|
In point of fact, Ralph Nader is ANTI-gambling. That is addressed in this editorial I wrote 2-1/2 years ago:
_______________________
NADER - OLD, STALE, AND DEFINITELY NOT "MR. VEGAS"
By CHARLES JAY, Presidential Candidate, Personal Choice Party
(http://www.charlesjay.com)
September 14, 2025
People ask me why I use gambling as a key issue. One of the reasons is that there is a symbolism to it that smacks of the very thing we've talked about over and over in this campaign, and will continue to talk about afterward - "personal choice", the mantra of my political party. It also shines a light on politicians who, if they can get away with it, will do everything they can to limit that personal choice, whether in the name of good intention or not.
For example, a couple of weekends ago, in the process of speaking to a small group of supporters and curiosity-seekers in Las Vegas, the gambling capital of the world, Ralph Nader, independent candidate for president, ripped into the city's leading industry - with vitriol.
"No presidential candidate should visit Las Vegas without condemning organized gambling," said Nader. "It's the seduction of people who come here as hopefuls and leave here as losers."
For what it's worth, I'm a presidential candidate who has visited Las Vegas a couple of times during this campaign, and I will most likely go back again and again. On top of that, not only will I not condemn gambling, I condone it. I guess that's because I understand something Nader clearly does not - that gambling, among other things, is a voluntary recreational activity representing freedom for Americans. Accordingly, if people decide to engage in it, they should be free to do so, and if they don't want to gamble, they don't have to. That's their choice. But nobody should be empowered to make those choices FOR them.
Nader is largely known, and continues to classify himself, as a consumer advocate. That's clever, I suppose, as a positioning statement. But it's something of a misnomer. In fact, I'd suggest just the opposite is true. Would somebody please explain to me how one can claim to advocate for the consumer when he actively campaigns to restrict the choices of those consumers, in terms of how and where to spend, and at the same time, would increase taxes to pay for his proposed public works and entitlement programs, which will only serve to give consumers, who work for a living, less disposable income with which to make buying decisions?
The more accurate characterization of Mr. Nader is not pro-consumer, but rather, anti-business, anti-corporation, anti-competition, anti-capitalist. Of course, my concern is that he's been singing the same tune for so long, I wonder if he even knows why anymore.
Nader is no different than members of either major political party in that he makes ready use of fear and divisiveness to frame issues. He is trying to apply the old "Good vs. Evil" dynamic to the gambling issue in particular. Casinos and other gaming-related enterprises, in his book, are the seductresses, preying on the weaknesses of players, who are portrayed as innocent victims.
The tragedy is that he has it all backward, as do some of the other candidates. In point of fact, there is an inherent "good" in giving people the power to make their own decisions and be the ultimate judge of what's best for them. It necessitates a non-intrusiveness on the part of government and thereby fosters independence. There is, on the other hand, an "evil" in the limitation of freedom of choice when it is inspired by individuals or groups wishing to impose their moral values on others.
I think the people of this country are increasingly sick and tired of their would-be leaders insisting that they know best how their money should be spent, and how their lives should be conducted. Americans have a tremendous capacity for independent thought, and that trend will only continue as the internet offers more in the way of news, information and opinion. We are ushering in a new culture, and I can assure you, a new kind of politics. People like Nader, whose philosophy is still embedded in FDR-style big government, are going to be ushered OUT over time.
Please don't get me wrong - I fully support Nader's right to run for the highest office in the land, despite the pressure he has been receiving from Democrats. He is right when he asserts that Democrats need to stop trying to knock him out of the race, and resign themselves to earning votes on their own. I certainly have to respect him for standing up through the years for what he believes in, especially in the face of tremendous opposition. But he's misguided, in so many ways.
With regard to alleged sabotage of his campaign by the Democrat Party, Nader's line is "They're saying to those voters, 'You're too stupid to be allowed to vote for this ticket'." There is an inconsistency in that statement, though. After all, isn't Nader's message basically the same to people who enjoy gambling, in Las Vegas or elsewhere, as a recreational pursuit, as in, "You're too stupid to know what you're doing."?
It's interesting and ironic that on the one hand, he stumps for more voter options on a ballot, portraying himself as the liberator, yet thinks nothing of playing the part of the self-styled "nanny" in so many other areas.
Nader told his Las Vegas audience, "People are induced to bet on their future instead of build their future." I find "induced" to be a curious choice of words. You mean people suddenly appear in the state of Nevada and are sucked into a casino? Is Nader's vision that of a mindless America?
It just shows you how hopelessly out-of-touch he really is. Here are the facts - over 100 million people in this country gamble on something on a yearly basis, and well over 50 million of them play in a casino every year. When last seen, the republic wasn't any worse off as a result.
The basic argument on the part of what has become an odd alliance between liberals and moralists is flawed. They feel that those of lower income groups need to be somehow protected from what they would characterize as "exploitation" by the gaming industry, and lotteries in particular. Well, it's nice of them to assume the role of "caretaker". But one must not lose sight of the fact that no matter how much in the way of advertising is done, people engage in this activity of their own free will.
Sure, a greater proportion of poor people spend money on lottery tickets, for instance, than do the more affluent. But, in a nation of risk-takers (a safe assumption), that provides the easiest entry point for them to "get in the game", while those of middle class and higher-income groups generally gravitate more toward casinos, because they can afford to entertain themselves there more often.
And by the way, when it comes to the proposition that gamblers might "bet" on their future rather than "build" their future, I would suggest gamblers are perfectly capable of doing both. In fact, a Roper ASW survey of 2000 Americans, reported in the Sept. 26, 2003 issue of USA Today, revealed that a greater percentage of gamblers (61%) paid off their credit card bills at the end of each month than the general population (52%). Vastly greater percentages of gamblers set money aside for a retirement plan, and shopped with bulk purchases to save money, than the average American.
It hardly sounds like a group that is "victimized".
And logic dictates that if we don't have a victim, we don't need a savior.
|
Simon
Linear Mode
