An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Is It Ralph Nader Time (Again)?
Is third party maven Ralph Nader an idealist, a spoiler or just another ego-bloated political hack who has some political scores to settle?
The debate rages amid signs that Ralph Nader Will Ride Again (last time he accepted money from Republicans who clearly wanted to sandbag the Democratic vote). It rages in various places — for instance HERE.
30 Responses to “Is It Ralph Nader Time (Again)?”
If he runs, he runs, same for Bloomberg. Better’n Hillary or Rudy!
As many have noted and argued, there’s about a 99.9% probability that Nader cost Gore the 2000 election. His candidacy could swing the 2008 election to the Republicans.
IMO, the man is am egomaniac who cares not a wit about the possible consequences of his actions. And I say this as an independent, not as a Democrat.
He should spend the rest of his life restoring Corvairs.
He’s a spoiler. He knows that’s all he accomplishes yet he shows his willingness to do so again and again.
Ego-bloated hack whom I voted for in good conscience in 2000. Never again.
Unlike Bloomberg, Nader lacks the broad appeal to win an election. His choice to run has achieved the opposite of his stated goals – a government in which the deck is now stacked in favor of corporations vs the common man. Instead of the glass half full, we end up with no glass at all because of his obstinacy. He’s an egomaniac who has driven the country towards oligarchy.
I wonder how the entry of two independent/third party candidates would affect the 2008 presidential contest? IIRC Larry Sabato’s reflections only considered Bloomberg.
Comments 2-5 are the exact reasons why this country does not change. People like this do NOT want real change, so always go lesser of two evils, then whine when they end up w evil.
Wd be comic if only they didn’t drag the rest of down w them.
Nader’s reason for running is not to win, and not because he is an egomaniac, but he is trying to change the parties. Ok, he is trying to change the Democratic party since they are the only ones who stand to lose by his candidacy. His whole point in running is to force the Democrats to take up his issues so they won’t lose voters to him. If the party wants to end the threat that a Nader candidacy poses to them, they must change and must take steps to woo those voters who typically abandon the Democrats in favor of Nader.
At least that is how I have understood it.
Yes, that is his stated goal, and he has repeatedly achieved its opposite by entering the presidential race as a third candidate. He is not effective at what he is trying to do, regardless of the worthiness of his goal.
We have stayed in Iraq for 5 years to try to enable the region to have at least one stable democracy. It hasn’t worked – only destabilized the region. The goal is worthy but the results are tragic.
How is Nader any different from Wolfowitz or Perle?
‘Comments 2-5 are the exact reasons why this country does not change. People like this do NOT want real change, so always go lesser of two evils, then whine when they end up w evil.
Wd be comic if only they didn’t drag the rest of down w them’
No, we just don’t believe in throwing away our vote on someone who can only muster a measly 2%. Leadership is only valuable if you can convince enough others that you can succeed. Nader is incapable of doing that- so he tries to wreck whatever progress could be made.
So, Kim, you’d rather throw your vote away on hacks like Hillary or Rudy? Great. And in 4 years you’ll keep on whining that progress has NOT been made, because your lack of vision and balls to say ‘Goddamn this fuckin’ system, I’m not gonna participate in prolonging its reign of mediocrity,’ has led to the same old same old.
Which is the REAL REASON Nader has run, to get yoo to get the cobwebs out of your zombified mind!
The problem with the belief that the Democrats should just take up Nader’s cause is that with his complete disdain for the political process he refuses to recognize that you can’t always get what you want. You know, like when you have a slim majority and a President that will veto anything you do that he thinks he can score political points with his base by vetoing.
And yes, kritter is precisely correct about why people like us don’t vote for Nader. I have a very realistic assessment of his ability to muster a wide appeal to the American public and thereby get into office. And that ability is nill.
Complete disdain for the political process?
If I remember right, it was the Democrats who attempted to keep Nader off state ballots in 2004 and not the other way around.
It has been the Democrats (along with the Republicans) who have passed restrictive ballot access laws making it extremely difficult for third party candidates to get on state ballots.
If that’s not disdain for the political process, I don’t know what is.
I’m speaking of the process once you’re actually in office trying to get things done. And if you want to discuss the other part of the process, why don’t you mention how Nader was perfectly willing to take tons of help from those Republicans he criticized so roundly when they started helping him in order to hurt the Democrats?
Jim:
Nader does not want everything- but he wants to see even baby steps toward real change. The D’s do not represent that from the R’s- lest they would have more spine even now.
‘I have a very realistic assessment of his ability to muster a wide appeal to the American public and thereby get into office.’
A better and sadder definition of the lesser of two evils philosophy has never been stated. You have raised hackdom to an art.
Nick- precisely. I think MVDG called it arrogance- something Kim and Jim (and perhaps a Tim lurking there) feel entitles them to doom the process to an eternal Groundhog Day. Thanks, guys.
Jim- If the D’s wanted to stop Nader, perhaps they would have taken in some of his real talking points- like healthcare and global warming, a few years ago. Oh wait, it wasn’t politically convenient during the narcotized nineties. More proof why the D’s are the R’s Lite.
If elections are a consumer issue, then it is “Ralph Nader time”, again. American voters who want elections to be assessed from a consumer veiwpoint should support Nader’s run for ballot access so he can challange election results. Having to run as president was not Nader’s design, but the creation of those who don’t want elections to be perceived as a consumer issues to be challenged by an outsider, even if that “outsider” is an American voter who is the best consumer advocate in the world.
Joe: The answer to your question is that Nader gave us George Bush, the war in Iraq and a Supreme Court that is taking away our liberties–all in the name of saving America. He’s getting worse with age, as I guess most of us do. Anyone who thinks I’m exaggerating should just follow the links to my apopletic posts about him:
http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2007/06/ralph-naders-finishing-school.html
Remember that there are other offices in the land that Nader can run for other than President. He could be running as a senator, a congressman, a governor, or mayor. Maybe he can be elected mayor of some city and then show the Democrats the great appeal of his platform and its stunning success. He could be doing a hundred things to change the Democratic party, if that’s his purpose, or to change the system overall, if that’s his purpose. Gore by making a popular film has had more impact on global warming than Nader by running for Prez – indeed by him running for Prez, Gore is not managing the nation’s global warming policy. The only thing Nader chooses to do, however, is ciphen off votes for a Presidential election. This is the problem. He is choosing to “change the system” in the most damaging way possible. The possibilities are not, not, either shut up and follow the two party system off a cliff or run for President. There are many other possibilities and Nader is ignoring them all.
pacatrue,
I think there’s some sense in what you are saying, but I also think you have to recognize that Nader just isn’t trying to raise awareness of one single issue or change the party’s stance on a particular issue. It’s systemic change he’s after, and for that I think his running for presidency does send the message that he’s interested in sending. He’s trying to show the Democratic party that they’ve become steeped in corporate interests, and that there are some voters who are quite dissatisfied with that. The only way to demonstrate that is to actually run and have the electorate drive the point home to the party.
Give me a break, Robert!
It can be argued that Nader effectively handed the 2000 election to George W. Bush, but the war in Iraq?
Nader has opposed the Iraq War from the very beginning, unlike the Democrats–half of whom voted for the war during the autumn of 2002.
The fact that you’re so quick to shift blame for the war to some third party candidate who vociferously opposed the war demonstrates perfectly how the two major parties are unable (or unwilling) to take responsibility for their actions.
If the Democratic Party decides to nominate Hilllary Clinton (who voted in favor of the war, criticized fellow Democrats for calling for a withdrawal, and supported the war until just six months ago) then the Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves if Nader or any other Green Party candidate decides to throw his hat into the race.
Stop blaming the problems of America on third parties. They didn’t cast votes in favor of the Iraq War or the USA PATRIOT Act. They didn’t turn our current political system into the mockery that it is today.
My comment would echo Shaun Mullen’s. I voted for the man once, and greatly respected and appreciated his work as well… but I’m afraid that’s in the past. His actions since the advent of GWB’s bid for the presidency have cost this country a great deal, and he seems to be oblivious to that fact. It’s a sad business.
If you want to know what Nader’s purpose is, take a look at what he does when he’s not running for President.
He busts unions.
He mounts a crusage against NBA officiating.
Does he challenge the corporatist state? Not unless you somehow define “union busting” that way. Nor unless you think accepting contributions from Republican organizations qualifies – because we all know the GOP is totally anti-corporate state, right?
No: When it comes to the causes Nader supposedly stands for, he does doodly for them when he’s not actively undermining them.
He’s an egotistical idiot who does more harm than good. His followers still think that a good way to bring about a revolution is to actively work for making life in America as awful as possible, because then people will have “no choice but to rise up!” – blithely disregarding how much suffering will happen in the meantime, and how much of our national character and infrastructure will be destroyed in the meantime.
They also scorm to come up with any actual plan or vision for what would come next, because they apparently believe that an armed revolution will spontaneously generate a communitarian, moneyless, cottage industry-building, whole foods-eating, hemp-wearing Eden.
They’re morons. But chances are, the ones who would still vote for Nader wouldn’t have voted at all, so they’re insignificant morons.
CStanley,
I understand your points. I think where I disagree with Nader’s position, as you represent it, is the last sentence of the comment. “The only way to demonstrate that is to actually run and have the electorate drive the point home to the party.” I think you could equally well demonstrate the point by being a mayor or some such and demonstrating the great value in his policies (assuming he can) or just being a shining example of what a government free from corporate interests can be. Of course that takes a long time and a lot of executive experience (and luck), which I don’t think he’s interested in. If not, he could be doing stunning exposées of the purchase of influence in the parties; i.e., he could try shaming them to reform. Etc. There just are other ways to reform a party other than running for President.
The main problem he’s going to have with the Presidential strategy is that if the Democrats move left to capture the 5% Nader voter, they could lose the 5% center vote they need. If this is true, then Nader’s strategy cannot reform the Democratic Party, because instead of reforming them, he’s simply putting them in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation — grabbing votes that would be inclined to go to the Party he wants to change, but that Party has no way to change without giving up an equivalent number of other votes.
(A clear problem with this analysis is that the world is not made up of a single line with left and right on ends, but of a whole variety of issues which cut in many different directions.)
There are a number of reasons why Bush was elected in 2000, but Nader has to be well down the list. The biggest reason is that Gore ran a lackluster campaign, which led to the Supreme Court throwing the election.
Gore did not earn my vote. Nader did.
Pacatrue- Good points and I agree entirely. What executive experience does Nader have that even qualifies him for the presidency? His approach has always been a negative one- to expose the evils of special interests and their corrosion of our democracy. While I agree with his basic premise, his inability to earn more than 2% of the popular vote and none of the electoral college, has not produced his desired result.
The two major parties are more dependent upon corporate money than ever, forcing the conclusion populism will only take you so far in a national presidential election. I don’t see how one man can change the system- but I do see how he can act as a spoiler.
CS: ‘He’s trying to show the Democratic party that they’ve become steeped in corporate interests, and that there are some voters who are quite dissatisfied with that. The only way to demonstrate that is to actually run and have the electorate drive the point home to the party.’
BINGO!
Nick Rivera: Bingo (deux)!
Casey L: You’ve taken Jim Satterfield’s plea for hackdom, and raised it from an art to a religion. Utter stupidity.
And Jim, on the post re: Universal Healthcare, you argue FOR changing a broken system, yet the electoral system and its duopoly are every bit as broken and dysfunctional, yet you want to stay the course. What gives?
KIm: ‘The two major parties are more dependent upon corporate money than ever’.
‘I don’t see how one man can change the system’
This is actually where folk like you and Jim come in. If you stop voting for losers like Bush, Gore, Kerry, hey, maybe change can occur.
Stay the course. Not at all. But I don’t see Nader proposing the only kinds of things that will ever fix it. The changes needed are far more extensive than what he wants. I think we need to eliminate the electoral college and the winner-take-all system. I’d also like to see a proportional representation system. Nader by himself isn’t going to change that.
Why don’t I view Nader as someone who can lead us towards needed changes? Because his entire campaign was based on one big lie. I don’t like someone who says something so bald-faced false as the Democrats and Republicans being identical to one another. Would Gore have invaded Iraq? No. Would his definition of Social Security reform have been the initial steps to take a back door into eliminating it? No. Faith-based initiatives? No. The pushing of abstinence-only sex education? No. Would the gag rule for foreign aid for family planning still be in place? Doubtful in the extreme. Torture being considered acceptable? I think not. The kind of Supreme Court justices Bush has delivered? No, we wouldn’t have them either.
So since the core reason he presented for his need to run was false why should I think that much of him?
It does not have to be Nader- although he’d be better than any D or R. How about Bloomberg?
Bloomberg is much more likely than Nader. I am definitely willing to listen to what he has to say should he actually announce a candidacy.