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

[NikkiDarling]

Say what you want, Nader said something yesterday that speaks volumes: "If the democrats can't win in THIS election..­." Hello! Truth be told the same should be said about 2000. Eight years of a "beloved" president, booming economy, near zero deficeit. Two things need to be said: 1. Dems, let it go. Nadar did not cost Gore the campaign, GORE cost himself the campaign w/ his stubborn backturning on the preceedubg Clinton/Gore success and his head in the sand regarding the impending stolen Florida victory. I voted for him in an attempt to "do my duty" but it wasn't a vote I believed in and to this day I still regret not voting for someone I believed in 100%. But back to Nader, let it go, wish him well and more importantly stop giving him press, and creedence. He's an older man looking to reclaim youth and relevance. I personally hope he finds it somewhere.­..but he is correct, after 8 years of complete political abuse and terror on this country as handed down by the republicans, the truth is that a potted plant should be able to win if stamped with a democratic stamp. IF not, it speaks volumes about OUR choices, our values and our statesmen/women. Obama '08

[greenman69]

Let Nader bring in more issues -- and let Obama cope with him, and not get a pass.

[laocoon]

I fail to see how anyone can say this with a straight face. Absent Nader in Florida Gore would have been president. it is simple math. Unless you are suggesting Florida was so rigged that Bush would have overcome any lead in actual votes by improper means.

[Davwbaird]

it would have been more difficult since they did all they could to make sure as few dem. voters voted.

[Maxbyte]

Excellent article on Nader-Nadir, Marty. He is a mean-spirited rascal who has never had the ability to find himself in the 'big picture', and has probably never cared if he is constructive or destructive. He reminds me of Masters and Johnson, who refused to stop conducting kinky sex studies because they couldn't get enough porn to satisfy their less-that-ethical thirst for all things sex. Nader just has a different golden calf. But, as inappropriate as Nader has become, I doubt he has a following. At least not enough to attract real votes. We're all safe this time, I hope.

[loucheish]

I'm not so sure we're all safe. Sure, Nader does not attract a large following (or at least not a large number of voters). But when - as happened last time - the election is very close, he won't need a great many votes to shift the outcome. And I believe this election will be another nail biter.

[xenofile]

"And I believe this election will be another nail biter."

If true, that's the Democrats' fault. There would be no contest if the Ds had any spine or integrity. Don't blame Nader.

[efkaplan]

Marty,

Shame on you. Ralph Nader is not an asshole. And name-calling won't make it so.

[PartyPartyParty]

Oh yes, Ralphie Boy is an a**hole. While I don't believe that he cost the Democrats the 2000 or 2004 elections (they didn't need any help caving in to the criminals in the GOP and on the Supreme Court), I do believe that Nader has repeatedly robbed the U.S. Green party of resources, only to refuse to stump for party candidates in local elections. He has also said on more than one occasion that he doesn't give a damn about women's rights.

AND he is one of the main reasons why the U.S. took 30 years to catch up with Europe regarding seat belt laws. When a national seat belt law was run up the flagpole in 1972, Nader, then considered to be one of the country's best experts on automobile safety, insisted that USAnians were too stupid and stubborn to buckle up, and the way to go was airbags. So after 30 years of states' getting on the bandwagon, U.S. accident fatalities have finally dropped to the level of European countries that adopted mandatory seat belt laws. With no help from Ralphie boy.

Arrogant a**hole. And he doesn't know how to build consensus or be a civil servant, either.

[loucheish]

"Asshole" is a bit too harsh, huh? I think it's just shorthand for "megalomaniacal fool with a distorted sense of self importance and a callous disregard for the well-being of his fellow man."

[xenofile]

hmmm. I don't seem to find that definition in my dictionary.

[Fightnmad]

A good question posed by many on this site regards the disappearing act Ralph performs until the signs point to a potential Dem win of the presidency. Only a lack-wit Repub troll would think a Nader run is actually based on principles near and dear to the average American.

WHY else did he accept so much money from Big Cancervatives during his 2004 campaign?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/07/09/MNGQQ7J31K1.DTL

[PartyPartyParty]

Actually, Nader did and does run on principles near and dear to the average American. The problem is, he only shows up once every four years and doesn't do any regional campaigning. And regional elections, not presidential ones, are where change begins. If we want to have a president who will serve the entire country, then we need to start electing city, county and state representatives who will serve THEIR constitutents. But as long as we only vote once every four years and stay home on every local election day, we're screwed.

[paulbk]

I vote Obama. Else, I vote Nader if the Dems go for Hillary.

fyi.. a 59 yo, white, male, veteran (1968-74)

[rmreddicks]

Hearkening back to the bad old days of 2000 I would urge you to vote Nader only if your state is a safe bet for McCain. Then your vote would be of some use.

If it's a toss-up hold your nose and go ahead and vote for Clinton if she's the dem nominee. Again your vote would be of some use.

No matter Clinton's credentials compared to McCain I would still rather she nominate the next Supreme Court Justice(s).

As far as Congress I don't see any coattails from anyone in the presidential race. If Obama maintains his present status he may drag in a new face or two.

[SeamusOB]

I'm also a WM Vet (USN '50-55, 3.5/yrs in Korea): Sorry to say this to a fellow Vet, but I think your military service either left you with a strong residue of the kind of Socio-Politico "brainwashing" that the services are famous for; or, you're simply Mysogenistic by nature.
This WM blind hate for a powerful,dynamic female candidate phenom - as evidenced in the Primaries so far - is really kind of sick; ironically, it's the same kind of irrational antagonism that a lot of our Military Vet predecessors had for Eleanor Roosevelt (a lady that, their disparagement notwithstanding, used her influence to the utmost to improve conditions for US Fighting people, both during & after WW II. She also astutely observed that US Navy personnel had "the cleanest bodies and filthiest mouths of any sailor in the world".)
Maybe it's just such strong, outspoken frankness women that scare you to death.
Too bad: It's what a lot of us dearly, deeply admired in our Mothers, Grandmothers and Aunts, as they stood up to constant attempts to diminsh their worth and words!

So, instead of taking such obvious, chest-thumping pride in your rigid "Macho" voting decisions, you'd may be well advised to go read some history books; to find out the real difference between "substance and form, performance and style".
As a Vet, you should have learned that from your service; but it's never too late to learn!

[alieninvader]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but has Ralph Nader done anything in the last 10 years or so besides run for president? I believe that at one time his motives were pure, but somewhere along the line, he started enjoying the role of trouble maker a little too much.

Dennis Kucinich is currently the strongest spokesman we have for liberal values, and even he knows that the best way to change the system is from within.

What does Nader expect to accomplish? There's no way in the world he can win. Even if he has an effect on the retoric, it will make the democratic candidates less electable. The only thing it will do is make Ralph Nader less irrelevant.

Our country is currently in a state of emergency. We are in a war with no apparent end. Our Constitution is being shredded to bits. The Geneva Convention is quaint. We don't have the luxury of cherry picking the candidate that has the exact set of standards to fit our liberal ideals. John McCain is hundreds of times worse than either Obama or Clinto could ever be.

[vflog]

Nader is not my hero, Dennis Kucinich is, but Nader will get my vote.

Obama and Clinton and McCain are ALL members of the CFR (Counsel on Foreign Relations).

Same Team, Same Agenda, Different Faces

[GQB]

No, McCain will get your vote.
At least be honest.

[marlee]

Get over it!
We need to get past the ancient, same ole, same ole 2 corporate party system.
I'm not a member of either party, why should I vote for any of their handpicked candidates?
You make it sound unpatriotic if you vote otherwise.
Nader is my hero. He has my vote!

[GQB]

No, McCain has your vote.
If you don't like the de-facto 2-party system, then change the system. Throwing the election to McCain, however will NOT change the system, and so your vote is dishonest.

[xenofile]

"If you don't like the de-facto 2-party system, then change the system"

What nonsense!! It's "de-facto" 2-party, not a law. So how do you go about changing it other than voting for the third party candidate who actually represents your views?

This "bend over and take it" mentality of the 2-party slaves is what drives me mad.

[PartyPartyParty]

Nader has crippled the Green Party in this country, so why is he your hero?

[DeccaDo]

Marty is the one who has lot perspective. Two parties, does not a democracy make. One talks out of the left side of their mouths, the other out of the right. We have already seen that the most honest candidates are marginalized by the media and don't stand a chance. Marty says we must work from within. Within What?....a broken system where only the graftiest rise to the top?

So if you want real reform, Marty start working for public financing for campaigns.­..a Ralph Nader idea. I'm tired of voting for the lesser of Evils.

[apogee2perogee]

Real progressive transformation comes when the ELECTORATE demands it. Unless there is an overwhelming ground swell then we will continue to get the change that can be wrought 'expediently' in the 'current political environment'. A leadership candidate that inspires people opens SOME chance that the electorate might actually rise up and make some demands. Those who campaign offering expedient change will have nearly NILL chance to deliver anything more and nearly NILL chance to motivate the electorate to rise up and make demands.

I'll take my chances with the choice offering upscale potential. I don't believe seeking the peoples will prohibits eventually settling for the expedient, either!

Obama

[manychainsaw]

Will somebody please show me the proof?

Where is the evidence that people who vote(d) for Nader would vote for the Democratic candidate if Nader is/was not running for President?

[Angel1961]

Exactly. These "spoiler" people are so condescending. They make us sound like a bunch of mindless sheep! Many of us are voting for Ralph or Cynthia McKinney as a REJECTION of the corporate-whore two-party system. (Or one-party system). Ergo, if there is no appealing 3rd party candidate, many of us would just sit this election out. Either way, we're not going to vote to support a corrupt system.

[Cybershaman]

Exactly! If the Democratic party wants my vote they better start listening to me and representing me. Now that the debate on health care has been switched from 'universal healthcare' to 'mandatory health insurance' (just like your auto insurance, remember the rates going down? NOT!) they have lost me! When they start listening to their constituants, rather than proclaiming from above what we want, I'll take them seriously. Don't blame us for your arrogance.

[SeamusOB]

"Angel": Sadly, you're guilty of a mental "Cop-Out", as are many others in the 18-30 demographic group. Our fellow Americans who have - since that vote was so hard & long won for you/them - pretty much thumbed their noses at it.
Achieved largely by returning WW II & Korean Conflict Vets; who convinced Congress, & a vast majority of State Legislatures, that: "If 18-21 year olds are mature enough to get their asses shot off, in defense of their country, they sure as hell are mature enought to have the vote!"
And what've they done with it since that multi-year Constitutional change effort? SQUAT!
Motivating even a QUARTER of their total eligible numbers - to get off their narcistic dead butts; to stop bitching about real &/or imagined "conspiracies" & secret deals, & get involved - has been the best that anyone has been able to do thus far.
Just another 5-10% of them bothering to vote, in 2000 or 2004 - where they had SO much at stake, generationaly! - would have made the key difference.
But instead, what was their self-serving, lazy-assed "mantra" all those years?:
"Politics/voting ISN'T RELEVANT TO ME"!

See any striking similarities between that sick attitude and your own? If you don't now, you - and YOURS, for a couple of generations - will: Soon, if not now; & well into the future!!
Being amongst the anointed, newly empowered masses, who are also now so "historically challenged", all this info may not cut much ice with you/your network. But at least, it's some "food for thought"!

[GQB]

Nadir takes ~100k votes.
Gore slightly wins actual vote.
If even 1/2 of the Nadir votes go to Gore (polls indicate 2/3 would have) Gore wins by a margin that cannot be stolen.
Q.E.D.

[rmreddicks]

Why did Gore lose Florida? You can blame it on Nader. You can also blame it on Gore for deciding that he would lose more votes by forsaking the big sugar interests than he would gain by being green.

It can also be blamed on stolen or refused votes. That usually works out in the margins overall, however.

You can't blame Gore for Tenn or Ark. Bill Clinton gets that.

All in all 2000 was a Gore-(Lieberman, for Yaweh's sakes!)-Clinton failure as opposed to a Nader spoiling.

[rjcrane]

Here's the deal on Nader. He must have another book coming out soon that he wants to promote and getting free face time on the networks as a candidate will allow him to also plug his book. That was the case the last time he ran in 2004. Also if you all recall, Nader doesn't do anything much when he does run. He lets others, who are too naive to know any better, do most all of the work for him. That's what caused him problems in the 2004 election where many of his petition signatures were invalidated and his campaign also ran into some legal problems in how they were gathering signatures, not allowing him to get on many state ballots. You can bet it will be the same lack of organization this time and very little time on his part spent campaigning. And he won't spend any of his own money either. He's way too stingy and realistic to do that.

Here's how we should all view Ralph Nader besides as an egotist and pyriah. THE ONLY people who need to be working for him should be in the mental health profession.

RJ Crane, topplebush.com

[richw23]

Adds nothing but I gotta comment. - The only thing relevant I could point out about his spoiler remark - and it may not have been in the same interview - was that Bush and Kerry (or Bush and Gore or McCain and Obama/Clinton - I don't remember which pairing he used) where really the spoilers because they were "spoiling" everything, or something similar that was equally inane and off-topic. Typical politician context-switching but really, really egregious since it's the core question about his candidacy.

I probably support most of what he says he supports - but I don't have any confidence in either his sincerity or competence. He truly is the nadir on almost any scale of "quality" one might imagine.

Totally irrelevant to the above, but I just hate him so very, very much - Just because doing "good" is your gimmick doesn't mean you are good. Just look at organized religion.

[PrinceHal]

"Just because doing 'good' is your gimmick doesn't mean you are good."

How true. Great line, richw23! We should have this one etched in stone somewhere.

[Emmagoldmanbabe]

Don't blame Nader for the 2000 election screw up. Blame all of those elderly jews in Palm Beach who voted for Pat Robertson!

The real criminals in the stealing of the 2000 election were the FL pols and the Supreme Court. Let Nader keep progressive issues in the debate, then go vote for the Democrat. It's really that simple.

[VoterFraudNeverAgain]

I beg to differ. The responsibility for the 2000 catastrophical failure lies with those who did not participate in or spread the word about VOTE-PAIRING.
http://www.slate.com/id/2108641/
The math is simple: Just a tiny bit more of VOTE-PAIRING would have saved Florida from going to Bush (irresepctive of the criminality of stopping the recount and the Supreme Injustice courtcase).
Now, whether you like it or not, Nader has decided to run. Therefore, we must explain the simple but critical idea of VOTE-PAIRING to every democrat or progressive in this country. We cannot afford to make the same mistake again.

[rmreddicks]

I voted for Nader on that basis in 2000. Kentucky was 60-40 bush. My main idea being to get 3rd parties some national substantiation under two-party enforced criteria. Plus he was a candidate in a position to speak to progressive ideas that might be occasionally reported by the msm.

I have difficulties imagining RN as president, though. Much like I'd have difficulties imagining Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking for president. (Ain't saying he's a physicist and not a u.s. citizen. Just saying his focus is not quite what I'd want out of a pol.)

[delsop]

It would be more precise for you to 'blame all of those voters' (Jews and Gentiles alike)...i­n Palm Beach who voted for Pat Buchanan!
Pat Robertson was not on the ballot.

[ronaldkritter]

Typo Alert...

The spelling of the perennial candidate's name
was misspelled throughout the essay & comments.

The correct spelling is N_A_D_I_R

ronaldkritter / milwaukee
This post id dedicated to the memory of
Harold Stassen...

[apogee2perogee]

Also known as perigee...

[xenofile]

uh, no, it's not.

nadir, as another blogger punned today, means "the lowest point of anything"

oh. you were being sarcastic, weren't you?
I'm humor-impaired. Or maybe it was your timing.

[mivogo]

Barak Obama said it best: Nader still thinks there was no difference between Gore and Bush? He thinks taking crucial votes from Gore in Florida, was fine because "they're both the same?" How'd that turn out, Ralph?

I think we should treat Nader as a serious candidate, with all that entails--including the attacks suffered by Hillary, McCain and Obama.

Let's hear about him being the first gay President, the first Arabic President, his sympathy with the worst of European ultra-left politics juggled with his unholy alliance with the Republican Party in the U.S__compl­eted with a front page, NY Times expose of his seedy personal life.
Ready Ralph?

[timinhi]

"mivogo": RIGHT ON!!! You are totally on point with your post. Also, I want to add that if Nader was truly concerned with changing the discourse on the issues he listed, why does he only see the presidency as the route to bring that about? Why hasn't he ever seriously considered setting his sights a little lower and running for Congress, where he might actually have a chance to build a coalition and make a difference? It would cost a lot less for a congressional campaign too. The answer is that it really has nothing to do with his ideals. It's all about his ego. You're right--It's time for a major expose of Nader's personal and professional background. I've read a bit--He's apparently done very well for himself and lives fairly high on the hog off the proceeds of his "nonprofit" organization. There's a host of disgruntled former employees with stories to tell. Nader did a lot of good things--back in the '60s. It's time to permanently "retire" Senor Quixote.

[rmreddicks]

Damn, that's pretty ugly. You're third paragraph seems exceedingly personal.

[letsgetsmart]

Marty, I know what you mean about putting things on the table that the front runners seam to avoid, like stopping the scum from slipping away with all of our billions or the damage done to our foreign image. I would vote for someone who says that the courts will be very busy after I get in. The only one who looked like the rest but actually balanced the budget and got us all jobs was Bill Clinton. Most of the others (mostly republicans) who were in the whitehouse in my life time were typical special interest rewarders. Talk a good line but do not follow through. Sayings like " the greatest gravitation of wealth to the upperclass" came into being on the republican watches. Going around the congress and the legal fashion which we are supposed to do things happened on both Bush watches. Come on Hillary and Obama, say that you will prosecute these criminals and you will get my vote.

[FOXYLADY]

LETSGETSMA­RT.......R­ETIRED NOW, WE MADE MOST OF OUR MONEY ON OUR INVESTMENTS DURING THE CLINTON YEARS....I REMEMBER THEM AS BEING VERY SATISFYING FOR MANY! AS FOR HIS "AFFAIR".. PERHAPS THAT IS WHAT BUSH NEEDS....J­FK ALSO HAD "FUN" IN THE WHITE HOUSE DURING HIS TERMS AND CHECK OUT HOW WELL OUR COUNTRY DID THEN!! SOME OF THESE TIGHT A$$'D PEOPLE NEED TO LOOSEN UP AND USE THEIR BRAINS FOR A CHANGE...