News came today that Ralph Nader intends to once again join the presidential race, running as the Green Party nominee.
In 2000, I was a pretty strong advocate of his running for President because I believed that the country was leaning towards the left and that, by including Nader in our national conversation, we would continue to make great strides toward a more free, more equal U.S. Sometimes, I thought, it was important to just have someone making the case for idealism and egalitarianism. Sad as I am that Bush won in 2000, I still don’t blame it on Nader, but only because of the electoral college system. Gore just didn’t win the electorates he needed. Tragically, for sure.
In 2004, I and every other Democrat were so horrified by the direction of the country that no one voted for Nader. We were of the opinion that when the country is teetering on the edge of complete moral, social, political and ethical failure, primarily you’re just looking for the regime change. Our votes in ‘04 were completely pragmatic.
But now, in 2008, there will most assuredly be a regime change. Even Republicans are so disgusted by the direction of the country, that they demand better leadership. However, Nader really should not run this time, just as he should not have run in 2004. This time around, Democrats have two very promising potential nominees. Like Nader, both take healthcare, international diplomacy and fiscal responsibility very seriously. Both of them will take the country forward and out of this mire that Bush has left us in.
Nader just has no place here. Previously, his role had been to remind Democrats that they weren’t just “anti-Republican.” We have ideals. We have a vision for the United States that protects its people while promoting the rights and liberties that we hold dear. We remember that protection includes making sure that people can go to the doctor when they’re sick and that it doesn’t involve invading sovereign nations. We remember that those rights include speaking out freely when we disagree with our national leadership. We remember that while we are all different people, we can agree on that which is just.
So I was going to make this joke that since the Democrats have his go-to issues covered, Nader was now going to be running for those who have been alienated from this election cycle - white men. But actually, this isn’t a joke. This time, Nader is running against his principles by undermining those who have a chance to make positive change.
I totally agree with you! Nader has completely frustrated me ever since that green party rally in New Haven (which I think we may have gone to together…) He stirs people up like mad, but never actually does anything with all that fervor he’s created. Then his comrades spend the rest of the afternoon making timid idealists feel like they’re not left ENOUGH. Give me someone who will make change happen for real, and someone who welcomes and encourages those just beginning to make changes. Now is not the time for superiority or division. We do not need another faction in this race. It’s time for solidarity.
I couldn’t agree more.
At the point that Nader himself knows that he can’t get enough votes to tip the election one way or the other, I don’t think he should feel too bad about his principles.
I think I heard that Nader got .03 percent last election he ran…and since everyone has become rather enthralled with politics lately and is enjoying their candidate of choice (well Dems are), he will hopefully have a minuscule affect on the elections.
Besides he’s been running since ‘96, and no one likes the guy who doesn’t know when to quit. Except for McCain.
The major parties are both beholden to corporate interests. If you believe what’s good for the corporations is good for America, then by all means, vote mainstream. If, on the other hand, you’d like the national campaign dialog to include some possibly painful truths about how politicians and special interests work together to corrupt, pillage and rape the country and its people, you might want want to throw your support to Nader.
You’re right, it’s not likely to change the outcome, but it could squeeze some stronger progressive planks into the Democratic platform. Nader said that his presence in the ring notwithstanding, if the Democrats can’t pull off a sweep in November, the party ought to just hang it up. I think he’s right.
Thanks for your comment, Lucy.
I would like to know what corporations or lobbies have donated to Barack Obama’s campaign.
I think the whole point of voting for Obama is that he actually would change or start the change toward more responsible governance. Sure, the Democratic Party has as many corporate interests as the Republican Party (well, maybe not quite as many), but I’m talking about the candidate here. Obama is running for the nomination of the Democratic Party, but is not the leader of that organization (Howard Dean is, I think?). And anyway, the DNC raised 80% of its money in 2006 from donors who gave $250 or less. That’s not bad. That doesn’t speak of corporate control to me.
The thing is that Obama does Nader’s job better than Nader. Because the issues are already on the table, Nader doesn’t need to be there to bring them up. And since he can’t win (which he readily admits), he won’t actually make a difference in terms of the two major parties’ fundraising strategies. So why throw a stick in the spokes? Why doesn’t he run for governor or senator if he wants to make a difference? He lives in goddamn Connecticut. He can certainly be elected to public office there. They love him.
Nader has contributed so so much to this country over the years in terms of protecting consumers. It’s interesting how no consumer protection is inherent in our consumer-driven economy. But Nader and his work literally created many of the things we take for granted (companies recalling grossly unsafe products, Consumer Reports’ unbiased comparison of products, etc.).
But he can do way more of that stuff as an at-large public advocate than as a president, that’s for damn sure. I mean, I’m sure he doesn’t actually think he’ll win. Maybe he sees himself as raising the profile of consumer protection on the national scene?
That said, it was weird when he was with the Reform Party, sharing a (figurative? nominal?) platform with Buchanan. It made me feel nauseous.