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

[Rosey]

Ralph Nader is an ego-maniacal, arrogant SOB and once again proving to the world that he is a die-hard REPUBLICAN hiding under a banner of being independent. Who is paying him to do this? No one in their right mind would support him now that we have a chance to elect Obama!

[GuiltyUndertaker]

You done polishing Obama's halo? Good. Now get a grip on reality. Nader is addressing issues your fellow isn't. Some us here in USA dig democracy.

[realistic2008]

Wrong, many millions of Americans believe in Nader and not blindly.

[robertlockwoodmills]

What an amazing response this is, to a man who won less than one-half-of-one percent in 2004. The vitriol I'm reading is way over the top.

What is everyone afraid of? That Nader will siphon off votes from either Obama or Clinton and help elect McCain, obviously. But haven't the Liberatarians been running a candidate every year? Hasn't the Green Party, and other fragmented parties? Don't they siphon votes from other candidates?

I suspect what really annoys people about Ralph Nader is that he reminds them of how far short of progressive ideals the Democrats fall.
They depend heavily on corporate cash, just as the Republicans do. They've been scared out of their wits to challenge Bush on Iraq, illegal spying, torture, civil liberties, abuse of the Secret Service, 9/11, two stolen elections, war profiteering (Cheney's a multi-millionaire on account of Iraq alone), secret C.I.A. prisons...and they've taken impeachment off the table, the one remedy citizens have against lawless chief executives.

None of this is Ralph Nader's fault. Questioning his motives won't provide any Democratic candidate with a backbone. Nader is entitled to run, period. And I hope he forces Obama and Clinton to address issues they've been avoiding like the plague (see above).

[peggio]

Here's what annoys me about Ralph Nader and I suspect a number of us who've watched him disintegrate into a joke over the last 40 years or so......he is no longer relevant. His continued ego tripping takes time away from what is at stake...our Constitution and likely our nation. I don't believe he will change the mind of any voter with a mind. I do believe the media in their eternal quest for ratings will give him just enough time under the guise of chastising him to once more interfere with the very important task before us. He has blurred the line between what he at one time stood and fought for and one more loony in the bin.

[GuiltyUndertaker]

Don't like Nader? Then don't vote for him. It's that simple.

Or are you just galled that some people really like Ralph Nader and consider him relevant. Oh, and don't worry about that media thing. If the media were fair to Nader and gave him as much exposure as they give the moribund Democrats and Republicans he'd probably win.

[realistic2008]

Well, objectively and tryly said it.

[Nonamnesiac]

Fun to watch the despicable Nader-baiting, Democratic Party sycophants pimp for the war by supporting continue-the-war Hillary or continue-the-war Obama and attacking those of us who will not vote for or support someone out to kill or maim our military family members and Iraqis simply because they're label is "D" instead of "R".

If you're truly against the war, honest with yourself, and not simply a two-bit barbarian, there's only one truly progressive anti-war candidate running for President -- Ralph Nader.

So just ignore the Mary Kaplans of the world. They have long compromised with killing and maiming our kids and attacked those of us who won't bloody our hands.

If you want to end the war, you can't vote for someone who won't commit to immediate, safe withdrawal. If you do, you're supporting never-ending war, no matter what you tell yourself. Neither Hillary nor Obama will commit to immediate, safe withdrawal of ALL troops and contractors.

[visitor34]

Roger that, except it isn't fun, it's pathetic. And Kaplan has revealed himself to be just another reactionary. HuffPost should invite him to move his blog to an appropriate website.

[irishmail42]

What is it, something in our genes? Liberals always find a way to make it more difficult to reach a goal. Thanks Ralph.

[GuiltyUndertaker]

Obama is a liberal? I must not have gotten the memo.

[rmc53x]

MEMO TO GUILTYUNDERTAKER FROM FOX NEWS:
anybody to the left of W is a liberal

[SeamusOB]

We're now really caught up on the horns of a dilemma with "Ralphy": I.e., our revered right to free speach, combined with a very old/often told US belief that "anyone has the potential to be President", paints us into a corner.
If we try to suppress/deny him - by whatever means or ruse - the right to run yet again, we give him yet another Warholian "15 Minutes of Fame", & reinflate the super-ego that drives.
That he can do little in the way of running a successful campaign, but much in the way of almost juvenile acting-out vandalism to a main stage political process/outcomes, is (still) pretty apparent.
But the same can be said of ALL the minority parties, especially in particularly close elections/states with badly divided electoral votes. In this context, it's just a shame that our "Historically Challenged" voting population - especially the 19-to-30 demographic - still "don't get it", regarding Fla. in 2000 & Ohio in 2004: It was "Grand Larceny" time, kids; & the getaway driver cum "Lookout" was Ralphy himself, aiding & abetting the dirty deed. As a direct result,
Mr. Nader is now about as appreciated - by the vast majority of elder voters in our nation - as the proverbial "terd in the punch bowl"!
But he's still entitled - just as Stassen & so many other "driven" grand-standers have been before him - to have his say, and his day.

For those greatly upset by this fact, there's an easy solution: GET OFF YOUR LAZY BUTTS & VOTE! When 55-65% Voter turn-out's are to be considered "impressive", we've got to keep in mind that our candidates are still only being decided by PLURALITIES, NOT MAJORITIES!
There a basic axiom of PoliSci 101 to keep in mind, in this regard: "A well organized, disciplined minority can best a diffused majority".
So, if you don't like what's happening - Nader or otherwise - it's simple: Get off the couch, & get involved!

[GuiltyUndertaker]

Can't bring yourself to admit that BushCo stole the election without Nader's help? Pathetic!

[jasonball]

I am so tired of this Nader scapegoating. It is really a sign of the decline of our citizentry when an election can be stolen from top to bottom by the GOP and the reaction of both the Democratic Party aparatus and of the rank and file Democratifc Party members is "it was all the fault of those damned Greens, if only they had not had a Party and candidate that reflected their views and voted for our guy!"

Your guy won. You didn't do anything to protect it, and neither did your party (except for the Congressional Black Caucus). There is absolutely no reason to blame Nader or any of the other third parties for what happened in the year 2000. At this point, after 8 years of allowing an illegitimate President to sit, the only realistic thing it blame is the laziness and cowardice of the Democrats for having rolled over. If there was ever a time for violent social protest - which has occured quite regularly throughout our history - it was then. But you guys didn't even pull out non-violence, you simply did what you had to do to put the focus of frustration outside of yourselves. Pathetic.

[Rosey]

Why should he run when he hasn't a chance in any world to win? Only to pump up his already inflated ego!

[GuiltyUndertaker]

So I guess you think McGovern shouldn't have run in 1972 and Mondale shouldn't have run in 1984.

[CindyGasoline]

I'm flabbergasted. I honestly would like to know why Ralph-hating is so popular? Doesn't the best team win? Isn't that what happens in politics as well as sports? Am I naive to believe that people can still have ideals in America? That we aren't quite yet the ONE party system but sometimes you dems make me feel like that what you want it to be. Who cares if Joe Blow runs or if Ralph Nader runs? Are you scared of competition? Instead of putting time into hating others, go out and win yourself.

[visitor34]

Agreed CindyG. but it is obvious that the best team does not win, hasn't won for a long time. That doesn't mean stop trying. Maybe sometime we will have an executive team that really is working for all the people, not just the ultra rich.

If Obama & Nader were to team up they could steamroller the competition. Hope AND pragmatism, what a powerful combination.

Those who slag Nader for causing Gore's loss in 2000 are conveniently forgetting or purposely disregarding Gore's running mate. Lieberman simply was not a good VP candidate. Having him a heartbeat away from the presidency was simply not a good choice. Not presidential timber at all.

[Takumar]

"Doesn't the best team win?"

It does when there are only two teams in the game. If the weaker team can get a second team (or a collection of all-stars) to join it and gang up on the strongest team, then the best team might lose. It's really that simple.

The recent book "Gaming the Vote" by William Poundstone identifies eight "second choice" Presidential candidates who won their elections because of a third party splitting off votes from the most-desired candidate. This isn't partisan: George W. Bush won the presidency because of Nader, but Bill Clinton won because of Ross Perot. In either case, third party candidates thwart the will of the people.

Mike J.

[JBTipton]

Dear Marty—
I think your fears re Ralph Nader in ’08—“Ralph Nader’s presence in the race may turn out to cast the darkest shadow on its outcome"—are somewhere between excessive and totally unwarranted. After getting 2.9 million votes in 2000, four years later—when at least half of Americans had seen the Bush administration for what it really was—he managed a paltry 411,000 nationwide. Further, the only states where the Nader vote exceeded the difference between Bush and Kerry were New Hampshire and Wisconsin—where Kerry would have likely lost those state’s fifteen electoral votes without Mr. Nader. (Nader wasn’t even on the ballot in Ohio in ’04, so we can't blame him for that one.)

But the real mistake my fellow liberals make is about the 2000 election—and Nader’s supposedly pernicious effect on Gore’s “victory.” Take Nader out of the equation—and Florida and New Hampshire with a total of 29 electoral votes would surely have flipped from Bush to Gore. BUT the putative absence of Nader would almost certainly have taken Iowa, Minnesota, Oregon and Wisconsin—with a total of 35 electoral votes—from Gore to Bush. Net result? Bush still wins. And as for those who like to talk about the way in which the Supreme Court “stole” the election for Bush, I agree—as to its methodology. Strict adherence to the US Constitution would have thrown this dead heat election straight to the House of Representa­tives—wher­e Bush would have won 30 states to 20.

As a matter of fact, weeping about the disastrous effect of third-party candidacies on the Democratic party requires one to overlook the near-certainty that, without Ross Perot in 1992—and less directly in 1996, there never would have been a President Clinton. As a proud liberal, I resent it when my few remaining right-wing buddies claim we can’t think straight. But I also think being a good liberal requires one to count straight. Net, net—ignore Ralph Nader.

[Firbolg]

The time to start healing America is long overdue. Nader serves this end and the democratic process by providing a voice to the disenfranchised and disillusioned. This cannot be done – however well meaning the person trying – from within either of our two “joined at the bank” parties.
The issues he raises are relevant. We can only speculate that they are supported by a majority of real people, because they are swept from view by our self styled representatives for the benefit of their masters, the corporate “persons” and interest groups. Many of the latter are not wholly American. They include global businesses, foreign governments or even dictators. How many of us are really comfortable with diluting “government by the people” to this extent? Not me, for one.
It is not surprising that the MSM and even bloggers resort to cheap name calling and derision when Nader runs. After all, many of them are parasites on the system and would have to find real jobs if it was fixed.

[CindyGasoline]

thank you for your smart and inciteful comment. To hear Marty Kaplan call RN as ***hole made me sad and actually made me want to vote for Ron Paul.

[xenofile]

please don't overreact!! ;-(

[Cooltruth]

Ron Paul would make the best President if he could get enough votes to win. Obama gives a good speech but can't tell what his positions are from what he talks about. McCain would be more expensive than either Democrat candidate or Nader so I don't see me voting for him. The Republicans are going to lose whether Nader runs or not unless they 'mess with' the voting machines.

[FireDog]

Marty Kaplan did not call RN an ***hole. He was talking about all the younger generation folks who do; those who bad mouth Nader for running for Pres and blaming him for causing the Dems to loose elections. These twenty, thirty and forty somethings who bad mouth Nader like that have no clue what this man has done (starting in the early 1960's before they were even born) for the average American citizen and the entire world actually.

I want to hear what Nader has to say and I think everyone else will agree that it will make sense and it is what we all wish for anyway.

We don’t have to vote for him - I am going with Obama - but I want to hear Nader talk and the only way to hear him now-a-days is in presidential debates.

To all you Nader haters under fifty-five. Please research this man before you bad mouth him.

[ahsregusted]

Ah, the problems with spell-checking software come to the four (oops!) again...

I'm sure you meant "insightful", which gives a completely different spin to your brief post's first sentence.

One of my faves, BTW, is "accepted/­excepted".­..polar opposites that sound alike.

[atp2007]

On the issue of Impeachment- during the campaign I got to listen to Sen Biden explain that,while he emotionally supports the idea of impeachment, the practical logistics and timetable make it totally unrealistic. He had alternatives that made more sense. It's far too late to impeach. Not sure if his website is still up.
Nader is getting like the Great Pumpkin, rising from the patch every four years when there is a lunar eclipse or a leap year. Seasoned campaigners sit around campfires and frighten young volunteers with stories about his ruinous past appearances. He's around for awhile catching headlines and camera time then disappears for another 4 years. Obama just described him perfectly. He's like a player who had a great season long ago but can't seem to get out of the way now that he's lost his stuff. In between episodes of siphoning off votes from those closest to his positions, there is no attempt to establish a real political movement, one that could begin much like the far right movement, with local elections, state elections, then maybe a Congressman before working on Senators and a President. Watch Huckabee's future after the primaries, he knows how to organize a movement that will have great impact after the election as he has recognized the death of the old line Conservative religious movement and will lead the new Religious Right. While Uncle Ralph will disappear only to return in 4 years and mumble about starting a new party, unanswered issues, yadda, yadda, yadda....

[jstock]

Where the hell does Nader get off criticizing ANYBODY? He hasn't done squat, except a lot of yakkin' in decades. I should think that after almost 8 LONG years of a REAL conservative in the White House, my fellow progressives, we would all put aside our differences and UNITE to banish anyone with an "R" after their name on the ballot. Also, we need to run more liberal candidates against any Bush Dog Democrats in the primaries, as happened most recently in Maryland. The more we clear out the political dead wood, the more progress we'll see.

Voting for Nader will not accomplish anything that voting for your grandmother couldn't. Democracy is not for the lazy or for the feint of heart. Get active, but screw Nader. He is a "luxury" we can't afford.

[jasonball]

Yeah, let's BANISH people from the ballot. That way it can be clear to those stupid people who get fooled into voting for Nader that there are only TWO choices. "The other guy" and "Not the other guy." The "other guy" is clearly preferable to liberals! These Green voters just don't get it that you have to COMPRIMISE to get into office, so what they need to do to be effective is to blindly give loyalty to a party which slightly reflects their views more (forget about issues like labor, US military imperialism, electoral reform) and pick up some pom-poms. I mean after all, if they establish themselves as a strong dissenting force then they are going to become one of those groups of interests that the mainstream candidates have to comprimise with in order to pick up more votes, and I would really hate to see some of their agenda picked up by the Democrats! Why can't they just cheerlead from the sidelines like me? Why do they have to try and move the parties left?

[sbennett53]

Incredibly, over the span of a ten minute segment on Meet the Press, the once revered icon of consumer protection has transformed himself into a real-life editorial cartoon. Of course, if he throws the election to the Republicans again it will be far from humorous. Is the fog of irony so thick that Nadar can't see it? With so many of the societal advances desired by Nadar being more than incrementally championed by the remaining Democratic candidates, how could he put his personal purity-of-purpose above all and risk electing John McCain! Absolutely astounding. I feel sorry for Ralph.

Steve

[GuiltyUndertaker]

Ralph Nader never threw an election to the Republicans. Pardon me if some of us are disgusted by the Democratic Leadership Council.

[Amberlass]

Amen to that. The democrats are going to lose the election this time because they picked a fight in Florida and Michigan with their own voters. Refusing to let the delegates have a vote is going to anger all the people who bothered to go out and vote on the Democratic ticket. I am so glad Ralph Nader is going to run and now there is someone I can vote for and feel good about.

Ralph Nader did not cause the Democrats to lose the election in 2000. That honor goes to Katherine Harris (who hoped to get rewarded by getting a seat in congress) and the Supreme Court. The Republican Party did not even stand behind Ms. Harris when she ran for congress. Even the party knew that election was crooked.

[GBecker]

He'll be lucky to garner half a percent of votes. No worries.

Obama '08

[kristin]

Nader defends GOP cash / Candidate says he's keeping money (article from 2004 campaign)

"The donations to Nader's campaign are "a concerted effort by Republicans. ... They're not even hiding what their intentions are," McAuliffe said in an interview Friday with The Chronicle. (SF Chronicle)
"These men are traditional Republican donors who want to see Bush kept in office," he said.
The Chronicle analysis also showed that $23,000 of about $275,000 Nader had raised in $1,000 checks or more had come from Republicans who also contributed to the Bush-Cheney re-election effort or other Republican Party committees. Many of the contributions were given to Nader in the past three months. The figures were gathered from reports filed with the Federal Elections Commission and reflected campaign activity through May 31.
Dean echoed McAuliffe's comments in Friday's debate, saying Nader, an independent candidate and celebrated consumer advocate, "doesn't want his legacy to be eight years of George W. Bush in this country, but that is exactly what these Republican contributions are buying."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/07/10/MNG9J7JMDK1.DTL

[JBS]

If Nader managed to get elected he'd be a worse despot that Bush aspires to be.

And just how did Nader manage to become multi-millionaire?