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

Comments

[Clinton]

Ralph Nader would make a great president. 'Progressives' who whine about his campaign do so to no avail. It is their own conceit that they have any right to speak for anyone when they themselves are as responsible for the sorry state of the democratic party than anyone else.
No one should have to settle for the dreck that this country 'gets' to vote for, election after election.
If Obama wins, it will be by such a large margin that Nader will have a negligible effect.

[jstock]

One's stands on the major issues alone does not a great president make. Temperment and character are equally important. And, from what we've seen of Nader, he would make a HORRIBLE president - even if he could possibly, somehow make it that far. But, of course, here in what I like to call "reality," this is all moot nonsense. Bush should remind us all what a REAL conservative looks like, and the damage that can occur when we take our eyes off the prize. Go Obama!

[DemandTruth]

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

Uh, maybe you haven't been paying attention, but Obama IS the candidate who is fighting to represent everyone in this campaign. Why do you think he's got more independents and some crossover republicans along with every class and creed of Democrat? Why do you think young people are finally beginning to get involved in our democracy, and getting excited about it? Do you REALLY think Nader could engender this kind of inspiration and mobilization throughout the country? Where's the Republicans for Nader campaign? And people don't blame Nader for Kerry's loss in 2004 - we realize the People so soundly rejected Nader that he didn't capture enough percentage of the vote to even count. But he did in 2000. And that is a FACT, no matter what you claim to be true. So on one point, you're only half right, on the other point, you're WRONG. Take another point: it didn't ALL come down to the SCOTUS. If Nader had dropped out like he said he would, the case would never have gone to the SCOTUS. Plus, you're leaving out all the Republican dirty voter fraud tricks as well in this equation. So you're not considering the whole story on the 2000 election. Finally, Gore was NEVER as boring and wooden as you make him out to be. He didn't change. The media's COVERAGE of him and portrayal of him is what's changed. Remember when he passionately kissed his wife? Was that BORING Gore or was that today's Gore - the same one he's always been? And wasn't he mercilously attacked for that too by the MSM? You can vote for whomever you choose, but if you don't think a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain (just like it was a vote for Bush in 2000), then you're willfully ignorant or naieve. Politics just happens to not be perfect or idealistic. That's the way the world works, and you ought to wise up to that fact. If you honestly really truly believe that Nader has the best chance of winning this election (considering that the People rejected him TWICE already - by a LOT!), then vote for him. But otherwise, you're voting for McCain by proxy and you know it.

[ozamerican]

"Uh, maybe you haven't been paying attention, but Obama IS the candidate who is fighting to represent everyone in this campaign."

They all aren't?

[joanndarc]

Why people blame Nader for their own faults of mediocracy and corruption?
Do not blame polititians for what has been done to this country in the last 60 years.
Blame yourself first, learn hot to become responcable citizents.
Did not Ike warn you about the groing power of Military Industril Colmplex?
Why Truman has not been prosecuted what he had done to innocent people??
Good luck with you so called "Democracy"!
Even British are laughing at it nowdays, even the Queen..

[timm0]

He has the right to run if he wants to run. I don't think he'll do too much damage to Obama's vote count, but WILL damage mccain's.

That said, the worst thing he will do is serve up the most important issues that he has "right" on a filthy trashcan lid, turning the stomachs of large numbers of Americans against things like single payer health care. He believes himself to be a white knight for consumers, but his egotistical, condescending manner helps corporatist forces paint movements toward sustainable and reasonable business practices and trade regulations as "kooky" and impractical.

If he petitioned all the candidates and secured a Commerce Department post, THAT would be effective in helping consumers. But he won't do that because he'd have a job and be answerable to other people... without the spotlight on himself.

[SolarPowerGuy]

"If [Nader] petitioned all the candidates and secured a Commerce Department post, THAT would be effective in helping consumers. But he won't do that because he'd have a job and be answerable to other people... without the spotlight on himself."

Yesterday, Nader was on the Talk of the Nation radio program. Someone asked him the perennial question about why he doesn't "just work with the Democrats.­" He answered that he has been trying to get meetings with Clinton, Edwards, AND Obama for several months. He said that none of them would meet with HIM. That speaks volumes.

Lest you think this is something new, payback for 2000, this shut-Nader-out mindset pervaded the Democrats back then as well. Remember how Gore wouldn't lift a finger to bring Nader into the debates?

Within the Green Party, we heard rumors that Nader was in fact trying to negotiate a deal with Gore. 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.

I voted for Nader proudly in 2000, and also in 1996. Even though I won't be supporting him this year (I have my own reasons -- trust me, they aren't yours), I hope that all of you Democrats will take a hard look at the "progressive" candidates from whom you will be making your final choice.

[timm0]

That's one person's word against others. I can't believe everything that Nader says. But I wouldn't be surprised that some Dem operatives are hostile toward him now and shut him out at this juncture.

The fact is that his entry in the presidential race has a far higher likelihood of damaging the 'big issue awareness' that he claims to base his candidacy on. Right now, he's only a few wrinkles off of Pat Paulson. Nothing he does in the context of a prez campaign will have any value, so what the hell is the point? My suggestion was an example of something to do to make an actual difference - without simultaneously embarrassing himself and the issues that matter. The other part was my snide way of saying that he's too full of himself to do something that's not going to get the spotlight.

And I vote for whoever I think is the best candidate. I've never felt Nader was the best candidate for anything. If you feel different, that's your prerogative. If it's any consolation, if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination and Obama runs as an Independent, I'll be voting for Obama not the "Democrat.­"

[alkamm]

I don't care if Nader runs or not. What I care about is people who use their votes to such ill effect as voting for a man who took money from Republicans to run a campaign they took to be against Democrats.

The Republicans who fund Nader are clear-eyed, cold-eyed, and accurate in their assessment of Nader's position. Those who employ their absolutist, logical bent to vote for Nader are doing themselves and this country a disservice. They are as deluded about Nader as the Republicans are deluded about the surge in Iraq.

Nader voters are self-congratulatory idolators. Whatever merits Nader's raiders had in gaining safety mandates were washed away in the tsunami his illogic gave us in Florida. His brilliant voters, damned them, cleverly waited to vote for him after Gore was declared the winner in exit polls that turned out to be as skewed as the ballots and the hanging chads. Nice going chumps!

Why not worship Nader in the privacy of your own back yard and stay away from voting booths that can hurt you?

[progresemulo]

It's not very progressive to subject your countrymen to 4-8 more years of right-wing misrule just to steal the progressive voting bloc from the Democratic Party. Perhaps this is why the debate has only been pushed further to the right in the years that Nader has run.

[progresemulo]

It's not very progressive to subject your countrymen to 4-8 more years of right-wing misrule just to steal the progressive voting bloc from the Democratic Party. Perhaps this is why the debate has only been pushed further to the right in the years that Nader has run.

[SolarPowerGuy]

And perhaps, if pigs could fly, I would be king.

Non-sequiturs are so much fun! What's your next one?

[westwind]

If we had instant runoff voting, and the participation of someone like Nader did not help Republicans to win, I would welcome him in the election. But Nader knows how the electoral system and electoral college is set up, and how his runs affect the outcome, and he still chooses to insert his increasingly pathetic self into the process.

Having handed George W. Bush to the country and the world, Nader, being as stubborn as he is, could not admit (probably even to himself) that he was misguided in 2000, and work to change the electoral system rather than making it totally dysfunctional. But the electorate is catching on, and his latest run is bound to be a bust, if the trajectory of his vote totals in the last two elections is anything to go by.

If Ralph Nader truly had the best interests of democracy and the country at heart, we wouldn't only hear from him every four years when he decides to stroke his ego again as a presidential candidate.

[BryanYoung]

Al Gore running a poor campaign handed W. the keys to the kingdom. Had Gore moved further to the left instead of further right and actually pledged to take on corporate piracy, he'd have won the votes you seem to think Nader "stole."

[SolarPowerGuy]

Am I going to read the same B.S. in every Nader blog, eight year later? Do you people have any sense of history? If you didn't read the arguments I'm sharing across Huffington Post today, did you not encounter them a year ago? Two years ago? Four?

"Having handed George W. Bush to the country and the world, Nader, being as stubborn as he is, could not admit (probably even to himself) that he was misguided in 2000..."

You're going to have to take up your pet theory with no one less that Al From, Chairman of the DLC (that's the ruling, conservative wing of the Democratic Party, in case you didn't know) in 2000. In February 2001, Mr. From wrote:

"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."

http://web.archive.org/web/20041226192948/www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=3&kaid=86&subid=84&contentid=2919

So, since Nader didn't "steal Gore's election," then who did? DEMOCRATS.

That's right, Democrats. In 2000, eleven percent of YOU Democrats DEFECTED from Gore and voted for BUSH. Not Nader, but BUSH! Only four percent of Republicans betrayed THEIR party. And yet YOU have the audacity to scapegoat the 2.6% of the electorate who went for Nader? That's some serious denial.

Independent voters are not second-class citizens. We don't owe you, or your candidates, anything.

[ozamerican]

Yeah, so 11% of democrates defected..­. that STILL means Nader was the spoiler because the democrats would have won had he not siphoned off the rest. Get real!

[Neaguy]

Ralph will be ignored by the corporate mainstream media, unless his percentage of support is significant to deem him a "spoiler."

But at least I have someone to vote for.

[mpgarr]

What you said about Nader's third run for president has its merits, but as I said in the other thread on this topic--if policies such as what Nader will champion could get traction with even the Democratic rank and file---the debate tonight in Cleveland would be between John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich and not Hillary and Barak.
I see no real reason for him to even try to run at this point. If such "fringe left" policies of Edwards and Kucinich could not catch fire with Democratic primary voters--they sure as hell are not going to gain tractin with the general electorate. I am afraid to say that a Nader run for president really just seems to satisfy some "ego trip" for him and really has no utility other than to break off some votes from the eventual Democratic nominee, in what may once again--come down to a very close race decided in a few places like here in Ohio.

[haloofsin]

One main problem with that theory is that you can ask most general public democrats who are the nominees and they would say either Obama or Clinton when in fact their where 8 total democrats running. It's the Media...It­'s the apathy of the citizens

Nader brings some front line media with him. Granted he has to still fight to even get into the debates. Most people didn't even watch the debate only the buzz clips. This is when coverage matters most...Peo­ple will start tunning into the debates now its time for the general election.

[haloofsin]

closer to the general election

[ozamerican]

There were more than 8 democrats running. What about:

Richard Edward Caligiuri

Kenneth A. Capalbo

"Randy" Crow

Henry Hewes

William C. Hughes

D.R. Hunter

William "Bill" Keefe

Caroline P. Killeen

"Tom" Koos

Dal LaMagna

"Tom" Laughlin

O. Savior

Mary Ann Segal

Michael Skok

Oh, that's right... they're just "minor" candidates, lucky to end up as only a footnight in this campaign. So much for "apathy"--even you don't aknowledge them as candidates.

Nevertheless, what seperates them from the rest (your "eight")? Mostly, the difference is that they have no coalition, no major constituency. Should the media be covering them equally? Where do you draw the line?

As for Obama, he had no name recognition at all a year ago, and here he is. He has an effective organization, the ability to listen to the electorate and understand the general zeitgeist of this country, and inspire millions of people to action... just look at the record-breaking voter turnouts!

So, yeah, there are just "eight" running, but even you acknowledge that candidates have to pass the so-what test, the basic measures of viability, before we waste our votes on them.

[haloofsin]

Wow, something positive on the Huffington Post about Nader?

Thank you...