The temptation to dismiss the latest entrance of Ralph Nader into the 2008 Presidential race is all but overwhelming, and I admit my first instinct is to let fly with an indecipherable curse that ends in the sigh: “Not again.”
I’m all for third-party candidacies—except in Presidential races, because the triangulated candidate invariably takes away votes from the candidate closest to his own philosophy. To quote the Wall Street Journal upon the latest, belated announcement: “Many Democrats believe Mr. Nader siphoned votes away from then-Vice President Al Gore in the 2000 election.”Nader doesn’t buy the explanation—Gore, after all, lost his home state of Tennessee in 2000—but is there any doubt that Ross Perot, with 17 percent of the vote, cost President George H.W. Bush dearly when the first Bush lost to Bill Clinton in 1992. A third-party candidate can be a spoiler who spoils things for the greater of two evils: he (or, some day, she) ends up working against the things that third-party voters believe in.
Example: Nader said George W. Bush and Al Gore were two sides of the same coin, but can there be any doubt that corruption—Nader’s historical bugaboo—flourished in the neoconservative Republican administration? Methinks Nader not only hurt Gore but bears some responsibility for Bush. Given the primary system—where even Ron Paul has a fighting chance—is it fair or even accurate to dismiss the primary process entirely and launch your own third-party candidacy by saying no real choice is available?
Ralph Nader lives on that slippery slope today, in his third run at the Presidency in our truncated 21st Century. But there’s another side to this story, one that bears telling. Nader and others who seem to live on the fringe of mainstream politics often deliver ideas that end up right down the center of accepted wisdom.
Take the godawful practice of earmarks, wherein lawmakers can sleaze pet projects through the legislative process and thereby grant favors to specific constituents. An obvious cancer, earmarks are a manifestation of a corrupt system Nader has been railing about forever and ever in his role as a consumer champion. But get this: presumptive Republican Presidential candidate John McCain has said publicly he will not sign any bills with earmarks as President. McCain, now dogged by other questions about his chumminess with lobbyists, has nonetheless embraced a significant reform born of the likes of Nader.
Ralph Nader can take a bow for that one, and his nutty ideas about consumer protection—exemplified by “Unsafe At Any Speed” in 1965—are now part of our mainstream thinking. What seemed crazy at the time is now part of our conventional wisdom, thanks to Nader’s courage and tenacity. The news Tuesday that the Colorado Supreme Court upheld a law banning gifts over $50 from lobbyists to legislators and staff has Nader’s fingerprints all over it.
So let’s not be so quick to dismiss Ralph Nader simply because he need to run for President yet again. The lesson is we should listen to what he has to say carefully. Sometimes the fringe character is on the side of the angels.
When I heard the news Nader was running again my body went tense with anger. I’m calmer now but I remember the vote count in Florida: 537. Nader received almost 100,000 votes there in 2000, and our nascent millennium’s anthem so far is Bob Dylan’s elegiac “It’s not dark yet, but it’s gettin there.”
And where exactly will Ralph’s ideas be heard in the general election run-up? No where. Why not join the primary fray as the Con Man points out? Who knows how many more people would be reading books — lots of young, newly minted democrats.
If Nader had joined the fray with modest Green Party ideas, he just might have influenced a young Senator and could be on his way to a cabinet post. Why not? Even Rudy said his wife would be welcome in cabinet meetings, and we all know Judy’s preferences for tiaras and limousines trumps 40 years of public service and almost as many books and non-profits founded by Mr. Nader.
Who in their right mind, democratically speaking, wouldn’t want to tap that ocean? Far fetched? Perhaps, considering Nader’s legendary un-bendable nature, but an Obama presidency seemed just as improbable a month ago.
Why for that matter Mr. Nader, didn’t you run against Hillary for New York’s senate seat? What on earth would she have to say that you hadn’t already published a book about?
For the record: 250,000 democrats voted for Bush in Florida in 2000. And there were 7 other 3rd party candidates on the Florida ballot that year, and all garnered over 537 votes.
[Republican Presidential candidate John McCain has said publicly he will not sign any bills with earmarks as President. McCain...has...embraced a significant reform born of the likes of Nader....Ralph Nader can take a bow for that one]
In over twenty years in the Senate, John McCain has never added an earmark to a bill. I doubt Nader had anything to do with that.
Oh my God, G are you telling us that earmarks trump a candidate who’s “vision” encompasses war as a way of life?
In his book Faith of my Fathers he laments not being allowed to bomb Soviet ships during the Vietnam war. He describes Iraq as a “noble” conflict. This man is mad for war. What’s 150,000 Iraqi dead? His walk through the bazaar last Spring was a real exercise in truth telling — earmarks indeed. McCain is selling the only thing the republicans have left: war.
I’m actually with McCain on almost every issue. If it weren’t for his hawkishness, he’d be my ideal candidate (second to Ron Paul of course).
War is not a traditional Conservative value. It goes against the idea of small government and minimal spending.
Conman often blasts conservatives for the war, antiquated Christian ideas and xenophobia, but he’s actually talking about NEO-conservatives. They have hijacked the term conservative and turned it on its head.
Being a conservative Republican myself, I take great offense at what has been done to the reputation of the Grand Old Party.
Which brings us to the ineffective uses of any particular label for modern political ideologies.
Classical Liberalism is really post-modern conservatism. A modern conservative (neo-con)is really a Stalinist. Modern Liberalism is Social Liberalism (Socialism).
Our obsession with labels is a function of the major political parties trying to massage a definition of themselves that attracts people to their party. Meanwhile, they must prevent the opposition from establishing that definition.
We’re just lazy enough to allow the two major parties to take doggedly opposed sides of issues with the hopes that we’ll pick ‘their team.’
We all want to be on the winning team, right?
I am not a… Stalinist.
~Joseph Merrick
Republicans no longer have:
Fiscal Constraint
Family Values
Small Government
Evangelicals
A Solution to Iraq
Compassionate Conservatism
The 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments
They have:
Pro Life and War — which would seem to zero each other out
American Flag Lapel Pins
Environmental degradation
Human Rights Abuses
Guantanamo & Abu Ghraib
A failed Surge — See Nir Rosen in Rolling Stone 3/6
Waterboarding
Black sites
Roger Clemens
Duke Cunningham
Larry Craig
Jack Abramoff
Tom Delay
I listened to Ralph Nader on the news the other night. He is extremely articulate and there is a clear difference between him and the major party candidates. Nader is not beholding to any special interests.
Even though I disagree with Mr. Nader on many of his positions, he was certainly ahead of his time with his Green concerns and deserves credit for taking on the Washington power structure.
Nader correctly indicated during the TV interview that the Republicans and Democrats are both corrupt. Each group is beholding to special interests (Republicans to big oil and Democrats to Trial Lawyers and Unions.) Our entire government is “bought and sold” by the lobbyists and highest bidders. Neither McCain nor Hillary nor Obama will alter that dynamic. That’s why, although he is a board-certified whack-job, you have to admire Ralph Nader.
Bought and sold is right but…big oil, lawyers, unions, media all equate to MONEY! It runs the system and we are its pawns. Repub-Dem, it don’t matter. Find out who controls the money and see the real man behind the curtin. Ralph and Ron!
If Ralph Nader does not measure his existence in terms of coffee spoons, surely his existential metric involves clip-on neck ties. Bury his political aspirations in a Chevy Corvair already. Green concerns? You mean that that month-old Chinese take-out in the back of his fridge? Credit Ralph for pointing out the obvious if you must, but don’t give him unwarranted credit for having anything more than a sophomoric view of the greater political landscape.
Cheers,
Wow, sophomoric. “Having a [immature and overconfident] veiw of the greater political landscape”.
Somehow, I find, after serious review of Ralphs experiences with this “greater political landscape,” that his veiw is right on the money, shall we say.
Mitch, how can you expain how this man who “measure(s) his existence in terms of coffee spoons”, has been villified (and variously credited by others) by the Leftist Dems for the past eight years as probaly the biggest reason Snore, I mean Gore, lost to the village idiot in 2000.
But pardon the critique Mitch as you have mined the gem yourself when you write, “credit Ralph for pointing out the obvious if you must”.
Just don’t blame Ralph for the state of the OBVIOUS! Its not his fault. He just wants to help fix it.
[Nader's views are "right on the money"?]
Interesting premise.
Let’s see, “St. Ralph” has marshaled corporate shake-downs against the likes of Chevrolet, Volkswagen, the AAA, whole milk, colored toilet paper, fluoridated water, and the Elvis stamp.
The kinds of problems Nader deems the truly weighty issues of our times haven’t changed much since 1972, when Gore Vidal attempted to drive Nader onto the presidential ballot.
As an aside, William F. Buckley debated Vidal in 1968. Vidal called Buckley a “crypto-nazi.” Buckley called Vidal “queer.” In truth, the level of political discourse since ’68 has done nothing to eclipse this low-water mark, and the same holds true of Mr. Nader’s modern-day political aspirations.
Of Nader, Christopher Hitchens once wrote, “You could vote in a pinch for a party that you barely agreed with, but you should not vote for a party that offers to bribe you—and with your own money.”
If nothing else, supporting another Nader presidential push is one way to make President Bush seem like a freaking Mensa member.
Cheers,
Double wow, lets just muddy the waters Hitch-Mitch.
I am only going to comment on your last line.
Its gonna take a hell of a lot more than dropping a vote for Ralphy boy to make the freaking Bush boy-man seem like a Mensa member.
Star Eagle,
I figured the last line was the only one that’d interest you.
Cheers,
The rest is quite interesting if you like mud Mitch.
Star Eagle,
“Hitch” your political wagon to the Nader parade if you must. As you’ve not resorted yet to the bilabial fricative that small-minded folk substitute at the beginning of my name, let me just say this: Nader will not take votes from McCain. Backing Nader now is the unfortunate consequence of forgetting about election 2000.
Cheers,