November 07, 2016

Jill Stein has a Ralph Nader #hypocrisy problem

I tell people that I have voted Green for president every election this century. That doesn't mean I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. Technically, as Stanley Kubrick knew, the new century started in 2001. Also, arguably, there wasn't a coalesced national Green Party yet in 2000.

There were two reasons I didn't vote for him.

First, he had a bigger ego than both Al Gore and George W. Bush. Second, he had Big Oil and Big Defense stocks in his mutual funds portfolio, and never batted an eye over that. I've got more here.

Well, I don't know about Jill Stein's ego, but she DOES have that hypocrisy problem. She too has mutual funds (and may be richer than Nader), and they include Big Oil, and even worse yet, Big Tobacco stocks.

First, what the hell is any medical doctor doing owning tobacco stocks, even if indirectly via a mutual fund?

Second,. what is any Green Party candidate doing owning Big Oil stocks?

She also, like Nader, has defense stocks as part of her mutual funds. She also has bankster stocks.

I know that already in Nader's time, so-called socially responsible mutual funds existed. Even more do today. Per Daily Beast, they might pay a couple of percentage points less on interest.

But, you know? That's part of what running as a third-party candidate on a socially responsible platform involves.

And, it's not just mutual funds. She directly owns stock on Big Pharma paladin Merck. No way of explaining away that one.

That said, the Daily Beast blew it in one way. Like Salon on Nader in 2000, this was an obvious Dem-driven takedown of a perceived third-party threat. But, early voting has become ever more popular in the last 16 years.

I voted for Stein. I almost certainly would not have, had I seen this. So, Daily Beast, you blew it.

Well, not totally, because I STILL wouldn't have voted for Hillary Clinton.

Texas is one of the states where Socialist Party USA presidential candidate Emidio "Mimi" Soltysik is on the ballot as a write-in candidate. Even though the Socialists' platform is worse than Greens' in some cases to this skeptic, that would still be my next option. The next option after that would be undervoting the prez race.

And, speaking of that, a note to Stein: Stop pretending you're the only left-liberal presidential candidate in the American political universe. Green Party, stop pretending you're the only left-liberal American party. Hell hath no fury like a mindful voter taken for a ride, and you're getting my fury.

Note: I'll look at issues related to this more in a post-election postmortem.


G3 McK said...

I didn't know about her investments, but Stein violated her Hippocratic Oath as an MD when she aligned with the anti-vaxxers. That was disqualification enough for me. Why do the Libertarians and Greens always nominate such idiots?

Gadfly said...

I still take her at her word that her personal concern about vaccines is about Big Pharma and profits. And the party itself is also NOT officially antivaxxer — whatever the position of many individuals is, and to whatever degree some of Stein's own statements may pander.

Actually, to me, her ownership of tobacco stocks is a more clear violation of her Hippocratic Oath, as noted, as I see it. That said, she has had the chance to set the party clearer than it was pre-2012 on a variety of medical issues, not just vaccines. She has partially done so, and partially not.