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
I can remember my dad saying Mr.Nader was "crazy,but a good kind of crazy" when I was a kid.And that's how I've viewed him ever since,as a fairly weird,nerdish guy who knew more than just about everybody he had ever spoken to.
And to try and pass the blame for the Democrat's successive losses in Presidential election is bullshit,and you know it.
The fact that the Democratic Party has been under the control of political cowards who have speent years letting the GOP ride roughshod over them are the people to blame.
One has to look no farther than Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to see that the Democratic Party is too afraid of bullies like Bush,Boehner and Lott to do anything of value.
In other words,stop blaming those who really attempt change and go after those who mouth the words,but colloborate with thugs.
Can someone inform media bookers that
Ralph Nader is about as relevant as
mood rings.
jack jett
Give me a break.....Nadar cost 2000 election. Get your facts correct. Votes not counted and while we are at it go over to: http://www.hd.net/drr227.html and here what what happen to punch cards. It was not Nadar.
Wow, I had no idea that Nader is so powerful that everything that's happened since the 2000 election is his fault. Simply amazing.
I can't believe you are blaming Nader for the actions of W. Blame that on the enabling Democrats in Congress that voted for this war.
It's his fault in the same way it's Sandra Day O'Connor's fault. Sometimes people play a pivotal role in national events. Nader really couldn't see the evil that is W. He preached there was no difference between Gore and W. That's stunningly stupid. O'Connor put W in the WH. So many of us knew what he'd do to the Supreme Court, why didn't she? The only alternative is to assume Nader knew and O'Connor knew and just didn't give a damn.
.
Arundhati Roy asked "What is the difference, Ivory Snow, or Downy; they are both made by Procter & Gamble".
We have to reform the way we select our public servants. The more hands-on, the better. What about a lottery to win a smaller two year term. Think of the excitement of this individual. You grow up in the community, getting involved with your neighbors. Working hard in school; all because one day, you may be called on to be the next Mayor, Congressman, or President. College not required, we want your exsperience only. You can be poor and still be the President of the United States. Now multiply this person's energy by the number of people who live here. Change would occur quick; many ideas would pass before us to choose from. Since people no longer feel hopeless, there would be less crime; people would have a better chance at making something out of their lives.
While entertaining this thought, notice how hard it would be to lobby now, or use the office to further your own interest. This would also represent a big change in attitude, a taking the horse by the rains mentality. Others in the world would possibly give us another chance.
This reminds me what someone once told me, " when you can stand up in church, and ask a question; then you know that the organization is there for your benefit"
.
Yes, let's blame Nader. And his mother. And everyone who voted their consciences in 2000.
Clearly the Supreme Court decision was Nader's fault. And the screwed up ballots in Palm Beach. And Katherine Harris was Nader's fault, too. The blue dress!! The blue dress!! That was so totally ALL Nader.
And last but not least, let's not forget the 53 million people who voted for Bush - in 2004. Their hands are squeeky clean.
Get a grip, Peter.
I suspect that most of the people bitching about Nader being a "traitor" now voted for Bush at least once.
I never voted for Bush. I do not call Nader a "traitor" -- I call him ego-driven and/or wrong. There were a few states in 2000 where it was clear that the vote was going to be very close. For Nader not to "release" his voters in those states was either a manifestation of ego above practicality; or a legitimate belief that there was no difference between the major candidates. If the first case: egotism above country; if the second case: a view of reality that I considered wrong-headed at the time and still do. It is possible to be sincere and principled, and still be wrong.
Despite the Gore campaign's flaws, and K Harris, and the SCOTUS, and all the other things that affected the election, it remains certain that if Nader *had* told his supporters in swing states to vote for Gore, Gore would have won. And, sadly, this was obvious BEFORE the election.
Dear God, are we still rehashing this?
If Gore had had the gonads to bring Bill Clinton on board he could have won Arkansas. If he had worked his home state hard enough he could have won Tennessee.
At that point it wouldn't matter how many ballot boxes Elian Gonzalez' family stuffed for Jeb Bush, the Dems would have taken over the White House and Gore (who *did* serve in Vietnam, remember) would have reacted in a better manner to 9/11.
You are too kind to the Americans who voted for Nader. You let them off the hook. They knew he wasn't going to win, but they voted for him anyway. Nader should stay out of 2008 but then you have the billionaire in NY !
I'm starting to forgive Nader, mainly because the Democrats are doing it yet again. And by "it" I mean their party refuses to fight for us. We the people want to be inspired; we want someone who will fight for us! We can't be inspired by the losers that are in today's Democratic Congress. And what is worse is that they hardly even try. They keep getting rolled by the Republicans. We want much more of the feisty Howard Dean and much less of the horrible Harry Reid. If the Democrats can show us that they will fight for us, then we will likely vote for them. If not, then why shouldn't we vote for Nader?
Boy, does this ever open up old wounds.
I voted for Nader in Colorado in 2000, which of course, was overwhelmingly Red bush anyway. The reason was my abject dissillusionment with the political process and presidential behavior under Clinton.
We all know that hindsight is 20-20.
We had no idea the depths that dissillusionment could reach under bush, did we? Nader is a horrendous part of that recent past nightmare, and you are right, just the mention of his name and the role he played in that whole downfall of America, brings up bile in my stomach. Actually, I'm sorry I read as much of what you wrote about him as I did.
Rader is, in a word, "insane."
For me, Nader's done.
He did a lot of good a long time ago, but campaigning on "there is no difference between Gore and Bush" was indeed insane. It was destructive and - if not intentional deception on his part - then it was pure stupidity. A lot of us knew there was a difference, a HUGE difference. If Nader was too stupid to know that then; he's too stupid to matter now.
Yeah, like there is now? How have the Democrats changed anything since they were given a majority? Have you noticed that when the Repugs had the Majority the Democrats could do nothing and now that the Repugs are in the majority the Dems still can do nothing.
What was pure stupidity is that people like you couldn't understand tha Nader had a 40 year history of fighting and winning against the entrenched politicians and the lobbyists. Do you think that the government as it now runs has your best interests at heart? Clinton's new health plan is just more of the same. What have the Dems done to stop warrantless surveillanc or torture or have they restored habeas corpus? They have done jack! So tell me once again how the Dems are different. Let me tell you quite plainly the only difference. Dems tax and spend while Repugs cut taxes for the rich and spend!
Then I guess you didn't vote for him for the right reasons. The only person who comes out as insane in your story is you. You want to blame him because millions of other Americans got fooled. You want to blame Nader for a poorly run campaign by Gore. And you want to blame Nader for the Supreme Courts intervention in something they did not have the power to do! I suppose it was Nader's fault that Bush beat Kerry too.
Nader had the courage of his convictions, his honesty and his integrity. You my friend, apparently had none of those!
TheHandyman: love your passion and smarts. If you can fix cars, too, will you marry me?
Guess who will fund the guy if he runs? The republicons.
Talk about a perfect storm for republicons: Hillary as the candidate, Nader running as a 3rd turd and the religious wrong rallying against Hillary.
God help this country if we have to endure ANY more years of republicon administrations any time soon.
Oh yeah, and he was DEAD WRONG about the Corvair and has admitted as much. LOVED my Corvair!!!
Nader has blood on his hands? Come on. Do you have any idea what democracy is? I'll give you a hint: it's not what you're advocating (that would be plutocracy, or oligarchy).
The leading candidates are in the position they are in because they represent the status quo. They are corporate shills who look out only for themselves and the institutions that benefit them while they deliberately ignore the issues that truly impact the lives of the people they represent. They set the rules of the game, effectively turning democracy into a spectator sport, and people like you feel perfectly content casting your vote for Corporate Stooge A instead of that bum Corporate Stooge B... and eventually you're writing an article blaming Whole Foods for getting Monsanto elected by stealing votes from AT&T.
Some people in this country want progress, and when neither party puts forth a candidate in favor of progress (actual progress, not just progressive rhetoric), they might find themselves loath to play along with the charade that is American "democracy".
Nader steals votes from democrats? Well I can assure you that if the 2008 ballot gives me a choice between Clinton and Giuliani, with no 3rd party candidate, my vote goes to no one. Am I to blame for the consequences? If I give someone the choice between a kick in the groin and a slap in the face, who is to blame if they don't choose?
Well I can assure you that if the 2008 ballot gives me a choice between Clinton and any repukiecan, I will write in the name of Ralph Nader, rather then vote for Hillary. It will be first time for me to ever not vote democrat.
Good for you!
You can't blame Ralph Nader for George W. Bush.
An election doesn't determine the success or failure of ideological followings.
Since obviously a lot of people can't grok the seemingly obvious in theory, at least now we have the failure of Republican ideology demonstrated in practice; hopefully majorities can now better see it for what it is.
The problem is now the Republicans and conservatives are trying to hide from it and we are unfortunately letting them get a lot of traction with that strategy, instead of holding their ideology accountable for its results.
I think that you are exactly right, ChristianEcon. Not only can a lot of people not grok "the seemingly obvious" in theory, but more to the point, in the Republican party and the Conservative Movement as such, a pair of entities which are practised and expert in the believable lie, we find the last resort of the truth-averse.
According to their carefully researched theory, the lie must be bold, simple, affirmative. It must be pithy and cogent enough to linger in the three syllable mind of a paternalistic idiot.
For instance: Bush was not a real Conservative.
This is exactly right ChristianEcon. And you are especially right in our refusal to hold the Republicans and the conservatives accountable for the failure of their ideology. Who is it that's not doing this? Democrats. Why? The only conclusion you can come to is because most of the Democratic leadership doesn't disagree with it.
I have no disagreement with your post other than the below.
Where is the failure in the "Republican ideology"? Are they not getting wealthier with each dead Iraqi or American? Hasn't there been a defining transfer in wealth? All flowing up the socio-economic ladder. This is their purpose and their ideology.
I think your statement "...,we have the failure of Republican ideology demonstrated in practice;" confuses political tactics with ideology.
I agree that Nader gets on the list of bad contemporary Americans for his refusal to see the truth, his arrogant egomania, and his insistence that he is not at least to a large extent responsible for the Bush presidency.
But way up near the top of your list, and above Nader, should also be Holy Joe Lieberman, quisling extreme. He has done more to hurt the nation than only a few others, and his "bipartisanship" has given cover to some hideous excesses.
What a shame that Gore didn't run a better campaign in 2000. If he'd only not listened to all the parseing, quisling, idiot "Democratic" consultants, who are part of the problem, who give bad advice. Gore was singularly uninspiring. If only he'd not run from the Clinton record. If only he'd fought back early against the lies and smears about him in the press. If only....and yet, he still didn't loose. The SCOTUS appointed Bush president. The will of the people was undone yet again by our ruling political elites. That's why so few Americans even bother to vote. They feel as if it doesn't matter.
Rather than looking back to find some culpability on Nader's part for the Iraq war (an absolutely absurd premise, in my opinion) perhaps we could instead look ahead, having drawn useful conclusions from the 2000 election.
Nader and his supporters demanded an unrealistic level of ideological purity from Gore, much as many "progressives" do today vis-a-vis Sen. Clinton and others. If the events of the last six years have shown nothing else it is that ANY Democratic candidate will better represent the interests of ordinary Americans than ANY Republican will...a fact progressive voters should bear in mind when it comes time to vote in a close, crucial election, be it 2000 or 2008.........tm
I don't demand an unrealistic level of ideological purity from Clinton, and indeed, I know she would be infinitely better than any of the Republicans running for president. But what I do demand is for her and the congressional Democrats to stop being rolled by the Republicans. It's as if they aren't even trying anymore! While I loathe today's GOP in many ways, I do see that they will put up a hard fight for their (narrow and fascist) side. Why can't the Democrats do the same? Why must the Democrats lose so much, and not even use the power they have? Seriously, I and many others out there want to be inspired. Will Hillary inspire us?
"Nader and his supporters demanded an unrealistic level of ideological purity from Gore."
Yeah, expecting anything more than a few crumbs from Gore was highly unrealistic. Was it realistic of Gore to offer progressives so little and still expect their unanimous support?
Here's some advice for the 2008 nominee: If you can't afford to lose even a handful of Florida votes to the left, give progressives a reason to actually vote FOR you (as opposed to reasons to vote against the Republican). Or are you only in the business of dictating realism to the commoners?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
