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.

Comments

[cautionbug]

"Yes, I know the well-worn don't-blame-Nader arguments:"

How about the one where the New York Times did its own investigation to the uncounted ballots and found that Gore actually DID win Florida in SPITE of Nader votes?

No sir, don't blame Nader for Bush's corruption. Don't blame him for the election fix in the state most convenient for Bush. Don't blame Nader that Gore cherry-picked what counties to recount instead of insisting that all contested counties be recounted. And certainly don't blame him for a stacked Supreme Court that ignored the facts and appointed Bush the president.

The fact that anyone dares to challenge the duopoly of American politics should be lauded and cheered. Yes, one must admit under the current BROKEN election system that in close elections any third party does act as a spoiler. Huge changes are needed to open the political arena to more than two parties (and Nader was correct in his summary of their similarity). However, don't belittle his efforts by blaming him for Bush's appointment, Bush's lies, Bush's maniacal obsession with Iraq, or with Bush's complete failure and inability to admit said failure.

Keep the focus where it belongs: on the criminal president.

[Lust4Lost]

And we continue to wonder why democrats are held in such low esteem?? Continuing to blame others for our problems is just pathetic and impotent.
Al Gore has Al Gore to blame for his loss, he ran a poor campaign. How many registered Dems voted for Bush? Far many more than voted for Nader.

If the DLC is able to foist HC on us as the Dem nominee then I will willingly cast a vote for Nader (or any other liberal 3rd party candidate).

[ohboy]

Lust4lost: careful. Dems don't do don't well when confronted with the fact that more of them voted for Bush than Nader. It's called "An Inconvenient Truth."

[bushflipflops]

I completely agree with everything you wrote Mr. Dreier, and glad that somebody out there finally makes the point that I never see mentioned as to Nader opting to run as an Independent rather than running in the Democratic primary. Most of Naders values fall in line with the Progressive wing of the Democratic party, so why did he pass up considerable media exposure and a chance at moving the debate toward his values? I remember all those stupid let him debate comments and signs everywhere you go, and the celebrity endorsements. Well, he could have been in the debate if he ran in the Democratic party. I believe the only thing Nader cared about was his own legacy and self importance, and now after the 2000 debacle and his poor taste in running again in 04, his legacy will be tarnished forever.

[Vic in Chicago]

Mr. Dreier:

With all due respect, this post is absurd. To say that Ralph Nader has the blood of Iraqis on his hands makes no sense. He, like many of us, opposed the Iraq War from Day One, unlike many leading Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton, who voted for it.

Wasn't that kind of Nader's point...th­at the two major parties are pretty much alike?

Why not point your outrage toward the Democratic majority in Congress, who could end the War almost immediately by just not voting for the President's upcoming Iraq funding bill?

They are so frightened of being seen as not "supporting the troops" that they are afraid to do what they said they would do, what a large majority of Americans want them to do, and is in fact why they were elected in the first place.

No, sir, Ralph Nader is not the problem.

[lescargot]

Not alone .. but a huge part of it.

[DavidJames]

Peter,

Nader's meme:
"... that there was virtually no difference between Democratic candidate Al Gore and Republican candidate George W. Bush." was what cost Gore the election, not Nader running.

It will cost Hillary the election too. You can't kiss that much corporate ass, and not have some of it rub off on you.

[DatelessNerd]

The problem was not, and is not Ralph Nader.

The problem is that the Democratic party takes progressives for granted.

You blame Ralph Nader for the war? Name one time since 2001 that Senate Democrats have used "the power of the purse" to block a Bush Administration initiative of any kind. It only takes 41 Senators to prevent any appropriation from coming to a vote.

When progressives DON'T work through the Democratic Party's system, they're called spoilers. When progressive DO work through the Democratic Party's system, as in the 2006 Connecticut Senatorial race, the party abandons its own endorsed candidate.

And how did Senate Democrats respond when Joe Lieberman beat their endorsed progressive candidate? They gave him a standing ovation:
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2006/11/senate-democrats-give-lieberman.html

I suppose that's Ralph Nader's fault, too.

[herronsmith]

I find it hard to believe you are dateless. Your post is spot on!

[timm0]

OK, so he had a hand... so did the Supreme Court, so did Gore, so did Lieberman, so did Diebold, so did Katherine Harris, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum. If you want to sit there 7 years hence and split hairs as to whose was the biggest influence in 2000, you're just wasting your time.

I'm no fan of Nader and I'd never vote for him. But the only way you can honestly dump all this on Nader is to ignore many of the problems we have today with defeatest Congressional Dem leadership that surrender to this crud-ball president at every turn. Ironic that you feel the solution to 2000 would have been for Nader to surrender to the bigger party.

[davedave]

nader put ideas and principle before political reality.

hubris!

lots of dead folks!

pawn of evil!

d

[ssg13565]

I always thought it idiotic for Nader to say that
Gore was no different from Bush.

However, if the Dems in Congress keeping throwing
the game every time they get into a contest with
the Repubs over the Iraq war, its going to make
Nader look smarter than he actually is.

[DrPaulProteus]

Democrats prove Nader right every chance they get. Scream all you want, but Democrats helped this war happen, they've helped it every step of the way, and they're helping it continue each day they don't oppose it meaningfully.

The issue wasn't with Gore "running a better campaign", though that probably would have helped. The issue was with Gore being a shitty candidate, regardless of how he campaigned, and with the Democratic Party needing a kick in the ass.

What's remarkable to me is how the Democrats haven't learned a damn thing from it. How many elections do they have to lose before they get that some of us actually require something of them before we'll vote their way?

[JimR]

Thank you, my sentiments exactly! Instead of screaming and crying about Ralph Nader, perhaps Democrats should take a good, hard look at their party right now.

Bush started this war, but the Democrats let it happen.

[siegfried]

I personally think if Gore had chosen a running mate other than that crybaby Joe Lieberman, his victory would have been too overwelming for Bush to steal.

[herronsmith]

Yes, Bush has led us down the road to ruins and he has no excuse for his cavalier handling of the war, the US, and the world view of the US. Having stated the obvious, I don't think we were ready for Gore and, we certainly weren't and never will be, ready for Joe Lieberman. As disastrous as these past years have been, everything happens for a reason (I believe) and I choose to look toward the future and dwell less on the past. Liberals, Democrats, Green Party, progressives, whatever you want to call it, need their energy to fight the current battle which may take years to undue. Try to see come commonality, empathy for liberals' many views and move on toward action. If we were all as progressive as we say we are, we would be voting for Dennis Kucinich hands-down. And Mr. Nader would be supporting him and running beside him, not against him.

[nippersdad]

Peter:

I am as angry as you are at the atrocious things that the Republican Party did to get George Bush into office, and has done to abet his evil/fascist agenda over the last seven years. But to blame Nader for the anti-American things that have happened since the 2000 election is just wrong.

If you want to blame anyone it should be the Newts, Barrs, McConnels, Murdochs, Limbaughs and Coulters who sold out their country years before the election in question. It was they who turned the American political process into the sad case of gamesmanship we see today; it is they who made the stealing of elections justifiable to the Republican Party's base. That was, and is, the real crime.

Ralph Nader has always had our country's best interests at heart; he believes that the Democratic Party can and should do better than represent the Republican lite sector of the spectrum. Just because the new fascist party doesn't want these supposedly "moderate" types is no reason for us to adopt them. This is still true and few progressives will deny it.

To attack Nader is no different than for us to attack MoveOn. Our pronounced habit of "eating our own" rather than our natural political enemies (and adopting disaffected Republicans), is a large part of the reason that Dems lack the courage of conviction we see so prevalent in Congress today. Save the outrage for attacking these habits and the fascists they enable and, just maybe, then we will see some change.

[yellowdogSC]

Exactly!

Many of you (Democrats) live in states where your ’00 vote was NOT IMPORTANT! Why? In your state, 1) Republicans won decisively, meeting expectations, or 2) Republicans lost overwhelmingly, surprising no one. Either way, your vote was essentially lost, precisely as though you hadn’t voted at all.

Yes, your vote was…..impo­rtant:
1) As part of the process. (Should anyone doubt, research the time and effort Repelicans spent blocking individual votes, more so in borderline states - http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072607A.shtml)
2) It was important TO YOU because it fulfilled a personal need.
BOTH ENTIRELY VALID, but not worth the gas you burned, if, as you claim, unnecessary votes, such as Nader in Florida ‘00 are wasted.

Your response: “Was I expected to quickly relocate to a state chosen by polls, perhaps distant, at significant expense, in order to cast a vote of greater “value”?”

My response: 1) Was every Nader supporter supposed to abandon their conscience in order to support the views of others (YOU, “the greater good”, or whatever euphemism your conscience can bear.)
2) Only if you wanted Gore to win.

I voted for Gore in SC. Someone else voted for Nader in FL. Your syllogism says both votes were equally useless. Just as wasted as YOUR vote, if you voted in any state where the results were already statistically certain either way at the time your vote was cast. (This does not mean the rest of you get off the hook. You’re geographically blessed, to pay for your weeks of painful uncertainty and hard work as you watched your state polls fluctuate.­)

Under the preceding scenario, do you consider the price asked of you, relocating, to be the higher? NEWSFLASH: Everyone considers the cost to them to be greatest. Every one of us paid a price in both ’00 and ’04. But my heart goes out to those that retained their integrity in ‘00, voting their conscience in the face of tremendous pressure to “do the right thing.” Don’t worry. They did.

We all did.

Thank you.

[yellowdogSC]

BB,

Any chance you'll ever undo whatever UPGRADE trashed our text edited comments so badly?

Thank you.

Some sort of notification would be nice.

[ECJLA]

Mr. Dreier,

With due respect this is a childish perspective. Ralph Nader did not leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left him. Nader was on George McGovern's short list for the vice-presidency in 1972 and not selected. (If you're looking for fateful mistakes in involving Nader, that was the one.) Even if a McGovern-Nader ticket had lost, Ralph would have been well-positioned for a presidential candidacy in 1976, and to continue to shape the Democratic Party in line with its historic progressive ideals.

Instead, opportunistic business elements took over the party and drove it so far to the right that it became but a pale imitation of the Republicans. For every vote Ralph got in 2000 and 2004 hundreds of thousands if not milions of grassroots Democrats (now known as the netroots) held their noses and voted for Gore and Kerry as "the lesser evil".

In recent weeks the contempt of the mainstream opportunistic Dems has been on full display. They went into "lockdown" mode against the progressive wing of the Party over the Move-on ad. They did so because the ad showed that progressives do not intend to be "window dressing" in the Democratic Party and stand aside for the fat-cat and large donor elites to continue funding the slaughter of Iraqis and (soon) Iranians, not to mention the Israeli military's continuing savagry toward the Palestinians. That jig is up Mr. Dreier.

If the Dems want to reengage with the legacy of McGovern, and nominate a genuine articulate exponent of liberal ideals, such as Dennis Kuncinich, they have my vote and enthusiastic support. If they don't and if Ralph runs again to express his indignation at the feckless reactionary twiddledum Party the Demcrats have become, forfeiting their progressive legacy and any shred of principle and integrity in a futile quest for purposeless popularity and power, he has my vote and enthusiastic support. And I suspect, legions of other politically homeless fed-up left-liberals.

Eric C. Jacobson
Public Interest Lawyer
Culver City, California

[Democrab]

He's still an arrogant traitor and in full support of George Bush's policies.

He's done more damage to this country than good.

The sight of his crooked face on talk shows makes me cringe.

His support of Bush is evident by his continual swaying of elections, when he should be supporting the party that shares his so-called views, the democratic party, the party of Ed Muskie and other environmental heroes.

[nippersdad]

Excuse me, sorry to butt in, but I was wondering. If the Democratic Party's "leaders" shared Ralph Nader's views, would we still be in Iraq? Would we still be talking about restoration of Habeus Corpus? Would they have caved at every possible opportunity to express the will of the progressive base?

There are plenty of traitors out there; Ralph Nader is not one of them. Had the Democratic Party had the courage of its convictions (?), it would have run Nader as its candidate in 2000...and won.

[thicky]

How naive are you? Nader has blood on his hands because he alone caused bush to win in 2000? How absurd!

Everyone in the know knows that it was Martians who were behind the Florida election fiasco!

http://www.alexross.com/CJ046a.html

Yes Martians! If only the Martians and their alien stooges like Katherine Harris had been exposed for who they are and what they really want: to ultimately destroy America and the world so that they can get a better view of Venus!

Save your misguided outrage for Marvin Martian. It would make more sense and be more productive.

[lescargot]

OK enough of the Nader-moonie hair splitting. NO. Nader is NOT entirely responsible. There were crooked elections in which eligible voters were dropped from the polls, an ideologically cooked Supreme Court that blithely tipped the scales to Bush, irregularity after irregularity, Hannity, Limbaugh, and Fox (Oh My!) and an inert Press, Joe Lieberman, and even Gore himself.
But to this long list of unforgivable blunders and outright scoundrels I must add Ralph Nader to the top. OK he is not uniquely and individually responsible for the Iraq war and all its blood-lust, but PLEASE STOP TRYING TO TELL US THAT NADER (and you, his elitist, atomistic, and distressingly bourgeois supporters) HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. Jesuz! He played a critical role in Bush's ascendance to the throne and the catastrophic havoc he's unleashed.
The argument is absurd? I don't think so. Your sad denial of reality is absurd.