Ralphing

It's hard to believe, I know, but there is now an entire generation of 20- and 30-something Americans who don't know that Ralph Nader wasn't always a total a**hole. And yet, despite the stupefying narcissism and destructive potential of Nader's 2008 presidential bid, there's one important issue raised by his independent race that a legitimate fear of his candidacy's consequences, or a well-earned contempt for his arrogance, should not be allowed to obscure.

By now we are used to politicians and public figures who use the presidential campaign cycle to build equity and raise fees for their Brand That Is Me (Al Sharpton, Alan Keyes, Rudy Giuliani); to act out their messianic delusions on a national stage (Ross Perot, Mike Gravel, Fred Thompson); to audition for the demagogic hall of fame (Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, and an asterisk for Lou Dobbs, who still seems to be flirting with it).

Nader, of course, says he's different. (He also says that he didn't cost Al Gore the 2000 election -- "this bit about 'spoiler' is really very astonishing," he told Tim Russert -- which puts something of a ceiling on the credibility of anything else he says.) Nader contends that the good he did in that race was to pull Gore's positions to the left. It's a role that John Edwards (though not Dennis Kucinich -- go figure) is credited for playing in the 2008 primaries. And now Nader, who skipped the primaries, says that his third-party race will inject into the fall campaign issues like single-payer health insurance, labor law reform, Pentagon waste, corporate crime, "the illegal occupation of Palestine," and impeachment -- issues he says Clinton, Obama, and McCain have taken off the table.

I don't doubt that there's a portion of the American electorate that agrees more with Nader on some of those issues than they do with anyone the Republicans or Democrats will put on the ballot. Hell, I'm one of them. Just to pick one topic: I think the unwillingness of the Congress to hold Bush and Cheney accountable for carpet-bombing our system of checks and balances, and for replacing the rule of law with the tyranny of despots, has not only been a craven capitulation to White House fear-mongering; it has also staggeringly misread the political mood and core values of the American people. And I hold Clinton, Obama (and even McCain 1.0, the maverick), along with their colleagues, responsible for sweeping the ashes of our Constitution under the rug.

But despite Nader's wishful thinking, we don't have a parliamentary system. Any votes he attracts will be drained from the Democratic nominee and conceivably cost an Electoral College victory; they will not result in a new government being forced to enter into a coalition with his supporters. Nor, I think, will his presence in the race reframe the issues, refocus the choices, or push the envelope of the campaign. Even though I may agree with him on, say, single-payer, I could live with criteria for getting into a fall presidential debate that turned out to exclude him.

What troubles me, though, and what his bid throws a spotlight on, is how hard it is for anyone in America to shape the national conversation on anything. One way or another, it takes big money -- the fortune to run for office, the cash to buy full-page ads in newspapers, the bankroll to own a network, the marketing budget to create a celebrity's star power. Markets move mass media. In the internet age, almost any idea can find an audience somewhere, but to win MSM airplay and a seat at the table, that audience's numbers have to be big enough to constitute a politically potent special interest or infotainment freakshow fan club, not just a narrowcast alternative niche or a responsibly dissenting viewpoint.

It's a shame that to get five minutes of the nation's civic attention, a person has to either be a billionaire, or to raise and spend a billion of other people's dollars, or to do something as potentially lethal the country's ultimate well-being as to mount a quixotic run for president. Maybe we already possess the communications technology for a modern-day Tom Paine to reframe the national political debate without at the same time landing another George W. Bush in the White House. The irony is that the candidate most likely to focus on the barriers to success standing in the way of that technology -- the concentrated, corporate control of the media -- is the same Ralph Nader whose presence in the race may turn out to cast the darkest shadow on its outcome.

Follow Marty Kaplan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/martykaplan

Comments

[cactusJohn]

NICE ARTICLE MARTY, BUT---JUST STOP WRITING ABOUT NADER --STOP GIVING HIM INK. --PASS IT ON . . .

[ManyColored]

Ralph Nader is the Harold Stassen of the 21st century.

Ralph is pretty much correct about what he says. So was Stassen. But they both became nonentities by continuing after their chance had passed, and so have ultimately been viewed as tilting at windmills.

[eggcream]

Here we go again!! Damn you Nader!!!

[GuiltyUndertaker]

Damn you Pelosi! Damn you Reid! Damn you Clinton! Damn you Lieberman! Damn you all candy-ass Democrats who've retreated from liberalism and jumped into the DLC pool! Damn you all who haven't the guts to impeach Bush and Cheney!

Bless you, Ralph Nader. I now have someone for whom to vote.

[anelder]

And in doing so you will facilitate the election of those whose ideoloy you profess to abhor.

I find those of you who demand all or nothing, my way or the highway, reminiscint of what we now have. Your much like the pouting children who don't yet realize that compromise is the stuff of civilazation. That give and take leads to more of the same and is the only avenue to what what we may wish for.

We do not live in a liberal society. Just like we don't live in a religious society. Our nation, government, has to fit all. Yes, unlike clothing, it has to be a one size fits all.

So grow up and work toward the time when you may be able to convince, by your actions and behavior, that your way is the enlightened way.

[robertlockwoodmills]

For atp2007: Biden's rationale for not impeaching Bush and Cheney doesn't wash.

Not enough time? These men have been flouting the Constitution since at least 2005! Not practical? Impeachment isn't about practicality, it's the one and only remedy citizens have against a lawless executive. And that Bush and Cheney have broken the law on many occasions is no longer in dispute.

Nancy Pelosi took impeachment "off the table" for political reasons. If Bush and Cheney were impeached, she'd be next in line for the presidency­...and she didn't want to create the appearance that she was seeking this result.

Answer...I­mpeach Bush and Cheney, then resign the House Speakership.

Another reason she rejects impeachment is out of fear of giving the Republicans an issue to run on in 2008.

Answer...D­id Republicans care about 2000 when they impeached Clinton? Did it hurt them?

Bottom Line: Democrats are political cowards. As bad as Bush has been, they don't deserve to win in 2008. They'll win by default, but they won't deserve it.

[anelder]

Winning is not an entitlement - nor is it something that's given to the deserving. It is politics and as such can only change when there is a turnout of citizen voters interested enough to stay the course. We are seeing only a beginning, if it keeps up, of an interest in changing goverment. (Those of you who have been with it for a longer time just keep your britches on till the rest catch up)

Then, and only then, when we vote them out every two years, and do not re-elect incumbents, will we see out elected officials getting the word. Can't blame them when it's the voters who have been lax.

Chill out a bit, if it's worthwwhile it's worth staying the course.

[shelleybear]

That comment about Gravel is a load of crap.
It cheapens almost everything else you had to say.

[PartyPartyParty]

I agree with you. One of the things that has me steamed is that Ralph Nader now has had more air time and press attention in 24 hours than Gravel has had in 24 months.

[DebbieKat]

Absolutely true! Although it's possible that the two might team up. Regardless, the press has treated Gravel abominably. He doesn't deserve it.

[PauCK]

I think the idea of anyone silencing Nader other than Nader himself is un-American. I think that for Nader to continue to run is also un-American and demonstrates either a lack of a grasp on current reality or he is playing for the other party. Nader says he is about what is good for American. While I don't have any quarrel with his ideas, I am realistic enough to know he has no chance of winning and HUGE chance that he will only help the Republicans win again as he did in 2002.

The fact that he is arrogant enough to not care about the possible consequences his candidacy poses for our already bleak future is inexcusable.

In a better world he could win but this is far from being that "better world" we need for that to be a possibility. We first have to dig ourselves out of the hole Bush sunk us into and McCain won't do that and Nader won't get a chance.

[emncaity]

Nader un-American? That is truly pathetic. Nader is probably the last great American in public life--greater than you, greater than me, than Kaplan or any of the other bloggers on huffpost or anywhere else. The accomplishments of every other presidential candidate pale by comparison. Life in this country is immeasurably better because of Nader.

If Nader has no chance as a presidential candidate, it's because of the electorate, not him--an electorate too locked into the binary choice of corporate Republicans and corporate Democrats, and too cowardly, uninformed, and/or habit-driven to go elsewhere. An electorate that considers Hillary the candidate of experience even though she was at best the third-LEAST experienced candidate among the original group of Dems, and Obama the candidate of "change" even though people like Kucinich and even Edwards were clearly more oriented toward change (and Nader even more so). Hillary and Obama put an identity-politics face (gender, race) on the same old corporate Democratic garbage. So, fantastic. Here we are, with a chance to pull defeat out of the jaws of victory once again.

Yeah, I'm a Democrat, although for the past several years I'm really wonderin why. But Nader's right: Gore's loss in 2000 was due to nothing else other than Democratic failure combined with a lazy and ignorant electorate (well, Nader judiciously avoids that last thing, mostly, but _I'm_ saying it). Same for 2004 (when I campaigned­--hard--fo­r Kerry, who has turned out to be right about _everything_). And now, we're left with the two candidates most vulnerable to the typical Republican attacks. If I weren't ideologically committed to the defeat of right-wing Republicans, I'd be salivating at the chance to work as a consultant for them this time around, quite frankly. It's just too target-rich an environment, as they might say.

Democrats' problem isn't Nader, but their own truly pathetic ineffectiveness, a lack of clear-enough distinction with Republicans, no backbone, and this blaming and victim-posing where they point the finger at everybody but their own equivocating and spineless selves. No wonder the American public looks at Democrats as inferior to Republicans when it comes to national defense; they can't even stand up for themselves or their own positions, preferring instead to cower behind a sign that says "please don't hurt me, Republicans, we'll try to be not too different than you."

Grow up, Democrats. Seriously.

[anelder]

Here, here, right on point.

[YellowDogInRedCounty]

If Ralph Nader is serious about running for President, he would have entered the Democratic primary over a year ago and not waited until now to be a spoiler.

There is NO way a third party candidate could ever get elected President. And even if they somehow did get elected, they would have no support in Congress. The only way a third party can succeed is by being built from the ground up. Start running candidates for City Council and School Boards; then to the County level, then State Legislature, Governor and THEN the Presidency.

Nader is a spoiler. Shame on him!

[antirepublocrat]

The last time a 3rd party succeeded was in 1860. It did not succeed primarily by building itself from the ground up. It succeeded when established politicians could no longer in good conscience support either of the two major parties, neither of which were willing to challenge the expansion of slavery into the North via Dred Scott, the Fugitive Slave Law and the abandonment of the Missouri Compromise for popular sovereignty in the territories. Many Republicans were incumbent Whigs and even Democrats before they switched to the Republican Party.

It's about time anti-war, anti-imperial Republicans like Ron Paul and Democrats like Dennis Kucinich formed a Peace Party focused on peace and restoration of the Constitution.

[Rocku]

I dont care what you call the new Party, but that is indeed how it will be built! There will have to be defections of nationally know figures from both sides of the aisle over such things as immigration, Constitutionality and specifically the Bill of Rights, the economy, and individual "self ownership". All it will take is the "superdelegates" getting it wrong in the Democratic Party, and the old line "True Conservatives" being unrepresented in the Republican Party (again!), and something could happen. I await that day!

[neoconjob]

why would he have entered the Democratic primary? is he registered Democrat? does he call himself a Democrat? it would make as much sense to say "he would have entered the Republican primary over a year ago" and blah blah.

open the box for a breath now and then. the world is bigger than what your keepers have led you to believe.

[Bettysdad]

I've never disagreed with anything said by Al Sharpton, Mike Gravel, or Ralph Nader.

I can only explain their being demonized by Kaplan by his being a goddamn centrist.

[anelder]

Demonized, surely you jest.

[OhComeOnNow]

Love, love, love it!!!!! You nailed it so perfectly and so beautifully!! Kudos, Marty!

I think Nader should pay a negative donation amount of $50 for every one of his supporters.

[realistic2008]

With all due respect and as you mentioned I for one agree with 99% of Ralph's Nader position on the issues; furthermore, I am not the kind of cynic who thinks, even believes, he is a fake.

This man has demonstrated throughout his life to be a solid citizen, a patriot and a person of the outmost integrity and most certainly an unselfish dedication for the good of humanity.

To deny him the opportunity to serve the American people is not democratic and for anyone to tell him to hide some place is the ephitome of the arrogance and unconstitutuinal.

[Redoy]

Kaplan doesn't get it. 2008 very much needs an additional voice because establishment simply will not allow some issues on the table. Ralph can help in that respect. Our Democracy is in terrible need of an angry voice after all we've had forced down our throats.

[PartyPartyParty]

Ralph needed to be lending his angry voice to local progressive candidates throughout the years. Which he hasn't done. I don't agree with a lot of what Kaplan says, but Ralphie boy hasn't done one thing to further progressive causes in the last ten years.

[crimlawdfender]

Nadar is a Republican in disguise. Why else would he be running again if he did not want to get another Republican president? Is he arrogant or ignorant? His policies alaign far more to the left than the right, therefore only taking votes from the Democratic Party. With any type of split in votes between Nadar and the Democratic Nominee, the Republican's win.

Too bad Nadar can't get beyond his own self-rightousness to take one for the team!

[GuiltyUndertaker]

Whta makes you assume Nader is on the team? What makes you assume that all Nader supporters would automatically vote for a Democrat?

[SolarPowerGuy]

Absolutely right. I haven't voted for any Republican, ever. However, I haven't voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate since 1992 -- and that time, I soon learned that my trust had been misplaced. I scrutinize the records of any Democrat who requests my vote before granting that vote.

My Democratic Congressman (Mike Honda), and one of my Democratic Senators (Dianne Feinstein), crossed the line in recent years. They will not receive my votes again without first taking extensive corrective action. That means VOTES on the floor of Congress to REVERSE the damage they have done -- not flowery speeches about what they "will" do.

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

[teedee]

OK -- now the Dems will once again have Ralph Nader to blame for their own spineless stupidity.

Gore lost because no Dems would support the call for a recount. He lost because the Dems were too ignorant to watch for GOP tricks, like Jeb being governor of Florida, like Bush operative Kathleen Harris illegally purging voter roles of likely Gore voters, like going along with right-wing operative US Supreme Ct justices Scalia, Thomas, and likely, Roberts; like sitting around quivering in their boots for the last 20 years watching the right-wing takeover of talk radio and mainstream media --

It is incredible that any self-respecting, thinking citizen would actually blame Ralph Nader, who only speaks the truth, for losing any election whatsoever in the last 25 years!

All I can say is: Denial is MORE than a river in Egypt!

[GuiltyUndertaker]

Well said. Why didn't Democrats come down on the millions of brain-dead fascists who voted for Bush instead of the concerned citizens who chose Nader? No guts, I guess.

[juangault]

All that was in the news. But Nader was a big factor. So was Tennessee. I mean, Gore didn't win his home state. Gore embraced Bill, that was a big mistake. Republicans ran with that. You see McCain the other day, embracing the Antichrist? Let's see if they can build a breakwater to stop a tsunami. So go live on your spoils, Paraguay is cheap.

[littleblackcat]

teedee, you might cut just a bit of slack with your pronouncements. The American people are a naive bunch, I'll give you that. Too many years of being too secure and trusting in their "leaders" has dulled their cynical feelers. I'm old enough to remember when you supported your president no matter what party he represented nor what party you preferred. That was before the day of criminal behavior rampant. That said, Nader's presence in the election just gave the criminals more room to do their dirty work. Getting rid of the horror story that the repuke party has become should be first in the minds and hearts of everyone in this nation, if the country is going to survive long enough to think about healing and becoming the great nation it used to be.

[griffon2k]

I have nothing against Nader running. If you have the means, you should be allowed to run for president regardless of your chances of actually winning.

What I question Nader for is not participating in the primary season. We've seen candidates that have espoused similar philosophies to his own offer those philosophies to the electorate and have failed to gather a significant following to make it to the general election. Those candidates (specifically Edwards and Kucinich) didn't just jump in when it seemed convenient, they spent their money campaigning, they participated in debates, they stumped, they did the hard work. And when the people decided to go another way, Kucinich and Edwards respected that and made way for those the people DO support.

I agree with some of Nader's position's but I disagree with his feeling that just because a Democratic candidate doesn't run on his (Nader's) chosen platform they're corporate shills or the same as their Republican opponent. Nader has had the time and the means to try to affect change in ways other than the presidency, but hasn't. There are and have been independents in Congress, why can't he run for congressional office to lend support to their cause and build a base through actual political action rather than simple objection to our current form of government?

I think most people will decide this election is too important to play with their vote and many will question Nader's true intentions, this being his third presidential run with the same timing and same M.O that didn't play well during the previous two runs. But for the record, here's my message to Nader and Nader supporters:

If you truly want to change our government, then participate in the same process we all do to affect change. Build grassroot support, select candidates that represent your cause to run for State and US. Congressional offices, and support their camapaign through the election. If not sucessfull, repeat the process.

Don't resign yourself to simply running for President when it's convenient. Champion your cause even when it isn't. It may be a grueling process, you may be subject to all kinds of disengenuos and negative attacks, you may lose a couple of close elections, but in the end, your cause will better for it.

Just my .02.

[rshrink]

Well said. You said things I hadn't considered. I hope Nader reads this and takes your advice.

[MrsHaskell]

"What I question Nader for is not participating in the primary season. We've seen candidates that have espoused similar philosophies to his own offer those philosophies to the electorate and have failed to gather a significant following to make it to the general election"
(snip)
"And when the people decided to go another way, Kucinich and Edwards respected that and made way for those the people DO support."

I understood Marty to say that the primary process is a farce, and that to the extent that it is a marketplace of ideas, it's certainly not a free market. Edwards, and to a lesser extent, Kucinich, didn't leave the race because the other candidates' ideas were better. Edwards left the race because his ideas COULD NOT BE HEARD. The MSM simply wouldn't allow it; REFUSED to cover his campaign in any serious or respectful way. If you want proof of his appeal, just look at how Obama and Clinton changed their rhetoric to mimic his. Flash, cash and accomodationist ways won the day. It's not a matter of better ideas winning out. For me the central irony of Nader's current run is that his false assertion in 2000 - that both parties put forward corporatist hacks - has since come true. Unfortunately his solution is still wildly inappropriate.

[SolarPowerGuy]

"Edwards, and to a lesser extent, Kucinich, didn't leave the race because the other candidates' ideas were better. Edwards left the race because his ideas COULD NOT BE HEARD. The MSM simply wouldn't allow it; REFUSED to cover his campaign in any serious or respectful way."

That's why there need to be MORE political parties besides the Democrats and Republicans. Unfortunately for all of us, Democrats and Republicans have written elections laws to ensure their two-party monopoly on power.

As I never grow tired of telling people...

In California, the Greens achieved ballot status in 1992. We were determined to keep troublemakers out of our party. We wanted to STAND FOR SOMETHING, grow at our own pace, and control our political races and candidates. We allowed our county councils to close partisan primaries. We had "None of the Above" on the ballot in Green primaries. If NotA won, no Green would advance to the general election.

What happened? California SUED us for "conducting disorderly elections.­" The lawsuit started under a Republican governor and a Democratic Secretary of State. In the following election cycle, we got a Democratic governor and a Republican Secretary of State, BUT the lawsuit was continued until the Greens cried Uncle, thank you.

South Carolina Democrats employ a very similar rule to the California Greens' closed-primary rule I mentioned above. When Stephen Colbert wanted to run as a Democrat in South Carolina, Democratic Party bosses denied him the ballot!

Conclusion: the Democrats and Republicans want to write EVERYONE'S rules, not just their own. Successful outside groups are far more threatening to their system than they are to each other.

It's not much different than the Politburo, actually -- just with two names over the door instead of one.

[SolarPowerGuy]

I agree with you, Griffon2K. As a long-time registered Green, I would still be casting my vote for Nader with enthusiasm -- were it not for the fact that he tried to make an end-run around our primary elections in 2004, and he's set to do it again in 2008.

We need Nader's ideas, track record, and possibly his name recognition. But we also need a respectable political party to compete in many elections. Nader is not helping us achieve that. I would even say he's hurting the party-building effort.

[GeoNorth]

When Nader says that there is no difference between the two parties, it just shows that he isn't paying attention. Ralphie has nothing new to say and even less that is relevant.

[GuiltyUndertaker]

Nader never said there was no difference between the parties. He said that neither party was addressing the needs of working people and both parties were the tools of corporate interests. He was far rougher on Bush in 2000 than he was on Gore.