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

[claudiam]

What is wrong with this guy? He knows he can't get elected so why does he continue to cause problems? I would like to know how many Repubs will actually contribute to his campaign to thwart the Dems?

[rjcrane]

I wouldn't worry too much about Repubs aiding Nader's campaign except they may help him get on the ballot in various states. The reason I say this is because the Repubs have a real problem raising enough money to help their own candidates and Nader isn't a credible candidate anymore that will take many votes from the Dems. Everyone should be insulated to his election toxicity by now.

The Dems weren't even worried about him in 2004 and this lack of concern seemed to be valid as Nader got very few votes.

The best we can do is stop even talking about him so we don't give him more credibility than he already doesn't have.

RJ Crane, topplebush.com

[toomuchtolose]

What is wrong with this guy? He's standing in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square. He knows he can't win against the tank, so why does he continue to cause problems? I would like to know what happened to the people who used to support a stand against tyranny, even if it appears futile.

[Moncar]

It's difficult to make light of a man who, in his earlier years, lit the way towards saving thousands of lives in, first, auto safety and then in a variety of consumer products.
But, oddly, just like George II whom he did more than any other, aside from Karl Rove, to elect, Nader has either forgotten or never learned that politics is the art of the possible and of compromise.
Now, like another aging lion, though really a completely different animal, Nader is reminiscent of Howard Hughes whose descent into paranoia eventually isolated him from reality.
In watching Nader's turn on "Meet The Press" last weekend it was hard not to be fascinated by the unusual length of his fingernails. It begins!
(By the way, one respondent below comments on how much time Russert gave Nader; of course, Russert, NBC News and the people who sign their checks at General Electric are almost all overt or crypto-Republicans. As a dupe of the GOP, Nader will always be welcome.)

[MaDem]

Nader noted on MTR that Harry Truman wanted universal healthcare coverage for all Americans back in 1950. And 58 years later, we still don't have it.

[VoterFraudNeverAgain]

Voteswapping, my friends.
It's possible to vote for Nader without jeopordizing in any form, shape or manner a Democratic win in November.
It's called voteswapping.
In a nutshell:
Obviously, Nader's goal is not to win the electoral college. He cannot - by any stretch of the imagination. Even if miraculously the sky would open (heard that phrase somewhere lately...)­and he would be handed a billion dollars to spend on his campaign.

Nader's campaign is all about getting support from a sizeable chunk of the popular vote and showing that his principles and ideals resonate with a small but significant percentage of the American public.

Nader himself would not care from which state he got his vote - as long as he got it. However, a vote for the Democratic nominee (say, Obama) is critically important depending upon where it comes from. A vote for Obama ceases to matter once your state is overwhelmingly blue, and is critically important when your state is a swing state.

Accordingly, if you are in a swing state, and you support Nader, we cannot afford to "lose" your vote to Nader. That would be disasterous, and that's what happened in Florida 2000. However, the flip side is that those in the blue-for-s­ure-no-dou­bt-about-i­t state (NY, MA, CA, etc), the democratic nominee doesn't need your vote.

Therefore, the basic idea of voteswapping (perfectly legal according to every single legal authority) is brilliantly simple: If you are from a swing state and support Nader - you find someone from a blue-by-a-mile state and "swap" your vote with him. Your friend/relative from that blue state votes for Nader, thus giving Nader the vote he would have gotten from you, and you vote for Obama in your swing state, thereby preventing a disaster such as the Bush/Cheney disaster.

[indianabob]

That is an absolute brilliant post! Thanks

I am a HUGE fan of Ralph Nader, and I have never voted for him. Mainly that is because I have been a pretty loyal democrat.

I could have voted for Nader, who's platform I completely agree with, including one of my most passionate issues, the Death Penalty. I lived in CA in 2000 and it was certainly a safe vote. I actually voted fo another hero of mine, Medea Benjimin, who ran against Di-Fi. I voted for Gore for President.

In 2004 I was in another "safe" state, but this one is red. My current home state, Indiana, was going to go Bush in 04. I could have voted for either Ralph or the Green Party Candidate, but I voted for Kerry.

This year I am leaning Obama. I actually like both Obama and Hillary, although HRC has been jacked around by her consultants and the press. I will most likely vote for one of those two again, but not as "lessor of two evil", like I did for Gore and Kerry.

But the key to this plan working is to get Nadar on every state ballot. If Nadar voters know they can help, they will.

Brilliant!

[MaDem]

I couldn't believe my eyes when I flipped on MTR and there, after all these years, was Ralphie. I didn't think he'd have the nerve to put himself on stage once again, and admit I rightly or wrongly blame him for Dem defeats in the past two presidential election cycles. But boy, I have to admit, Nader makes you see clearly what a fraud Obama is. As Nader noted about Barack Inc.: Obama isn't even Wellstone Lite. So why shouldn't Nader point that out?

[7NoTrumpXX]

Nasder got 19 minutes on Meet the Press! I wrote Meet the Press to complain.

The best way to handle Nader is to ignore him. I won't be commenting on him again.

[rmreddicks]

We'll look forward to that.

[zenesis]

"the illegal occupation of Palestine" requires no quotes.

[SAMMY7]

My God is this a Democracy or not?! The people have MINDS of their own! This is a little freaky people- just because YOU think Obama shoudl be the candidate Nader hsoudl withdraw? As a Clinton supporter I am THRILLED that Nader has entered the reace because after he smear job the media did on her I WILL NEVER vote for Obama.

[GQB]

Entity a (the media) smears entity b (hillary) and you take it out on entity c (obama) benefiting entity d (mccain)?
How brilliant of you.

[Rickandanumber]

A lot of you are missing a very telling point: Nader is American born, but Lebanese in origin. Look a bit more closely, and you'll begin to understand the how many hundreds year war that is Lebanese internal politics.

His personal pride was piqued when he wasn't asked to be a vice presidential candidate by the Dems, and now he is out for revenge for the rest of his life, and he doesn't care how many millions die in the process. Or even if it destroys America in the process.

[guntotinganglion]

LOC...load of crap.

Ralph is the only hope for America. But, since this country is hopelessly corrupt, and every candidate offered is bought and paid for, there are no real choices. Ralph is a real choice, for a real man, who has dedicated his life to helping human beings, not corporations. And the corporations and their toadies are THE biggest problem we have.

How dare people impugn this man's integrity, or his motives. He is as pure a human being as has ever run for the Presidency, and the saddest thing of all is that people can't see it. Lose your cynical prejudice and programming, and VOTE FOR RALPH!!!! That's all it will take...hav­ing real HOPE, and voting for the ONLY man actually qualified to be President!

Remember this, the pigloaf corporations, years ago, spent millions trying to discredit Ralph, as in tried to impugn his integrity. They dug and dug and dug trying to find dirt on him. Guess what? They got NOTHING! He's as clean as a human being can possibly be...which is amazing to consider in this deeply cynical and self-serving world. But he's the only real deal out there. People need to put aside the acrimony, and see this man for what he is, the ONLY real hope there is. Everyone else will just continue with things as they are, with lobbyists and corporations calling ALL of the shots. If anything, it is the sure knowledge of how stupid Americans are when presented with real honor, ethics and human kindness, in the form of Ralph Nader, that might actually drive the filthy cynical Republicans to try to send money to Ralph's campaign, because they know that people don't see goodness when it's right in front to them.

I feel very sorry for America in this regard, and a bit ashamed. Ralph has my vote, and that's something he can bank on. I'll also send money to him through votenader.org, where he is ONLY taking individual contributions.

[Rickandanumber]

Yeah, they dug and dug and dug... and in 2000 they were funding him.

So now he's only taking individual contributions? Why the conversion?

In a perfect world, maybe we'd have Dennis Kucinich as the nominee... but we don't. Maybe Edwards would have gotten the nod. But he didn't. Heck, maybe Adlai Stevenson would have beaten Eisenhower­... BUT he didn't. Maybe McGovern would have won. But he didn't. Maybe Humphries would have been President. But we got Nixon instead. Maybe Cuomo would have been elected. But he wasn't.

We have two possible victors: McCain and Obama. Your choice. The vegetarian ticket isn't going to place anybody in the White House.

Deal with it.

[PartyPartyParty]

If Ralph Nader is the only hope for America, we might as well throw in the towel right now. I'm ashamed that the citizens of this country still think that Nader is a progressive. He is not. He is only out to prove he is right. If he had his way, the country would disintegrate into a steaming pile of manure and he would then stand there, pointing to the pile and then to us, sneer "I told you so!" and then walk away.

[paixa3]

wtf? Destroying america? You are daft. Merka is already in the shitter and it is not because of ralph. It is precisely because you have a bogus "democracy system" and a very stupid electorate­.....

Gezzuzz...­...what next?

[rmreddicks]

That was "Ricksmokinanumber"

[AdlaiStevenson]

If this was not just an ego trip for Ralph, he'd be out there building a movement in between the elections. It takes a movement not a personality on an ego trip, to make real change.

[PartyPartyParty]

Now, here's someone who's talking sense! Thank you, Adlai!

[SeamusOB]

To AdlaiStevenson: I've already written my share on the "Ralphy" issue (above); but am SERIOUSLY interested in IF you actually descend from this great man, used as your On Line "namesake" - & since the mid-'50's, my political/statesman mentor & model - or just another admirer.
I worked (as W.Coast Coordinator) with A.E. Stevenson in his 2nd Pres. campaign effort; helped organize the "Draft Stevenson" uprising @ the '60 LA Convention; then sat with Sen. A. Stevenson II on the Congressional Rural Caucus, in early '70s. Please let me know how/why use of this particular "handle"; post a note in my Blog profile, if preferred.

[Garvagh]

Nice piece. Nader is an idiot, and of course a fathead.

[mmerose]

You hit that irony right on in your conclusion.

But it comes right back to one of Nader's points about Florida: what's at fault, the 99k Nader votes or the 250k Democratic voters who were hornswoggled into voting for Bush because of corporate media imaging of Bush as "Compassionate Conservative," while giving Bush a pass on DUI, disappearance of his Natl Guard records, massive serial losses of Other People's Money by the CEO candidate, and by collaborating in labeling Gore an "elitist" when Bush's silver spoon was even huger, and his history of cruising through life taking advantage of it, and contributing nothing, was patent?

If you could see through the red mist of prejudice, Nader was magnificent on Meet/Press yesterday. No notes or prompters needed there. I laughed when I thought of John McCain getting stuck for the second time in the week with a really, really hard act to follow.
Nader, a contemporary, makes McCain look even older, tireder, and stupider than does the Obama effect.

[GQB]

'brilliant'?
All I saw was a pathetic, stroke-addled old man.
Looked like grandpa Simpson begging for attention.

"I'm ready for my close-up now, Mr Demille."

[WillfromSF]

Holier-than-thou liberals who would support Nader and Nader himself exemplify the problem of those who put a premium on self-righteousness but are unconcerned with accomplishing anything in the real world. I suspect there is a streak of this suicidal impulse in all liberals - they'd rather be whining from the sidelines, "only my agenda or I'm gonna pout", than weilding power, because once you find you have to work with people who don't buy your party line, and most people don't, things get messy. These are the people that give us George Bush and have nothing better to do than haunt blogsites like this one - people who would rather complain all day and hold their noses up while some of us actually want to change the direction of the country, knowing that the electorate is conservative, so how the hell are you going to get anywhere if you don't find some common ground. F*ing elitist snobs - thanks for giving us Bush and maybe McCain too.

[mmerose]

Um, do you want to reconsider the part about accomplishing in the real world after you do some homework on what Ralph Nader has accomplished?

[paixa3]

Probably more than any of the candidates from all of the parties...­.

[SilviaC]

Thanks Will, I couldn't have said it better. I think the Republicans have their own ideologues. Some have claimed they will not vote for McCain because he isn't conservative enough. Sitting at home on election day will be the equivalent of voting for Nader on the Democrat side. The big question is, will those "suicidal" people on either side cancel each other out this time?

[TheKat]

HI Marty,
You managed to capture everything I've been thinking about Brand that is Me, messianic delusions and demagogic hall of fame and how all of them manage to attract huge media attention. Despite their arrogant, pompous, self-centered mediocrity, what most of them have in common, hell, probably all of them is TOM: tons 'o money.

As you say, it is a shame and I say, it is a crime that to get civic attention you need be a billionaire or a thug.

Pinto, anyone?

[apogee2perogee]

The parties have constructed long campaign seasons. What their agenda is, I don't know for sure. But the outcome is that 'upstarts' can't afford a start. Money is an absolute necessity and it is so precisely because of the party-chosen structure for campaigning and nomination. I suspect this favors the retention of those in power and I suspect that is the motive.

[research]

Perhaps Nader has sold out. Maybe he got an offer he couldn't refuse. Maybe he just could resist the fawning and money the rethugs are putting into his campaign.

Nader is helping the rethugs, therefore Nader is effectively a rethug.

[bookerone]

Hey Nader has just given this expendable over 55 white woman a place to go if Hillary is knocked out of the race. Gotta love him

[mmerose]

This is a fun one, since I also am a just 55 white woman, but I'll have to go for Nader if the Dems nominate Hillary.

Ah, well, we both have our reasons.

[transendentilist]

I guess you learned nothing in 04. Unless you are a bushie.

[Me2BFD]

Either way, a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain...

[ladyhawkke]

Right on bookerone. If Hillary is not nominated, I'm voting for Nader. The truth of the matter is he is the only candidate who will bring about real change. Obama lies about change, he's got lobbyists working for him, he's in bed with Excelon and Resko. At least Hillary admits to hiring lobbyists.

[transendentilist]

First he has to actually win. A little well known fact that you seem to have forgotten. What good does it do the country for you to waste your vote on someone with 0 chance of winning??? None, it does not benefit the country one iota. It's foolish, and sel-defeating.