Gabriel Sherman, TNR and Nader's Traitors

In February, Gabriel Sherman from The New Republic (TNR) called me up to talk about Ralph Nader running for president. In the May 7 issue of TNR, an article I'm sure will be of interest to few appeared with the title, "Nader's Traitors," quoting me and a handful of others.

I worked directly for Ralph Nader for about 17 years, and have known him much longer. I'm quoted as saying "I wish he didn't run," accurately, but also presented in a misleading context.

In my long interview with TNR, I told Gabriel that everyone who wrote about this topic seemed to be doing a hatchet job on Ralph, and that I expected that from him. One point I made, which was I believe the source of my quote, was that some activists who worked with Ralph and didn't want him to run, wished instead that he would use his considerable communication and advocacy skills and well-known name to advance various reform campaigns. They knew that his running for president made a lot of people mad, and distracted him.

Ralph, however, has his own ideas about how to spend his time. One thing he wants to do is make the democrats work harder to get votes from the left. That's what he's doing, at this stage of his life.

Is Ralph right or wrong to run? In 2000? 2004 or 2008? In the short run, it always seems like a mistake, and as the 2000 election showed us, a lot can happen in the short run. It is not difficult to make the argument that 2004 wasn't a good year to run, or than 2008 isn't a good year to run either. Everyone makes those arguments all the time, and they have plenty of weight. But there are also real reasons for him, or some other third party candidates to present an alternative. It's not as if the Democrats have earned some type of super loyalty given their track record (on you name the issue).

Ralph has done more in his lifetime than any other living U.S. politician to improve the life of Americans. In my opinion, he has earned the right to do what he wants.

That's what I told Gabriel. But he got the quote he wanted.

Comments

[RoloTomassi]

The biggest service Nader performs in this manner is the basic denial of the dual political exclusivity expressed by the Democratic & Republican parties; I believe this is where most misstep when laying the blame on Nader as a spoiler.

If we want more diversity in our politics, then their should always be a spoiler who is supported by a rabid few who believe that such a seemingly irrelevant candidate can catch on and catch fire; this is the only way the two party hold will ever be broken. Some quite mistakenly assign this "breakout" role to Obama in this political season, but when viewed realistically, that simply cannot be the case, as Obama is too centrist and establishment-oriented to truly embody that ideal [and no, I don't mean to imply that Ralph Nader does, but at least he's making an effort].

I think most voters are looking at political races in a self-interest / very short-term mode by default; but if we are ever going to break free of the many institutionalized political concepts that limit our choices and basically dumb-down the overall electorate, then somebody has to keep plugging at it, again and again.

And if there is one thing I am certain of, it is that whoever that candidate turns out to be, he will in the beginning be reviled and rejected, but eventually he/she will defy standard expectations and modes of operation and will gain ground despite we armchair pundits meaningless early dismissals.

[nippersdad]

Thank you! I, quite literally, could not have put it better.

[JohnKelly]

Thanks for your article. Some people should spend at least half as much time holding the weasels (most democratic politicians) accountable for what they do when they have a little power (capitulate), as they do bashing Nader for standing up for what many people believe.

Otherwise we get democrats that sound more like republicans, leaving two very poor choices between people competing to sound more stupid and macho. An insult to our intelligence.

If Hillary Clinton gets the nod, I will vote for Nader. She is a republican in sheeps clothing. Stockholm syndrome or something. If you sound like Carl Rove, you don't get my vote. There are some compromises I won't make. If things get bad enough, perhaps more people will vote their conscience instead of their fears.

John

[RoloTomassi]

"If Hillary Clinton gets the nod, I will vote for Nader."

Indeed, I have pretty much setlled on the same thing, but also have decided to have a serious look at every single candidate that will make it onto the ballot; if I am going to vote my conscience, I want to make sure that I get as close as possible with my vote to the ideals that are most important to me.

Hopefully Obama will pull the dem nomination out of his hat, and then I will feel that the democratic candidate is at least worth the gamble.

[jeffepops]

The "short run" of the past seven years -- since Nader played the spoiler who put Bush in office in 2000 -- has created some pretty horrendous long term consequences. The Iraq War, destruction of our economy, environmental and health care neglect, etc. will likely take at least a generation to recover from.

Nader is a supreme egoist whose contributions to our nation unfortunately exist only in the distant past.

[nippersdad]

What? Nothing about all of the Democrats that voted for Bush in 2000, any of the other "spoilers" in the race that year, the Supreme Court, voting machine irregularities, voter caging and purging of voter lists, complicit media? None of this had any effect on how we got George Bush in 2000....it was all Nader?

Further, the fact that the Dem takeover of '06 has proven his points to be on target gets no positive review from old jiffiepop? Maybe if more had listened to him in 2000 or 2004, maybe even voted for his endorsee (Edwards) this year, we would see some action. But, sadly, no. Nader is just a spoiler with no valuable insights into our present situation.

simple minds need simple answers.

[RedDogBear]

The problem with Nader is that he's not proposing a real alternative. He's not even running as a Green, there is already a Green candidate: Cynthia McKinney. When you listen or read Nader (BTW, I find it interesting that his presidential site has no blog and he never publishes an email address, shows what he thinks about our opinions) he never talks about concrete strategies for forming a real party or movement. Its all about abstractions and how unfair it is to vilify him, or keep him off the ballot, or how bad the democratic candidates are on some issues. I agree with much of what he says in the abstract but all he does is talk. For his candidacy to be more than an ego trip he must have either a plan where by the Greens will eventually be a viable national party or he will in some way influence the democrats. He has neither and he has so damaged his credibility at this point that his opportunity to influence things is nil. Michael Moore has a great story about going to Nader during his race against Bush and saying that they should talk to Gore and say Nader would back out if Gore would do X, Y, and Z. Nader would have none of it. That is the difference between people like Moore and Nader. Michael wants real change, not to just win arguments.

[WorkingClass]

RedDogBear: I voted for Nader in 2000 and 2004. nippesdad is more eloquent than I so (regarding Nader) I will simply endorse his remarks. I would say to you however, if you are not convinced, then consider voting for McKinney. You are clearly a person who values action above words. So don't just talk progressive. Vote progressive.

[nippersdad]

"For his candidacy to be more than an ego trip....he will in some way influence the Democrats. He has done neither...."

Were you not aware that Edwards' platform was largely made up of Nader influenced policy positions? That his views were getting between fifteen and twenty percent of the vote when Edwards dropped out of the race? That Nader had endorsed Edwards and said that he would not run were Edwards to become the nominee? Were you not aware that many of Clinton's and Obama's positions were lifted from Edwards when he mounted a credible attack from the left? Nader's utlimate victory is to bring back liberalism and the rule of law as viable concepts in American politics. This is not an unworthy issue and his credibility on it is only the stronger for its having been unpopular at its inception.


Nader was right not to give in to Gore because he knew that the Gore of 2000 would fold like a cheap suit, just as Gore had folded on his own positions to Clinton time after time. Just as Obama, Clinton and the 2006 Democratic majority have folded on anything in the slightest degree progressive, and will continue to do so. I hope he runs again. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, he will be assured at least one vote.

[JamesAndre]

I think you have it right.

[RabidRightRebel]

Everyone has a right to run. But with every right comes responsibility. This is the problem with Nader, he is totally unwilling to except responsibility for his actions. By this I mean he accepts no responsibly for Gore's loss, even thought by continuing into the actual election (that he had no chance of winning) he knew he would contribute to Gore's loss. For a guy who spent his career making other except responsibly for their actions this is hypocrisy of the highest order.

[tompoe]

Independent party, independent voter. Results of an election are reported as numbers. What rabidrightrebel and Love fail to acknowledge is their pandering to non-issues as if those issues were legitimate.