You might also note that in post-Civil War times the Democratic party had been pretty much taken over by corporate interests and the wealthy and that caused the spawning of a third party. And in 1912 the Republican Party dissidents were complaining that their party had been taken over by the wealthy and corporate interests and that, in fact, that’s exactly what we are confronting today. So there is good historic precedent for a vote away from the party in order to try to recapture its soul.

DC: There is no doubt about it and you make a very good point.

And isn’t it interesting that both the Democrats and Republicans in their political histories have experienced times when concentrated power – that is corporate interests and corporate money – have taken control of their parties.

What makes it especially frightening to me today is the recognition that both political parties have been taken over by these same corporate interests.  Take a look at the lists of who have bought and paid for the conventions, the candidates and the campaigns of both presidential candidates as well as most of these congressional candidates for both major political parties. They have been hijacked by these same corporate power interests. As Ralph likes to say the two parties today have become the same party simply with different heads wearing different make-up.  They are both at the beck and call of Wall Street America and have forgotten Main
Street America.

NJ: Do you know where we can find a citation for the assertion that 95 percent of George W.’s money has come from seven hundred something contributors?

DC: Yes.  Texans for Public Justice.

. . .