Ralph Nader's Nadir
I endorsed Ralph Nader in 2000. And while I didn't support his candidacy four years later, I defended his right to run. Nobody's vote "belongs" to any candidate except the one who wins it. The Democrats didn't lose in 2000 because Nader won a smattering of votes in Florida. They lost because Al Gore was a lousy candidate who couldn't carry his own state nor motivate tens of millions of potential Democratic voters to get off the couch. If had an 'enth of the capacity to inspire and engage the crowds of new voters that Barack Obama had demonstrated, we would have never heard of Dubya again.
But now that Nader has announced he will make a third run and while I would oppose any effort to keep him off the ballot, I am disappointed, even chagrined by his incipient candidacy.
Nader's anti-corporate message should not be shrugged off nor should his commitment to raise all of the issues that make most politicians of both parties squirm. "You take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut out, marginalized, disrespected," he said in announcing his candidacy on Sunday. "You go from Iraq, to Palestine/Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bungling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts."
Great message, Ralph. But absolutely no strategy. Politics is all about perception, and the perception of Nader's first run, fairly or not, was that of a tragedy. His redux in 2004 was more of a farce. His run this time will be doomed to be pathetic. It will accomplish absolutely nothing except to diminish Nader's own towering record as a citizens' advocate and to marginalize the crucial issues he raises.
In 2000, running as a Green candidate, Nader scored less than 3% of the vote. He left behind no infrastructure, no organization, no network of any significance. All that marked his legacy was a mountain of bitterness and recrimination. Four years later, in the middle of the Bush catastrophe and with the Democrats fielding a candidate equally lame to Gore, Nader was able to attract a flyspeck .3% of the vote - a tenth of what he garnered in 2000.
What does Nader expect this time around? He has no funding, no party structure behind him, and no rational way of explaining of what he could possibly accomplish. More disturbing, he has no visible constituency. The overwhelming bulk of what might be called the Nader Vote has been swept into the vortex of the Obama campaign. Nader can make the argument, if he wishes, that Obama is just one more corporate sell-out but it is unlikely that the millions who have flocked to Obama are all of a sudden going to be jolted into an about face that because Nader will appear on the ballot.
Nader is far too smart a man to know that he has any chance of winning anything. What he, and whatever few supporters who will join him, will argue is that by running he will somehow force Obama - or Hillary if she wins the nomination--to move to the left.
This is, of course, nonsense. All of the factors that contributed to Nader's dismal finish in 2004 are many times more potent this cycle. His candidacy will force nothing, except the voters to view Nader as some sort of bizarre spectacle. The competing candidates will see him as little more than a nuisance.
It doesn't have to be this way. Ralph Nader could play an essential and productive role between now and November without sacrificing neither his independence nor his principles. One could imagine a rolling, coast-to-coast chataqua over this coming summer during which Nader, precisely, would keep alive any and all of the issues neglected by the mainstream debate. It could be a role of great import and great dignity. Why Nader, instead, has chosen to further marginalize himself and his agenda is way beyond me.
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
Sadly, Nader is becoming a joke and I wonder if anyone will remember him for his accomplishments on behalf of consumers or as the guy who kept running increasingly irrelevant presidential campaigns. Anybody remember what Harold Stassen did before he became Bob Hope's stock laugh line?
Like all fanatics Ralph Nader is a dead right candidate no matter how much damage being right can cause. Indeed, he is like the guy entering an intersection who notices a speeding car about to run the red light, one that will surely broadside him if he continues a head, but since he is in the right with a green light he proceeds anyway. Was being right worth 8 years of W, Ralph must think so? Like the idiots on the right who once explained why it was necessary to burn down the village in order to save it, Ralph has a bottom line blind, destructive, arrogant righteousness as his central creed.
So I should vote for the Democrat because you say so, even when my conscience says otherwise?
If Marc Cooper was a sports writer rather than a political commentator I guess he'd opine that when the Red Sox come up to bat against the Yankees, they would be taking runs away from the Yankees. And vice versa. Nader a spoiler? We should be thankful that one of Americas greatest living citizens takes the time engage in such a noble endeavor. I hope he will run in again 2012.
The last I heard is that any one can run for president. I would like to see 3 or 4 more people running. What other good ideas are out there that would make this country better? It sure would give the big money people in Washington something to worry about.
Not really, the stage is set, no more diversions, please; particularly those that will further empower the big money people!
No, it wouldn't. The Big Money people see people like Nader as absurdities, to be used if possible, but otherwise merely a side show. Those in power don't listen to the Naders of the world. They have lately been damping down, and suffocating if possible, Al Gore's message to the world on global warming. In power circles, compared to Gore, Nader is merely a moth seeking light.
Ideas that challenge the power elite are harshly treated in our present system, especially since Clinton handed the airwaves to the propagandists of the far Right. Perhaps a form of parliamentary government might help, but if you know your history, then you understand that all governments end up undemocratic and usually far worse. Even the Continental Congress was deeply corrupt. We should have started over again, after the Reagan fiasco and Nixon's attempt at totalitarian government, but it's too late now.
A lot of American families wish they had a "smattering" of dollars these days. Just imagine what $97,421 could buy.
I disagree with only one thing, but it's a pretty major thing.
Ralph does not have the power to "marginalize his agenda" because that agenda doesn't belong only to him (though he often seems to think so). Plenty of other people in politics per se and not share and voice his concerns. Anyone informed enough to even know what Nader stands for would also be intelligent enough not to associate those ideas with any negativity surrounding him. Hence no marginalization.
I do not think anyone would say,out loud, "Oh, we don't have to get corporate influence out of the politics and government. That's just something that kook Nader says." Even most repugs now pretend this is a good idea at least to a certain extent and in theory. Even something like single payer now has majority support among regular people.
All that is thanks in part to the activities over many years of Nader _among many other people_. So, yeah you're right he should have a platformin this election year, for which he doesn't have to depend on the MSM now. But he shouldn't just run every four years for president. At least not until we get the Bushies out, because this country is teetering on the brink of disaster.
What a sad creepy character he has become, driven by his narcisstic need to be in the spotlight with the big boys and big girls again,as though the public is waiting on his every word, every proposal.H
I'm waiting on Nader's words for more than on Obama's or McCain's.
Yeah, Nader ruins every election. It's not the untrustworthy voting methods, it's not disgusting practices of disenfranchising voters by Bush (eg, telling black Democrats in Florida the wrong date for election day) and the Democrats (eg, working to keep Nader off the ballot in every state in 2004), it's not the corporate money. It's all Ralph Nader.
Last I heard anyone could run for president and I could vote for anyone I wanted. And just hope my vote got counted.
So why get so up in the air over someone who wants to go through all the trouble to run? I think we could use at least 4 or 5 more running. That would sure give the big money grabbers in Washington something to think about.
At this most critical time for America, I say the more voices, the better and if Ralph feels the only way he can be heard is by throwing his hat in the ring, so be it. He has a greater intellect and awareness of the issues than do the other candidates, reflects the real humanity of America and has done more to benefit the American people than any of the others. He has every right to be an engaged activist; and frankly, what harm could it possibly do. Let him speak!!!
My first thought was why? My second thought was the argument about him stealing votes is presumptuous and arrogant. My third thought was what is really at it's nadir is democracy. I supported Ron Paul and he was intentionally marginalized to stifle his message. What America needs is proportional representation, instant runoff elections, and election process that takes only a 2-3 months and not 2 years to complete. The primaries should be all held on the same day and we should have same day voter registration. I also believe we should have full public financing of elections and terms limits. Holding office should be a civil duty that is open to all and not just the billionaires. Unless we have real choices, voting for me will stay an exercise in futility. My question is where is the social liberal and fiscal conservative in this race? I would like to see someone end the war on marijuana users, end the war in Iraq, end the (un)patriot act and FBI cataloging of every persons biometric identifiers and end surveillance creep in the form of cameras everywhere, know your customer banking regulations, CAPPS 1 and 2, and carnivore and eschelon. Also, I would like to see an end to NAFTA and CAFTA and the failed unamerican Cuban embargo. This would be a start, but alas, I'm all alone it appears.
It's rather curious that Ralph would runb for Pres at the same time he is pitching his new book....hm
No candidate for president has ever done that before now.
I like Nader. I think his points are all relevant. That being said, we all know that there IS a difference between a Democratic and Republican administration. The Democratic administration will be far from perfect and far more in the pockets of corporations than I could ever be comfortable with, and yet it is FAR preferable to the kind of graft and corruption which we have witnessed under Bush Jr.
I admire the man, but his latest effort is just sad. Mr. Cooper, I think you are right on target.
Both you and Cooper are well off the target. Nader is the only one who is addressing all of the issues which should be of concern to all Americans.
Let me sum it up for you, you like Nader, all of his points are relevant, Democrats are far more in the pockets of corporations than you could "ever"be comfortable with, but less corrupt than the Bush criminals, but you won't vote for Nader because you're afraid. And you admire the man???
I think he can well do without your admiration!
Ralph Nader: Unelectable With Any Screed
If Nader is so concerned about his views of "Twiddle Dee" vs "Twiddle Dum", when he talks about the two parties we now have, Ralph would be busting his ass everyday, to get more GREEN PARTY Candidates to run for The House and The Senate in every two years.
Instead, he waits until the forth year to throw his face on the tube so he can screw-up the results!
And even if he were to pull an off-the-wall Presidential WIN, how many members of Congress would be there to support his causes?
Just to borrow your phrase, Nader has busted his ass more than any or all of the other combined candidates in the race.
His entire life has been one long run of busting his ass, for clods like you who aren't worthy of polishing his shoes.
You are clearly too simple-minded to understand that unlike most of the other candidates, Nader has limited financial support which, to your way of thinking, means that he's not a viable candidate. Never mind what he stands for which, unlike the other candidates, he has never changed.
You've obviously bought the myth that unless you belong to either of the major parties, you haven't a right to run for office.
You would be surprised at how many members of Congress would support Nader.
Nader's record *does* include things for which all Americans owe him a debt of gratitude. There simply is no denying that in many ways he has improved life in America.
However, that does not immunize him from criticism for his decisions and actions previously, now, or in the future. If one wants credit for successes, then one has to take responsibility for the bad consequences, too.
His record also includes behavior that arguably hurt America and greatly off-set his 'good' works. There can be no serious argument that Nader's candidacy pulled more voters who would have supported Gore than would have supported Bush. To claim that those who supported Nader would have more likely supported Bush is folly and is nothing more than an attempt to reject reality.
If this isn't just an exercise in political masturbation and Nader *really* wanted to put certain issues on the table for discussion by the candidates, he could have announced his candidacy much earlier in the process and participated in the debates. Or by backing the candidacy of Kucinich, perhaps even Richardson. Or by working to mentor and develop candidates in other parties, such as the Green Party. Or he could have been on the talk-show circuit, bringing his issues directly to the people. Instead, his ego demanded that he jump into the race himself, potentially to act as a spoiler -- AGAIN.
The truth is that a Nader candidacy is a harmful joke that all but 2.74% got in 2000, and 0.3% got in 2004. I suppose that we should take some comfort in seeing that the results are trending in the right direction.
My thought, exactly. Where has he been all these years, when he might have actually accomplished something? Gore certainly didn't sit back on his fanny and wait for another chance to bask in the light of politics. He actually worked, and hard, for what he believed, worked to engage the public and affect their opinions. Nader has done none of the work necessary for such a candidacy as his.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
