10 Reasons The Democrats Have No Reason To Whine About Ralph Nader

1) The difference between the two Democratic candidates on the issues is razor-thin. There should be a candidate to define the largely absent progressive agenda. If Nader gets this constituency's backing, then he should be in the race.

2) Nader didn't cause Gore to lose Florida — the Supreme Court did. But before the Democrats even got to that point, they lost the race for themselves. And even if you believe Nader is the spoiler, if the Democrats can't beat the Republican candidate in a landslide this fall — or by at least enough margin to inoculate them against Nader votes — then they don't deserve to win.

3) Health Care — Both Democratic solutions are flawed and unresolved. Let the single payer Nader debates begin!

4) The War — Democrats largely allowed Bush to take us to war and failed, even after a voter mandate in the last congressional elections, to change the course of events in Iraq. In fact, it was escalated and might be the reason a Republican actually has a chance this fall.

5) It's fair — whoever can reach the mandatory benchmarks to run, should have the right.

6) If voters really want Nader, it's because they feel the issues he's raising are substantial enough to warrant attention. And if Democrats can't attract those same people, then they don't deserve them.

7) America needs strong independent and third party candidates. It's the only way to move the needle forward in dramatic ways. The established political paradigms need to be challenged. The most progressive remaining Democratic candidate, Obama, as attractive and fresh as he seems, doesn't walk on water for everybody. Let the chips fall where they may with a much more progressive candidate in the conversation.

8) The electoral college is broken. If Nader can so easily tip the election, we should address the system, not the rights of the candidate.

9) To borrow from CNN's Anderson Cooper, third party candidates keep 'em honest. They pose alternative points of view, ask tough questions outside of the major cable networks' oftentimes weak debate postures. Let a third party stir things up. We, the public, get a better, more open and honest process. And theoretically, a stronger candidate emerges to take the White House.

10) Much of the media punditry, political elite, party elders and all the current Democratic candidates don't want him to run. That alone should tell you he must be in the race. Let the voters decide.

----
Watch the excellent An Unreasonable Man, the story of Ralph Nader's presidential runs, the fallout, and his career as public interest advocate. Here's the description from PBS:

Many things today's consumers take for granted--seat belts, airbags, product labeling, free airline tickets after being bumped from an overbooked flight--are largely due to the efforts of Ralph Nader and his citizen groups. But did his foray into presidential politics harm his legacy? When most people hear his name, they think of the political "spoiler" who cost the Democrats the 2000 presidential election. While Nader has become a pariah even among his former friends and allies, An Unreasonable Man illustrates how he continues to be one of the most trusted activists in America, crusading on behalf of consumer rights.

Here's the quote behind the title:

""The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." — George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman.

Here's another quote from the film:

"The Democratic Party was looking for a scapegoat, and I think effectively tried to paint, and did paint, Ralph Nader as the reason why they were not in office, not the fact that ten million more Democrats voted for George Bush than voted for Ralph Nader." — Theresa Amato, Nader campaign manager

And one more, for Gore:

"Nader was dishonest. And the country is paying the price for it." — Eric Alterman.

Follow Raymond Leon Roker on Twitter: www.twitter.com/raymondroker

Comments

[ianrey]

If Nader had any serious ambitions to changing American politics, he would throw himself into Green Pary politics all over the country. Get Greens on city councils, school boards, state houses. Put up viable Greens for the US House, and work to get them the funding they would need to compete on equal footing. There are plenty of districts that have public financing. These are things he could do to build his party, and get his message out into the national dialogue.

What he does, in contrast, is come out of his isolation chamber every four years, look around and pretend he can't tell the difference between Gore and Bush, Kerry and Bush, Obama and McCain, and pick off an ever-dwindling number of naive voters. You know, those who only want to vote for someone they agree with 100% of the time, thinking there is no difference between someone who holds 95% of their views and someone else who holds 30%. Ralph, there is a great philosopher whom you assisted more than any progressive, who once said, "fool me once, shame on you; ... fool me, can't get fooled again."

[DickTater]

I agree 100% that Nader should have been building a 3rd party all thru the 70's, 80's, and 90's. This ghostly apparition every 4 years is truly baffling and is way too little, way too late.

[iaptgwtegfs]

As much as I whole-heartedly believe that we need a viable third party, I believe it is wrong to refer to Nader as a third party candidate.

By all accounts, he has done little to actually BUILD a viable thirdy party beyond running for President. Personally, I think he's just become a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian. His ideas have merits, surely, but wouldn't he be better served actually helping to build an infrastructure instead of stroking his own ego? Wouldn't that $10 million that he wants to raise be better spent on smaller, local elections to build a thirdy party base?

Call me crazy, but a viable third Party needs to be build from the bottom up, not the top down.

[emjay1954]

If the Democrats don't want us to vote for Nader, they need to give us a candidate who we won't be ashamed of voting for.

Single payer health care, end to the war now with no permanent bases in Iraq, adherence to the Geneva convention, abolish NAFTA, end to government spying--none of the Dems want to touch those issues. Ralph will.

[jmpurser]

Well said!

[nippersdad]

I don't see why this is such a difficult concept for all of the Nader haters out there.

[Beelzebufo]

Nader is a breath of fresh air in a stale, fatuous Democrat Primary.

[messy]

IC. DemocratIC party. Only rePublicans use the term Democrat party.

Nader hasn't done anything good in almost 30 years.

[AnninCA]

I agree. My Gen-X son will howl with laughter with me over this. Never did he think he'd see the day when I'd go Green. :)

But Nader won't make my skin crawl to pull the lever.

I'll feel good about that message sent.

[stsparky]

Actually, Gore didn't lose. Bush and the GOP stole the election. Then the Supremes cheated America. And no one forgets Nader has always been a massive asshole. Those of us who loved driving Corvairs have known the caliber of the man from when he first grabbed headlines to feed his ego.

I think John McCain has more to fear from Nader this time.

[nippersdad]

My Mom had a Corvair, great car but still unsafe. I also smoke a pack and a half a day, however, when I develop lung cancer I will not be blaming those who sold the cigarettes to me....

[jmpurser]

For me it boils down to one fact: If the Democrats ever ran a real liberal or progressive they wouldn't have to worry about Nader. If they want to act like that's their territory then they should ACT like it's their territory and not just expect everyone else to assume it is.

[nippersdad]

Excellent point!

[OrcinusOrca]

Raymond is right, it makes no sense to whine about Nader. All that whining does is to give the old narcist the attention that he so desperately seeks. Time to move on. Nader should be ignored.

[PeterM]

Indeed. Nader should not interfere with the corporate coronation process called the American elections. That is the only way "democrats" can reform to become better republicans. After all the democratic party is all about standing for their K street constituents, losing on every principle and caving in to corporate fascist interests. That should be enough for us.
Time to move on - into status quo and more Bread & Circus!

[mradamfam]

I, as a democrat, agree with this. Any party has the right to run for elected office. Lincoln was the first republican. There was once the whig party. Everything has evolved. Through that evolution we abolished slavery, enacted civil rights legislation, gave women the right to vote, etc. Maybe if the current two party political structure evolves, then so can we.

[johnnyhempseed]

Thankyou Raymond, This is an excellent post and spot on.Ralph and Cynthia and all the third party candidates should have a place in the process.They should be allowed a public forum to debate the issues that the mainstream media and two parties are ignoring.It might make the democrats walk the talk! peace

[Gibbons]

I could NOT disagree more.

[JimR]

Well, some of us still believe in democracy, even if you don't.

[Morcat]

Nader does not represent the progressive agenda. He now clearly represents Nader. His willingness to compromise the tiny shred of well being this country has left after 8 years of Bush&Co demonstrates his lack of true concern for the US. Of course, he was largely responsible for giving us those 8 years. Reality is that the Democrats didn't lose in 2000. No difference between Gore and Bush? Nader is delusional and so are his supporters.

[AnninCA]

I heard him the other day with Russert, and it was an excellent and calm discussion of many progressive ideas.

He had good points on a variety of issues.

[blake510]

Nobody wants Nader to run. Nader is unrealistic in every sense of the word. There are times when his convictions could be well used, but not in this election. We will have a terrific candidate in the Democratic party, why risk having someone to chip away Democratic votes. The ego of this guy. What has he done in the past 8 years? Anything? The only difference I can find on his stance is that he is for a single payer health coverage (like Kucinich), which is great, but unrealistic. Other than that, he sounds like he's hitting Obama talking points. I don't think Nader "gets it".

[AnninCA]

Wrong. Clinton Democrats such as myself who are appalled by the direction of the Democratic party this year and are too liberal for McCain were relieved to see him run again.

It gives me a voice.

Granted, it's not the "winning" candidate.

But it's a voice.

I agree, see, with Hillary that this is'nt just a game of who wins and loses. It's about the real problems in front of us and the real responsibility of voters to think about what the country needs.

[WorkingClass]

Thank you Raymond and Arianna. This at least begins to balance the avalanche of childish Nader bashing on this board.

[messy]

Nader had his one chance eight years ago. He's a joke who's negated all the good he's ever done.

It's OVER Ralphie. McKinney's worse.