|
||
Ralph Nader's War
Earlier this month Ralph Nader spoke at a protest rally outside the White House demanding an end to US occupation of Iraq. I know that Nader was an early and vocal opponent of the war. But I wonder if he ever considers his own responsibility for this tragic war. Without Nader, there'd have been no President George W. Without George W., no war in Iraq.
Nader has been hinting that he's considering another presidential run in 2008, especially if Sen. Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic Party nomination. You'd think that by now Nader would feel some remorse for helping elected George Bush in 2000 and wouldn't want to make that mistake again. But Nader doesn't seem to have learned much from that experience.
I am still angry at Ralph Nader for all the damage that George Bush has done to my country. This also makes me very sad, because for years I believed that Nader was one of the greatest Americans of the 20th century. In fact, it wasn't that long ago, in introducing Nader at a forum on my campus, that I called him one of the 10 most important Americans of the past 100 years. I put Nader in the same league as Jane Addams, Walter Reuther, Martin Luther King, and Cesar Chavez.
Beginning in 1965 with the publication of his expose of the auto industry, UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED, and for more than 30 years after that, Nader inspired, educated and mobilized millions of Americans to fight for a better environment, safer consumer products, safer workplaces, and a more accountable government. Thanks to Nader, our cars are safer, our air and water is cleaner, and our food is healthier.
We have Nader to thank for seat belts and air bags. He was a key player in changing America's attitude toward nuclear power -- and why we stopped building nuclear power plants. Nader is more responsible than any other figure for some of the most important changes in recent American history. These include the Freedom of Information Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Water Act, and the Superfund law that requires the cleanup of toxic waste sites. Political observes credit Nader with getting Congress to create the Environmental Protection Act, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Nader built a network of organizations to research and lobby against corporate abuse. These include Public Citizen, Globe Trade Watch, Congress Watch, the Health Research Group, the Center for Auto Safety, and the Center for Responsive Law. He also started a network of campus-based organizations called "PIRGS" -- Public Interest Research Groups -- that over the years has trained thousands of college students in the skills of citizen activism. He has also written dozens of books -- all focusing on how citizens can make America a more democratic society.
During the 1970s and 1980s, Nader topped most public opinion polls as the nation's most trusted person. Had Nader retired in the early 1990s, his reputation and legacy as one of American history's most effective leaders would have been secure.
But then Nader got the political bug and decided to run for president. He did so in 1996 and 2000 on the Green Party ticket, and in 2004 as an independent. Because Nader sees both the Democratic and Republican parties as essentially the same -- as tools of corporate America -- he chose to run as a third party candidate. He claimed that his campaigns would help build a permanent progressive third party that could contest for power. But it never happened, mostly because America's winner-take-all rules make it virtually impossible for third parties to gain traction, but also because Nader never devoted himself to the hard work of party-building. (Remember that billionaire Ross Perot, running as a third party candidate in 1992, didn't win a single electoral vote). Instead, Nader simply marginalized himself as a figure in American politics.
Nader could have adapted another strategy that would have been more effective. Had he run in the Democratic Party primaries, he would have helped shape the debate and gotten considerable TV and radio air time on the debates. He wouldn't have won the nomination, but he could have helped strengthen the progressive wing within the party. This is the role Jesse Jackson played in 1988 and 1992 and that Dennis Kucinich, who has much less name recognition than either Jackson or Nader, is playing this year. This is also the approach that MoveOn has adopted with considerable success. We might call this a "party within a party" strategy, much like the corporate-backed Democratic Leadership Council used to move the party to the business-friendly center.
During his 2000 campaign, Nader argued that there was virtually no difference between Democratic candidate Al Gore and Republican candidate George W. Bush. After the scandalous miscounting of votes in Florida, Bush "officially" beat Gore by 537 votes (out of more than 5.8 million cast), making it the closest presidential election in the state's history. This gave Bush Florida's 25 electoral college votes and, with the help of the Supreme Court, the presidency.
Nader garnered 97,488 votes in Florida. Some of Nader's supporters would have stayed home if he wasn't in the race, but most of them would otherwise have voted for Gore. A week before election day in November, when polls showed that Gore and Bush were running neck-and-neck, Nader should have announced that he was encouraging his supporters to vote for Gore in order to avoid a Bush victory. Had he done that, Gore would have beaten Bush by a significant margin.
Yes, I know the well-worn don't-blame-Nader arguments: Had Gore run a better campaign in Florida, or even won his home state of Tennessee, he wouldn't have needed the Nader voters to win. The Florida Republicans -- led by Gov. Jeb Bush and Secretary of State Katherine Harris -- purged many eligible African Americans from the voting rolls, diminishing many likely Gore voters. All this may be true. But its also true, and more important, that Nader could have singlehandedly changed the outcome of the race, and of US history, by "releasing" his supporters to vote for Gore.
In fact, many big Republican donors also contributed to Nader's campaign in order to help Nader divert votes away from Gore and tip the election to Bush. Their strategy worked. And it dramatically changed the direction of American politics.
Had Gore won, progressives would no doubt have had reason to complain that he was compromising too much on a variety of economic, social, and environmental justice issues. We might even had to resort to protests outside the White House. But, with Gore as president, we would not have invaded Iraq, which has cost more than 3,795 American and over one million Iraqi lives, and undermined America's reputation around the world. In addition, the scandals and misdeeds that have surrounded the Bush White House -- the tax cuts for the rich, the rollback of environmental regulations, the attack on science on issues like stem cells and global warming, the overwhelming influence of the energy industrial complex, the evisceration of consumer and workplace safety laws, the failure to respond to the victims of Katrina, and the appointment of Supreme Court justices that created a majority that opposes reproductive choice, affirmative action, and workers rights -- would not have occurred.
I don't know whether Nader, now 73, feels any regret for this serious error in judgment in 2000. Surely he must, on occasion, worry that when he dies, the opening paragraph of his obituary will be more likely to mention his role in electing George Bush than his decades-long crusades for economic and environmental justice. Although Nader seems unwilling to acknowledge his error, voters learned the right lesson. In 2000, Nader received 2,883,105 votes -- 2.74% of the popular vote nationwide. Four years later, he received 463,653 votes -- only 0.38% of the popular vote.
I lament that Nader, once a hero to millions of Americans and a mentor to many activists, is now better-known for his political blunders. On my list of the worst contemporary Americans, I reserve most of my outrage for the political bullies like Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, James Baker, and Trent Lott, and the corporate titans from Enron, Halliburton, Wal-Mart, Eli Lilly, and their ilk who abuse workers, consumers, and the environment and wield their political influence to enhance their own power and greed. But I have some anger left over for Ralph Nader, whose lifetime of citizen activism is now overshadowed by the blood of Americans and Iraqis on his hands.
Peter Dreier teaches politics and public policy at Occidental College in Los Angeles.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Nader could not have been responsible for the defeat of Gore/Lieberman
for six reasons:
(1) When Florida voters were asked their choice in a hypothetical two-man race without Nader, there was no change in outcome.
Most Nader voters said they would not have voted at all;
(2) only a quarter of Nader's supporters in 2000 were Democrats;
(3) in Florida, in exit polls, 11% of registered Democrats said they voted for Bush, 2% for Nader;
(4) an analysis of panel data interviewing the same registered voters before and after the election showed that Nader's attacks on Bush increased the turnout. The net effect
on these voters was an increased vote for Gore/Lieberman;
(5) by a later recount of Florida votes, if all the undervotes had been counted throughout Florida, even with Nader in the race,
Gore/Lieberman would have won.
(6) Krugman: “Remember that disenfranchisement in the form of the 2000 Florida ‘felon purge,’ which struck many legitimate voters from
the rolls, put Mr. Bush in the White House in the first place.”(4-2-07)
Naderites did not give you Bush. Those that voted Bush gave you Bush...Dammit.
Nader is an arrogant ass. His smug visage makes me cringe. I lay the disastrous 2 term administration of Shrub & Darth Vader at his feet. He knew this could happen but his HUGE ego made him stay in the race in 2000. I despise him. There are very few people I despise but there it is...
The last few elections have shown returns like 51%/49% or close to; there is not enough difference between the parties to energize voters. That's basically why Congress is at a stalemate. The front runner of the Democrats has been called Bush/Cheney light. Had any of the candidates had the b*lls to run on the issues, rather than media hype, thus generating even a 60/40 split, Nader would have been an interesting footnote.
Bottom line: it's not Nader's fault.
This sentence made me sick: The "Florida republicans purged many eligible African Americans from the polls... That may be true." Nice dismissive take on that fact. May be true? Is the vote stealing of black votes in Florida and Ohio (more states to come since no one gives a rat's @$$ about it) all a figment of Nadar's imagination? Wonder if Drier has ever worked a 40-60 a week job, paid his bills, paid his rent, thought he was a member of tax paying society, walked over to the polling place only to be informed he couldn't vote b/c he was a convicted felon! Oh well, sucks to be black doesn't it? Yes Nadar is hardheaded, so much so that he'd still be in court trying to get the Voting Rights Act inforced for blacks, mostly democrats. Pesky little thing those Civil Rights, eh Drier? Basically, Drier and all these other Dem Dum Dums don't realize they won't even win in 2008 until they take up for black voters; so all this if only Nader, if only Nadar, if only Nadar stuff and their sense of entitlement to elections makes me laugh. Maybe this will motivate Drier and others like him to be less dismissive of the GOP black-vote-stealing-strategy: You can't dictate to black people to vote against Nadar if they can't vote at all.
A party that continues to excoriate a candidate winning a whopping 2.7% of the popular vote--even seven years later--is a party with far more serious problems than Ralph Nader.
If the Democrats keep dismissing and ridiculing that minority of voters who also supported Nader, they had better finally find a way to win elections without them. DLC politics coupled with predictable quadrennial demands for progressives to shut up and vote for the corporate candidate is a lousy strategy.
Hear, hear. Al Gore lost us in 2000, and it looks like the current crowd is heading in the same direction.
I side with Al Gore. AL GORE DOESN'T BLAME NADER.
Unlike the posters who spew their misguided and misdirected venom at Ralph Nader, Al Gore is an intelligent mature individual who does not blame Nader for his 'loss' to Bush in 2004. He understands that Nader's part in his 'loss' was insignificant and inconsequential, not to mention that the continuing demonization of Nader is counterproductive.
Many of these attacks on Nader's character are way off base. Nader is the opposite of an ego-maniac(maybe a little self-projection from these accusers?). Ralph Nader ran for president as a third party candidate in 2000--he ran in the democratic primaries to give voice to progressives in '92 and was completely ignored by the democratic party--knowing full well that his reputation and his ego would take huge hits from the dlc/republican democrats. He selflessly ran anyway.
Even though he knew he could not win he ran so that progressives, who are still ignored by the party that pretends to stand for them, would have a voice in the 2000 election. If Gore had tried to EARN the votes of progressives by addressing their issues he might have won(who can predict what 'would have' happened?), and Nader may have even left the race and endorsed Gore.
Al Gore does not blame Nader for his loss in 2000. End of story.
Oops. 2000 not 2004.
ralph nader owns
Nader is an arrogant narcissist. Anyone who says Nader is not at least partially responsible for the debacle of the last 6 years is delusional. He is.
And for him to want to, once again, come into the race at a late date is nothing but pure ego run amok.
First, the current civilian body count in Iraq is estimated to be between 73,498 and 80,116 victims. A tragedy, no doubt, but a far cry from the 1,000,000+ figure you toss off in your article as if it were fact. Don't castigate Republicans for spinning facts when you do the same yourself.
On the subject du jour, tho: Nader feels no regrets. If anything, Nader feels pride in the fact that he brought down Gore. It's no secret he's had it in for the Democratic Party ever since he was shut out of the Carter administration, only to watch his associates, former Nader's Raiders, get prime positions. Whatever good he may have done in the past, Carter simply found his personality too abrasive to want him around. So Nader didn't get his "reward" and instead of saying "wow, people think I'm a dick" and doing a little self-examination, he - like any other spoiled brat - acts like a big baby. He's like the kid who doesn't get to be on the baseball team who steals the ball and hides it so NO ONE will get to play.
The numbers he is using came from the British periodical, The Lancet, as of over a year ago. The Lancet's estimations now stand around 1.2 million. No spin here.
Your easy use of Petraeus type statistics and sensitivity to allegations of spin shows you for a Republican. On the subject of Nader; you got what you wanted, why can't you sit back and enjoy it? Not what you expected?
Many people who voted for Nader would have simply refused to vote at all, had he not run. A vote for Nader was an attempt to send a message to the Democratic establishment, and that election should never even have been close. Blame the DLC and the Supreme Court, if you must cast blame.
The comments on this post are telling. Most approach fault or blame as a zero sum game. “If this SOB is at fault then the other SOB must not be at fault.” In fact, in our current chaos there are many to blame, some individually and many collectively. But with Ralph Nader there are two aspects where one finds disappointment.
Firstly, given his long public involvement, Nader should have been able to assess that the skills and reputation he acquired from the many positive things he accomplished were not those required of the president of the United States. The person sitting in the oval office is not the chief protestor in America. The question is not whether that person is right on the issues but whether he or she can form the broad consensus across the nation to lead. Can anyone say that Nader demonstrated that capacity in any respect? No one ever suggested that the little boy who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes on should there upon become the emperor. Perhaps Nader and the little boy should be positioned to have the ear of the leader but it should be recognized that they have no proven skills in building the political consensus necessary to lead.
Secondly, as stated, there are many individuals who share blame for Bush’s presidency. Some were political operatives striving for that election, some are judges and others like them who’s circumstances brought them to the center of the matter and might have made other choices or where others in the position would have made other choices. But with Nader, here is one man who could have looked into the mirror on a given morning during the campaign and said to himself, “If I don’t take another course, my country will suffer greatly.” Only two men in America could have made that decision, Ralph Nader and George W. Bush.
1. Your facts are wrong. The election would have been stolen with or without Nader just like it was stolen from Kerry in 2004. Pat Buchanan admits he got way too many votes, and had those votes gone to Gore like they should have ( due to the confusing ballott in Miami-Dade) Gore would have easily won. Not to mentino the voters Katherine Harris wiped clean.
2. Blaming 3rd party candidates for the major party candidates failures undermines our democracy.
Yes, I know the well-worn blame-Nader arguments.
The Democrats are no better than the Republics when it comes to suppressing third-party candidates by any means necessary. Naturally they squeal like stuck pigs and cry "foul" whenever a third-party candidate refuses to go quietly.
Prepare for further hissy-fits when disaffected Independents inexplicably fail to rise next year, after the Democrats bait the hook with still another moderate corporate centrist overcooked noodle.
Could not have said it better. Ralph Nader is a traitor. Anyone who voted for him are equally as culpable for the disasters that this country has faced over the past seven years. No one who supported Georg Bush in anyway has any right to complain about anything. People in this country are short sighted and myopic. They voted for a fraud (I'm a Texan and a regular guy you would want to have a beer with) That's not what citizens should want from their leaders. I don't want to have a beer with the president, I want him or her to lead this country for the good of its citizens. This war is a fake war and everyone knows it. And George Bush, Ralph Nader and everyone who gave money or votes to either are guilty.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
