Why We Need Nader in the Race
A lot of progressives who would ordinarily respect a man of Ralph Nader's accomplishments seem to be filled with venomous hate toward the man for his numerous bids for the highest office in the land.
'It cost us the White House twice," they all seem to echo. Despite the fact that it's not true, it's actually quite surprising coming from a group of intellectuals who pride themselves on seeing the truth, no matter how ugly. I mean, we all know the story of Al Gore's loss. A combination of his stiff political persona (which has since melted away into a form of super-stardom) and his similarities to the Republicans at the time caused one of the closest races in history. It all came down to Florida and the facts tell us that the Supreme Court stopped the recount even though Al Gore had more votes, with or without Nader.
Then, in 2004, John Kerry lost against George Bush. To lose against George Bush at the height of his unpopularity, you'd have to run an exceedingly poor campaign. And he did. And it wasn't just the swiftboaters, his campaign was weak. I think we can all admit that.
But because Ralph Nader was in the race and people voted for him, some believe it's his fault. "If Gore and Kerry could have just gotten those progressive votes from Nader, we wouldn't be where we are!" they all seem to scream.
But Nader stayed in the race because the people who voted for him weren't represented by the two mainstream candidates. It's easy for people to forget that voting for President isn't a popularity contest or voting for one of two choices. It's about voting for the candidate who is going to represent you and your interests and your values best. In 2000 and 2004, a lot of people, myself included, felt that Ralph Nader better represented us and what we felt our country needed.
Why should our presidential candidates take these votes on the far left for granted? They need to earn those votes. Why should we vote for someone we don't believe in?
A candidate should be willing to work hard to earn every vote, not just those in the middle and take those at the base of their party for granted. So, Ralph Nader is running again this year. And instead of pleading and complaining for him to leave the race, why don't we complain to the eventual Democratic nominee (Obama or Clinton) to fight just as hard for Nader votes as McCain votes?
We need a shift left in this country and everyone knows it. Maybe Ralph Nader running will focus the debate even further left, back to the politics of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. We need a new Roosevelt now more than ever after the Great Bush Depression and adding Nader to the race increases the chances of that happening.
If Clinton or Obama want to be president, they should work hard to represent everyone, not just the swing votes and I truly think Ralph Nader is the counter-weight that will force them to stay grounded.
Maybe then we can start taking care of our citizens again instead of the corporate elite.
Bryan Young blogs daily at This Divided State.
Follow Bryan Young on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BigShinyRobot
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I supported the Green Party in 2000. I supported and worked on Ralph Nader's campaign in 2000. I thought at the time that building a genuinely progressive party in this country is more important than saving the butt of a DLC-Candidate. Keep in mind, the DLC-Gore of 2000 was not the Gore who won an Oscar and Nobel Peace Prize for "An Inconvenient Truth".
However, as right as he was and still is on the issues themselves, he is not a team player and he is not interested in genuinely building an organized political movement.
Many of us in 2000 saw a unique opportunity to crack open the political system. What Ralph Nader was SUPPOSED to do, but didn't (and I know this from attending Green Party strategy meetings), was campaign in safe sates like New York, Texas, Massachusetts and California, where his vote total would be unlikely to effect the electoral vote outcome. We knew Green Party vote totals would be squeezed in "swing states". However, we hoped that larger vote totals in "safe" states would allow the Green Party to get 5% of the vote nationwide and thus qualify for federal funding.
Instead, when Ralph Nader spent the final days campaigning in "swing states", my heart sank as I knew an opportunity was lost. We could have gotten 5% of the vote nationwide if Nader had stuck to the original plan and asked people in safe states to vote for him and ask people in swing states to vote their conscience. (We're not the ones who invented the immoral and antiquated Electoral College -- everyone in the Greens would prefer a two-round or ranked-choice voting, direct popular vote election of the President. We just were working with the immoral system we have.)
Nader was right on the issues that year and he could have built up a genuine political movement. However, he obviously wasn't interested in building up the Green Party as he stated. He was interested in using the ballot access the Green Party provided for his own self-aggra
I will never apologize for trying to build up a genuinely progressive party that doesn't accept corporate funding. I voted and worked for the Green Party in 2000, and therefore for Ralph Nader in 2000, when I lived in safe New York State for that purpose. The cowardly behavior of the Democratic Party in Congress over the war back in 2001-2 and even now proves to me that I was right to do so.
However, as right as Ralph Nader is on the issues, he will not get my vote for President ever again.
If he really wanted to be helpful, he could hold national rallies that don't endorse any particular candidate, but support electoral reforms and the populist agenda he so eloquently supports.
I'm voting for Obama, but I'd vote for another Green Party candidate I'd never heard of before I'd vote or work for Ralph Nader again.
There is a difference between Ralph Nader and the Green Party.
The Green Party, btw, is not responsible for Al Gore not having the balls to fight for his own victory after he won the popular vote and probably the vote in Florida as well.
The differences between McCain and Obama are enough for me to hold my nose and vote for Obama this year. But that doesn't mean we don't need real alternatives to the two-party system and electoral reforms like runoff elections, either in two-round or ranked-choice, so that people can vote their conscience on the first ballot instead of for the lesser of evils.
Bryan, if you believe that this country has experience a good track run over the last 7 years then these elections don't matter. However, if you don't believe that America was well served, the election process is important to place a Democrat in the White House. This is not the time to hypothecate about a competitive process. The last time it happened Bush got into office. The Republicans are realist, they know you have to win. Democrats are out there talking about everything except winning. Nader is a spoiler and we all know it. Its unfortunite that so many Democrats vacilate back and forth over what it is they want. The bottom line, you have to know what you want, then make it happen. Thats what Obama believes and thats what he is doing. And for those of you who whine because he is winning, shame on you. This party holds a very diverse group of people, and it works best when you work together. This is the first candidate that I can remember, who truly believes in the American dream team.
Obama on Iraq --- Continue the War
Clinton on Iraq --- Continue the War
McCain on Iraq --- Continue the War
NADER ON IRAQ – IMMEDIATE, SAFE WITHDRAWAL OF ALL US TROOPS AND CONTRACTORS
Obama on Health Care –-- No Single Payer, Universal Health Care
Clinton on Health Care –-- No Single Payer, Universal Health Care
McCain on Health Care –-- No Single Payer, Universal Health Care
NADER ON HEALTH CARE –-- SINGLE PAYER, UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE
Obama on Free Trade –-- Supported Extending NAFTA to Peru
Clinton on Free Trade –-- Supported Extending NAFTA to Peru
McCain on Free Trade –-- Supported Extending NAFTA to Peru
NADER ON FREE TRADE –-- Repeal NAFTA and No More Trade Agreements Without Labor and Environmental Protections
Nader is an egomaniac for running as there’s no difference between him, Obama or Clinton. He’s just a spoiler. NOT!!!.
If the Dems want Nader to be ignored, adopt the Democratic Platform he's running on.
Otherwise -- Nader for President.
"Why we need Nader in the race"? Because 8 years of republican rule is only 2/3s of what we need?
That's ok, when McCain wins I'm sure he won't represent corporate types at all. I mean I'm sure they'll prosper due to his desire to continue the crusade and expand it to include Iran, but surely President McCain will represent the common, everyday citizen.
Hey Bryan, IF, Ralph is such an advocate for Worker Rights and Civil Rights, WHERE has he been in between elections. Why does he only seek the POTUS position instead of running for something he could win and actually make a difference, like the Senate. He's Right about Corporate America, but his brand of Politics 'Wont hunt' in the race for the White House, so it leads me to believe he's just a Gas-Bag who wants to be heard, but he dosen't REALLY want a Civil Service JOB. IF, He is SOOO Concerned, why has he never run for a public office he's Likely to win? And he surely, did not help the cause in 2000. What Good, came out of his RUN in 2000? What did HE PROVE? What has he ACCOMPLISHED in the last 15 years? Where has this POWERFUL VOICE of the People been hiding for 15 Years?
Bryan,
Great post.
Exactly how I feel.
If Obama wants RepubliCon votes more than progressive votes, let him have them.
If he loses, it won't be Nader's fault.
Thanks for presenting US with another opportunity to proclaim that Ralphie is an idiot, or at least someone who REALLY does not understand the workings of American presidential politics.
"But because Ralph Nader was in the race and people voted for him, some believe it's his fault."
So, what would have happened if he hadn't been in the race? Oh, right... now you know why we're angry.
"But Nader stayed in the race because the people who voted for him weren't represented by the two mainstream candidates. It's easy for people to forget that voting for President isn't a popularity contest or voting for one of two choices. It's about voting for the candidate who is going to represent you and your interests and your values best."
Right. In that case I'd be voting for Ron Paul. But I'm not an idiot (despite what anyone might think!). It's not about idealistically voting for the one who represents you best, it's about voting for the one who comes closest to what you value and had a chance in hell of winning.
Compromise is not a bad thing. Sure, throw your vote away on Nader, as many good people have done in the past, and the quit complaining about Bush or whatever other "second best" candidate gets elected.
Are you Nader supporters so introverted that you lose all sense of social responsibility?
Hey, I wonder what would have happened if George W Bush hadn't been in the race? What do you think? Would Gore have beaten Nader? Some people prefer to vote for a candidate rather than merely against someone else. It's their perogative in a democracy, and to claim that they are throwing away their vote and simultaneously influencing the election enough to spoil it defies logic.
The point to third-party and independent candidacies, or even to those major-party candidates who run in primaries even though they don't have a chance is not that they or their supporters are stupid enough to think they will win. It is to start a discussion and to draw attention to issues they feel are underrepresented. They provide a valuable service in a two-party system. Neither Obama or Clinton would be talking about health care if John Edwards hadn't brought it up first.
I have always liked Al Gore, and I was happy to vote for him, but if he had taken Ralph Nader's hint, and some of his positions, we might not be in the mess we're in right now.
Would Gore have beaten Nader? Are you kidding?
"...It is to start a discussion and to draw attention to issues they feel are underrepre
Yeah, that's really great. I have some underrepresented issues, too. So do most people. It doesn't mean I'm going to vote for some boutique candidate who's done nothing to build a significant coalition for him/herself. Yes, that is a waste of a vote. The reality is, it's either Hillary, Obama or McCain. Everyone else is just noise or, worse, a spoiler.
I have never voted for Ralph Nader, although he probably represents my interests more than any other candidate of the last, oh, all my life. And I have often regretted that he ran in 2000. But I have never understood how we all came to blame Nader for Al Gore's loss. If Gore had run a competent campaign, it never would have come anywhere near the Supreme Court. To assume that Nader's little Green Party candidacy could threaten the Great and Powerful Democratic Party is ludicrous and, frankly, pathetic. I imagine the reason the Republicans never cried foul when Ross Perot ended George HW Bush's presidency is because they realized it would make them look like whining wimps.
As far as I can tell, the Democrats haven't needed any help sabotaging themselves. And the interests of their voters. And the country. The Bush years have been a catastrophe in large part because the Democratic Party provided no opposition and no oversight whatsoever, even after winning control of Congress. On the contrary, more often than not most of them have gone along for the ride, hoping only to ensure their reelection.
Those of you who prefer not to live in a country where third-party and independent candidates can run for office should push for legislation that makes that the exclusive right of members of our two illustrous major parties. Until that happens, you should shut up.
Lest we forget, Ralph Nader was one of the most important Americans of the 20th century. He did more for progressive legislation, and for the Democratic Party, than the whole of the Democratic Party itself, which has ironically sat idly by and watched its favorite scapegoat's legacy get gutted over the last eight years. I find the vitriolic language many use against him extremely offensive, given that some of you might be dead, maimed or grossly exploited if it weren't for the efforts of this egomaniacal homunculus.
You can pile as much bile on Ralph Nader as you can muster, but the Democratic Party dropped the ball all by itself. Ralph Nader didn't take it from them. I for one am tired of voting strategically for the lesser evil. Unless the Democratic candidate can assure me my vote won't be taken for granted this year, it will go to Ralph Nader.
PS Here's a newsflash for you: Anyone who runs for president is running mostly in the interest of ego gratification. At least Ralph Nader spent some time actually doing something for us before he had the arrogant audacity to run.
"I for one am tired of voting strategically for the lesser evil."
That's great. Then you might have to settle for the greater evil.
You know, that's something I've been telling myself for the last 20 years, as I have been virtuously and vainly voting a straight Democratic ticket. Meanwhile the Democrats have triangulated themselves into oblivion. If they haven't done anything. At all. To stop Bush, then they ARE PART of the greater evil. Ralph Nader should have provided them with a wake-up call. Instead they all cried spoiler and voted for a war and let a flag-burning amendment come down to a single vote. If enough Democratic voters demand it, maybe their party will start acting like Democrats again. If not, well, maybe something respectable will rise out of their ashes.
Nader is running on EGO.
Nader is a conservative.
Nader is financed by conservatives
Nader's campaign will help conservatives win the white house.
If he had integrity he would have quit before the election, once it was clear he had no chance, and told his fanatics to vote for the dem.
You're going to post this EVERYWHERE, and not answer me. Aren't you, research?
At the time of this post, these same assertions of yours can be found -- repeated TWICE -- on the first page of comments for Marty Kaplan's latest blog entry:
http://www
You will also find several replies to your assertions, including myself, with detailed facts to challenge you. For the most part, you have ignored us. You're a post-only guy. Just keep repeating the falsehoods, and filling up bandwidth. I remember your type from Usenet. Herr Goering would be proud!
Rather than cutting and pasting my own replies yet again, why don't you try ANSWERING them over on Marty Kaplan's comments page?
Like I said, Any third party candidate who claims to care about populist progressive issues, who does not QUIT when it is clear they cannot win, is effectively helping the Rethugs win.
Is not that complicated. You just want to indulge without guilt.
The place for the protest campaign and votes is the PRIMARY where Kucinich, Paul, Gravel, Dodd and Richardson made their points.
Sorry about the duplicate post on the same thread, Huff's system makes it impossible to tell if they lost it or it's just delay or its waiting for a second comment(a bug I have explained several times).
when ever someone brings up Nader, that is my response.
First of all, this business about his ego is wierd to me. Obama's ego is visible. You see it leak out constantly and sometimes I think that's his only real motive for running.
Nader? Very mature personality who shares a lot of insight on many important issues.
i will vote for nader as a protest vote but then i voted for pat paulson.
the system is crooked and wash is a den of thieves.
all must go.
we must follow jefferson's advice and clean house and change the contitution to term limits for these professional politicans that screw the american people then take high paying jobs as lobbyists.
then send all the lobbyists to gitmo for some r and r.
how long will it take the middle class in america fast becoming lower class to figure out the constitution should not be treated like a bible.
Well, I guess this gives us a sense of what Ralph Nader supporters are like.
Or one of them anyway.
Nader has not EARNED my vote, because he won't work within the system, but jumps in at the last minute. He has no chance of winning the whole thing and I'm not willing to risk "wasting" my vote in a potentially close election. In a just world, it wouldn't be at all close, but, given our horrible corporate media (all of whom seem to LOVE McCain), we'll need all the Democratic votes we can muster. But I wouldn't vote for Nader if he was the only candidate in the world, 'cause he hasn't EARNED it. You can't sit on your fat ass for three and 1/2 years, and then, all of a sudden, throw your hat into the ring. I've lost all respect for this man.
You're exactly right. What has he done, not just to get name out there, but to make a difference in anyone's life in the last 10 years?
I remember him for three things: (1) he outlawed my first car, the Corvair; (2) he outlawed my current car, a 1980 Mini; and he bought dozens of pairs of the same shoes at a discount to save money, which I respected and have done the same thing with socks.
As for president.
Obama will give him something important to do. Why can't he head up a commission or something. But... PRESIDENT? Give me a break.
"Obama will give him something important to do. Why can't he head up a commission or something.
Obama WON'T TALK to Nader. Nader was on the NPR program "Talk of the Nation" on Monday. Someone asked him the perennial question about why he doesn't "just work with the Democrats.
Nader said that NONE of these candidates would meet with him. So much for Obama's high-minded talk about talking to your "enemies" without pre-conditions!
And if you think that shunning Nader in 2008 is his earned payback for 2000 -- think again, because 2000 was just as nasty. Remember how Gore wouldn't lift a finger to bring Nader into the debates?
In spite of that snub, rumors were circulating among the Greens in October 2000 that Nader and Gore were having private discussions, which might result in Nader dropping out of the race in exchange for some promises. We weren't too sure how we felt about that. Ultimately nothing came of that rumor, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Nader had put out feelers to the Dems back then as well.
Nader and the Greens are far more reasonable than the corporate media and Democratic Party leaders would have you believe.
If you are going to support Nader, do the rest of us a favor and ENLIST in one of the branches of our armed forces. No Nader, no George Bush, no Iraq War, period. That's not an opinion, that is a mathematical fact.
Nader supporters cannot be taken seriously as adults. They are pampered, spoiled little children (regardless of age) who are responsible for the limosine liberal image that slanders the other 99.9% of progressives in this country.
If we had proportional runoff voting (a terrific idea), then a Nader candidacy could be useful in promoting progressive ideas the Democratic Party is reluctant to publicly embrace. We don't.
Progressives are on the verge of rejecting the long time presumed Democratic nominee in favor of someone who was far from a household name a year ago. The success of Barack Obama is a testament to an emerging progressive movement finding a leader with the capacity to inspire and unite.
But, hey, why support him when you have the opportunity to support a doddering meglomaniac who is willing to sell out every last principle for the ever diminishing returns of his own relevancy.
"If you are going to support Nader, do the rest of us a favor and ENLIST in one of the branches of our armed forces. No Nader, no George Bush, no Iraq War, period. That's not an opinion, that is a mathematical fact."
An endless repetition of an old lie, in an attempt to give it the ring of truth. Herr Goering would be proud!
Well, ZeMongoose, why don't you try refuting your homeboy, Mr. Al From, Chairman of the DLC in 2000 when Gore ran for President? He told all of you you knee-jerk Democrats to call off the dogs, right after the election ended:
http://web
"The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was BETTER than he did with Nader in the race."
Don't like that math? How about this math? Eleven percent of REGISTERED DEMOCRATS voted for BUSH in 2000 -- far outnumbering all Nader voters (2.6% of the electorate), and also the number of Republicans who voted for Gore (four percent of their total registration). In Florida, the Democratic defection rate was higher, a full 13%.
If you want to blame someone for tipping the balance of the vote, why pick on the Nader voters? There were many more Democratic DEFECTORS who didn't just abandon Gore, they voted for BUSH, the one guy who actually stood a chance of beating Gore.
Blaming Nader for 2000 is irrational, it's scapegoating, and it's a denial of what the Democratic Party has become.
I say this as someone who won't be supporting Nader this year, for my own reasons (trust me, they aren't YOUR reasons). But I was proud to support him in 2000, and I neither regret it nor apologize for it.
You are NO progressive if you can get behind a candidate who can't promise you a withdrawal from Iraq earlier than 2013. When asked directly, neither Clinton nor Obama were able to make even this, very timid, commitment to your nation's future. Nothing less than a full-out assault on BushCo could possibly redeem either of them in my eyes.
Silly hippie,
In 2000, roughly 97,000 Floridians took the time and effort to vote for old Ralphie boy. If say...10% of those poor deluded souls decided to join the reality based community.
The above argument does not imply tacit approval of the holocaust, you infant.
Then you break out the ever-pathetic DLC hack Al From to absolve Ralphie boy for sabotaging the 2000 election. That's freaking hilarious. What's next, a special guest defense of Nader from Joe Lieberman?
I suppose your idea of a "full-out assault on BushCo" is to gather a bunch of your fellow patchouli-reeking Naderites together to try and levitate the Pentagon.
If you can't see the difference between McCain and Obama on Iraq, you might want to consider taking a break from the funny sugar cubes.
On the eve of the 2000 Florida disaster Nader said he thought he would get 5% of the vote (he didn't) and that Gore would still beat Dubya (maybe he did, but...). Last Sunday Nader told Tim Russert that Obama should beat McCain so easily that if his (Nader's) candidacy spoiled Obama's victory then the Democrats don't deserve to win. Nader's immunity to criticism can be interpreted as either egomania or commitment to his cause, but the fact that he's not saying there's no real difference between McCain and Obama suggests that he MAY have learned something after being so tragically wrong before--namely that he'd better get the hell out if it's a close race between the real contenders. It's one thing to use his candidacy to promote a more progressive agenda and try to move Obama to the left. It's another thing to tell the public (as before) that the whole process is just B.S. and that anyone not voting for him is wasting their vote. Whatever the case, Nader is within his rights and we have to deal with it. I'm betting that however valid any of Nader's policy stances might be, Obama's sucked all the air out of his bubble--as well he should. With any luck, Nader's confidence in Obama will pan out. If Obama has anything less than a forty point lead over McCain, anyone who even considers voting for Nader is a fool--again.
The country *will* go left *if* you get a Democratic president who can help to create a Democratic majority in Congress.
The country will *never* go left if you have Nader run to split the progressive Democratic vote with Obama or Hillary.
And anyway, if you've been listening, the campaign has *already* gone left, thanks to candidates like Kucinich. (Where was Nader then? Oh right, plotting to split the Democratic vote in the general.)
And if you noticed, the debates have shown how left Obama and Hillary are willing to go. Universal health care was a taboo topic just years ago for the Democrats. And reversing NAFTA? Refusing special interests (at least for Obama)? Those aren't particularly right-wing stances last I checked.
Obama is the one who has the best chance to create a new working Democratic majority in Congress. If he gets in to the White House, he can do that - and then you'll see major legislation push through Congress into law.
Hillary would be good too, but the problem is, she has the mentality that blue states are coastal states and flyover states are red states. Her polarization will make it more difficult for Democrats running for office in flyover "red" states to win seats in Congress because her ability to campaign (as recently shown) is marred by her divisiveness. And we need some of those red states to elect blue officials. That's just the simple truth.
Please - all of you who are pro-Nader - this year is just too important. McCain is a bad idea. We need a Democrat in the White House. And this year, we actually have a candidate who has his roots in progressive political activism, who understands that spirit and encourages that fight within the common citizen. Let's not pass up on this chance. Please.
"The country *will* go left *if* you get a Democratic president who can help to create a Democratic majority in Congress."
Just like Bill Clinton, eh????
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
