By
Ryan Morden
March 13, 2008
There are certain songs, like Limp Bizkit’s “Rollin,” that need to stay in the year 2000. Another is the Democrats’ greatest hit from that year, “Ralph Nader Cost Gore the Presidency.” Both songs are annoying, and I’m embarrassed for anyone resurrecting either in the year 2008.
In Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury writes, “If you don’t want to make a man unhappy politically, don’t give him two sides of a question to worry him; give him one.”
In our country, we can’t handle choice. We have the entire political spectrum and every interest reduced to a “D” and an “R.”
We are duped into thinking that somehow all the issues and interests of our nation and the world are represented by just two political parties. We buy into this because being civically aware stresses us out, and putting forth effort toward civic engagement is unappealing.
Ralph Nader isactivating another candidacy for president for the sole purpose of bringing off-the-table issues up for discussion.
Democrats prefer their political party to spoon-feed them the important issues; anything else raised by an outside source must be unimportant because the political party says so.
The ability to run for public office is the ability to exercise free speech. Democrats who don’t want Nader to run want to stifle free speech and are directly un-American.
It’s shameful.
The thought of Nader running for public office arouses vehement hate from Democrats. It’s too bad that rage can’t be directed toward Republicans.
This lividness from Democrats is further puzzling because most Democrats agree with Nader’s policies 100 percent.
I’ve heard Nader trashed by Democrats, but never thanked. In the infamous 2000 election, he brought enough new voters to the polls to elect Maria Cantwell to the U.S. Senate.
Cantwell won by a narrow victory against Republican incumbent Slate Gorton. The Washington voters who chose Nader for president voted Cantwell into the Senate.
Look at Senator Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign platform — it’s identical to Nader’s 2000 platform.
In 2000, Nader was running on:renegotiating NAFTA, expanding Medicare coverage to all Americans, enacting new environmental standards that drastically reduce dangerous environmental toxins, and increasing the minimum wage to keep up with inflation.
If the Obama of 2008 ran against Vice President Gore in 2000, the differences between the two would be vast.
Nader never accepts PAC money, and neither does Obama. Nader is in favor of publicly financed elections; so is Obama.
The Democratic Party has done a very good job of vilifying Nader when most of America would agree with his positions.
This proves his point that the two political parties have too much control over voters. He told Jon Stewart that if the Democratic and Republican parties were corporations, they’d be sued for anti-trust violations.
He told conservative talk-show host Michael Medved that he is running for president to show that participating in government can be done freely by any citizen without party entitlements.
That’s the brilliancy of Nader’s political career: He’s made our air cleaner, our cars safer and protection for consumers stronger — and he’s done it all as a private citizen.
He doesn’t have the same hang-ups to which elected politicians have. Representative Dennis Kucinich looks like a presidential candidate with fortitude, until he’s in danger of losing his house seat. That’s when he folds like a cheap pair of socks.
If Nader were a friend of mine on Facebook, I’d add the “Superlatives” application just so I could nominate him for best citizen from the 20th and 21st centuries — so far.
[Reach columnist Ryan Morden at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.]
28 Comments
#1 John
on March 13, 2008 at 6:59 a.m.(Baltimore, MD | Unverified Name)
Bravo! Vote outside the box. Vote 3rd party. Vote Nader 08!
#2 Jeff
on March 13, 2008 at 7:23 a.m.(Sierra Vista, AZ | Unverified Name)
I am puzzled by your statement that "Nader never accepts PAC money, and neither does Obama." This is certainly true for Mr. Nader, but Mr. Obama seems to be heavily financed by BIG business (a k a PAC money).
#3 Bob
on March 13, 2008 at 7:46 a.m.(Villanova, PA | Unverified Name)
"The thought of Nader running for public office arouses vehement hate from Democrats. It’s too bad that rage can’t be directed toward Republicans."
It's too bad there is so much hate in this country...
#4 Mike
on March 13, 2008 at 8:04 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
If Nader and Obama are identical, as you say, why have two candidates splitting the same voting pool? It just equates to a 3rd candidate (who is least like the two with the combined majority) getting the most votes.
2000: Nader & Gore split votes, putting Bush on top.
1992: Perot & Bush split votes, putting Clinton on top.
Yeah, the system is messed up, but Nader sees that it IS messed up and then adds weight where it can't be supported, breaking his entire message when a very NON-green candidate wins due to his selfish need to put himself before his cause.
#5 Nannie
on March 13, 2008 at 9:23 a.m.(Mountain View, AR | Unverified Name)
.
http://www.ontheissues.org/ Ralph...Ralph_Nader.htm
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2000.
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2004.
We NEED Ralph Nader as President in 2008.
Never before as we do now.
.
#6 Tim D
on March 13, 2008 at 10:13 a.m.(Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation | Unverified Name)
This is a good article except for the claim that Barack's 2008 platform is identical to Nader's 2000 platform. Nader's platform has always been more progressive, more innovative and more detailed than anything the "electable" Democrats have offered. His positions this election certainly differ sharply than Barack's, which justifies him running.
In any event, as regards third party candidates in general, the attitude, "I'm not going to vote for him/her because no else will" is a self-fulfilling prophecy...
#7 A
on March 13, 2008 at 11:27 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Nader did cost the Dems the election in 2000. Gore lost FL by537, Nader took 97,000. No Nader and Gore wins big. Of course he has the right to run but just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you should.
#8 A
on March 13, 2008 at 11:28 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Jeff:
Obama has taken no pac money, just money from indivuduals, and Nader took a lopt of GOP money in 2004.
#9 Irving Rubin
on March 13, 2008 at 12:09 p.m.(Atascadero, CA | Unverified Name)
We know what the problems are, let's have specific solutions not political B.S..
#10 Abbey
on March 13, 2008 at 12:46 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
Most democrats who oppose third parties do so because voting third party "takes away votes from the democratic candidate". As you mentioned above, most of us agree with Nader's policies 100% but it is a daunting task to rally the people around a third party candidate. Most are too scared that if they vote that way, they'll be throwing their vote away. What they don't realize is that we have the power to change, we're just too scared to use it.
#11 weeper48
on March 13, 2008 at 1:04 p.m.(Norfolk, VA | Unverified Name)
Barack will be another republicrat once in office, he will acheive nothing because he is beholding to corps and their congressional whores. He's an insider and a back slapper.
Nader couldn't care less about his political future so he would use the pulpit to push his agendas with all the genius and wisdom aquired over 50 years. You want the status quo, vote Dem or Rep, either way we're still in Iraq, still sticking our noses in everybody elses business and going broke from military spending, pharmicutical corps. etc. Vote Nader and do something that takes guts for a change, like Nader's done all his life.
#12 Michael
on March 13, 2008 at 1:06 p.m.(Edmonds, WA | Unverified Name)
Bravo!
I am so tired of the Democrats bashing Nader!
#13 Ben Roark
on March 13, 2008 at 1:27 p.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
"The ability to run for public office is the ability to exercise free speech. Democrats who don’t want Nader to run want to stifle free speech and are directly un-American."
What a ridiculous leap in logic. By that reasoning, just because I don't want the person sitting next to me on the bus to pull out a gun shoot me in the leg, it naturally follows that I must want to get rid of the second amendment.
People who don't "want" Nader to run are not suggesting that the government arrest him and lock him up if he tries to step up to a podium. They are not advocating government censorship of his free speech rights. In short, they are in no way attempting to abridge his freedom to exercise his first amendment rights. People simply recognize the historical importance of this presidential race - of this crucial time in history. And Democrats wish Ralph Nader, who knows he has zero chance of winning, and who siphons votes primarily away from presidential candidates with a D next to their name, would also see the significance of this election and realize that this is not the time to try and play spoiler.
It has absolutely nothing to do with "stifling free speech", and wanting the best for your country is certainly not "un-American".
#14 Seb
on March 13, 2008 at 1:55 p.m.(Bradenton, FL | Unverified Name)
Ralph, More power to your ideas. Keep working to end this insane war and bring our people home. You've been out there making speeches, doing interviews and writing articles and have written at least three books in the last 6 years. And you've been writing weekly commentary on the things that really matter, at http://www.nader.org .The question is where has the Press been on these important matters you discuss? where have the "Talking Heads" been on corporate crime and the profiteers of this war? The population is too busy being entertained and watching Sporting events to get involved, they take the EASY route and don't bother to think, settling instead for snippets and quick slogans. Knowing what's going on in a Corporate controlled State takes WORK. Thank you Ralph, for all the good things you've done to protect the PEOPLE of this Country. Amazing how quickly they forget, or perhaps they just don't know. Almost everyone's lives, or that of friends and relatives of theirs, have been improved and made safer because of you, Some wouldn't be alive today, if not for Ralph Nader! Their minds have been intentionly bombarded with with Corporate propaganda and the Democrat Party scapegoating machine. Obama and Clinton, and that phoney Terry McAuliffe should be ashamed of their comments regarding you. They continue the DNC scapcoating myth. thank you for your great and continued service to your fellow countrymen. America will never ever be able to repay you. More power to your ideas. http://www.votenader.org....All the rest of you out there, buckle-up! ....
#15 Kyle
on March 13, 2008 at 2:26 p.m.(Chicago, IL | Unverified Name)
I generally agree with poster #6. Obama has rhetorically borrowed some populist messages from Nader (moreso since Edwards dropped out), but their ideologies and policy positions are vastly different. Obama says when asked that he'd renogotiate parts of NAFTA – with no elaboration. I'm not sure he's read into the issue.
Nader articulates how trade deals like NAFTA benefit corporate wealth and Mexican oligarchs at the expense of workers, communities and public health & safety on both sides. People don't like Nader because they're not educated enough to examine the structural issues that lead to undesirable consequences. They want Obama because they think our economic, energy and immigration crises can be wiped away through better management, without requiring any hard choices, sacrifices or changes of us.
#16 gravel kucinich paul nader
on March 13, 2008 at 3:26 p.m.(Madison, IL | Unverified Name)
DemocracyRisingDemocracyNow
RageAgainstTheMachine
EndBlackmailBriberyExtortion
DividedWeFall
WhereDutyCalls
GravelKucinichPaulNader
4WiseMen
DareSpeakTruth
WhistleBlowers
HonestyCompassionIntelligenceGuts
NoCarrotsSticksCoerciveDiplomacy
SufferNot
#17 Independent
on March 13, 2008 at 6:14 p.m.(Ashby, MA | Unverified Name)
To 7 and 8 commenters:
Who is beholden to whom?
Looks like Barack very well DID take PAC money.
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/summary...
What Barack supporters like is his rhetoric of hope as he sells himself as an American savior. What they don't yet understand is that his positions and voting record are essentially the same as those of Hillary Clinton. Naivete is the hope of things that will not be.
Why vote for a false savior when an American hero is available?
No one matches Ralph Nader's tenacity or courage or proven record of public accomplishments.
IF experience is important, than Ralph's record of public service is unprecedented and easily beats out Barack and Hillary's record.
IF courage counts, then Ralph's David vs. Goliath challenges to GM and the corporate culture of corruption shows he is far braver than McCain who has knuckled under to Bush.
IF positive change for our nation is important, than Ralph's independence from PACs and corporate influences and the democratic party easily trumps Barack's voting record and experience.
Why vote for a lightweight Democrat/Republican when the America's champ is available?
#18 Pascal
on March 13, 2008 at 8:41 p.m.(Bellevue, WA | Unverified Name)
In response to Ben Roark,
Nader doesn't "siphon votes" from anybody. He simply runs for office. No one has to vote for him, but instead, American citizens freely cast their votes. Whether Nader runs or not is irrelevant; what you really want is for people to stop voting for him. Once again, Nader fills the role of scapegoat as his critics direct all of their venom at him instead of at the fellow voters sitting next to them on the bus.
Now, it's fine to try to convince people to vote a certain way, but it gets a little irritating when you treat them like little cogs in a machine. Saying "Nader siphons votes" puts him in the role of actor and everyone else in the role of passive object, as if Nader is a gravitational singularity toward which lesser bodies deterministically fall.
If you think people really are just particles moving in a field, and that it's Nader's duty to make sure he doesn't screw up the precious Republican/Democrat dipole, then yes, that's the sort of outlook that is not conducive to liberty or freedom of speech.
#19 Jeremy K H
on March 14, 2008 at 9:35 a.m.(Brunswick, ME | Unverified Name)
I am in agreement with poster #18. I will go further to point out that exit polls indicated that people voting for Nader in Florida ('00) were almost equally split. Many would have voted Gore as a second choice, many would have voted Bush as a second choice, and even more wouldn't have voted at all.
#20 Charlie
on March 14, 2008 at 9:52 a.m.(Vancouver, WA | Unverified Name)
Six other candidates besides Nader garnered more than 537 votes (the difference between) Gore and Bush. Sour grapes. People are more upset with Nader than they are with the people who actually voted for Bush. It didn't help that Gore didn't win his own state either. And for all their hooey they continually spew on how hey care so much about the democratic process and the American voter, let us not forget that the Democrats filed over 20 lawsuits in an attempt to keep Nader off state ballots in 2004 and refused to let Nader participate in presidential debates (even had police bar him from sitting in the audience at a debate he had a ticket to). Four years and here we are awaiting the Titanic deck chair rearrangement again. Ugh! Keep up the good fight Ralph!
#21 Ben Roark
on March 14, 2008 at 11:55 a.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
Pascal,
You can get caught up in the semantics of my description if you like, but you do so at the expense of missing my point.
Philosophical abstractions are no substitute for cold hard reality, and neither is naive wishful thinking.
It doesn't take a political expert to look over Nader’s positions and realize that he would be more attractive to liberals than he would be to conservatives. And who do liberals typically vote for? Sure, some vote for fringe candidates like Nader or Ron Paul, but a vast majority of liberals vote for Democrats. I don't know a single Nader supporter who happily sits around listening to Limbaugh and Hannity all day.
There is a good reason that Republicans are overjoyed to see Nader running! Here's a hint...it's not because he is another rich white guy.
Like it or not, Nader does attract more voters from the Democratic candidates than he does the Republican candidates. I called it "siphoning", you called it "freely casting votes. Whatever. It doesn't matter what you call it. It's the end result that I am referring to. And that end result is this: Nader’s presence in the election increases the Republicans chance of winning and decreases the Democrats chance of winning. That is the reality of the situation.
I don't know why that simple truth is so hard for you guys above me to admit. After all, both parties are the same in your eyes, so why does it matter whether you subtract from one more than the other?
(Ps: National exit polls showed that Nader supporters preferred Gore over Bush by about a 2/1 margin.)
#22 Ben Roark
on March 14, 2008 at 12:10 p.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
Actually, I should clarify that my primary point of criticism was the original columnists absurd contention that Nader's first amendment rights were somehow being violated simply by democrats not "wanting" him to run. No one has challenged my argument there.
My secondary point, that Nader siphoned votes from Gore and that is why Democrats naturally don't "want" him to run, is the one that I was addressing above.
#23 Dave S
on March 14, 2008 at 8:35 p.m.(Delmar, NY | Unverified Name)
Democrats who don't want Nader to run are one thing... they're entitled to want what they want. Democratic party officials who fight tooth and nail to keep Nader off the ballot, as they did in 2004, can credibly be said to be fighting against democracy, since the very essence of democracy is choice and competition.
Anyway, instant runoff voting would solve the "spoiler" problem, so advocating for instant runoff voting would be a much more effective use of time than playing "what if" with the 2000 election. The solution is in front of us; the progressive thing to do is to implement it.
www.fairvote.org
#24 Pascal
on March 15, 2008 at 1:35 p.m.(Bellevue, WA | Unverified Name)
Ben, I get caught up in semantics because words, and how we use them, point to how people think and perceive the world. Saying that Nader "siphons votes" conjures a mental image of Nader grabbing votes from Gore's pile. The problem is, those votes never belonged to Gore in the first place. They went straight to Nader as intended by free-thinking people.
So, addressing your end result: does Nader running in the race increase the likelihood of a Republican victory? Or does people voting for Nader increase that likelihood? I still maintain that you are directing anger and frustration at one guy, Ralph Nader, instead of directing it at the people who vote for him, who are the true actors in this situation.
Many of those people, by the way, believe that a candidate should earn their votes. They bristle at the thought that Democrats are somehow entitled to the liberal vote. And they don't feel like they're being helplessly siphoned off by Nader, either. These are the people you need to persuade, instead of fixating on Ralph Nader.
I didn't address your primary point because I actually agree with it. You are perfectly within your rights to want Nader to drop out of the race. The way you made your argument, though, is what prompted me to respond.
#25 Ben Roark
on March 15, 2008 at 7:14 p.m.(Edmonds, WA | Unverified Name)
Beyond the semantics it seems we are largely in agreement Pascal.
Candidates "should" earn peoples votes. My analysis of the situation does not suggest otherwise. That doesn't change the political reality of the present and recent past though.
I do find something else interesting Pascal. You have decried the "two party way of thinking" in the essence of you replies, yet you have repeatedly demonstrated that kind of mentality yourself when making assumptions about my own political affiliation. Case in point:
"I still maintain that you are directing anger and frustration at one guy, Ralph Nader, instead of directing it at the people who vote for him, who are the true actors in this situation."
I have demonstrated no anger against anyone. My replies were based on facts, not emotion. Yet you assume, in order for me to take the position I am taking, that I must 1) be a member of one of those dreaded parties and 2) have a personal beef with Ralph Nader. The implication is that an objective analysis of the situation, one which happens to paint Nader supporters in what they feel is an unpleasant light, is not within the realm of possibility. Instead, I must be a partisan Democrat to say what I am saying.
Interesting.
#26 Pascal
on March 15, 2008 at 11:23 p.m.(Bellevue, WA | Unverified Name)
You know, Ben, the only problems I had with your original post was the word "siphon" (and also "spoiler"). It seems you have little interest in semantics, but I urge you to consider how the verb "siphon" constructs a metaphor that may be inconsistent with reality. Have you by any chance read "Politics and the English Language" by George Orwell, or "The Stuff of Thought" by Steven Pinker? If not, I highly recommend both.
Anyway, even though the siphoning metaphor is the tool of angry partisan Democrats, I'll admit that invoking it does not necessarily make you one of them. To lump you in with that category, Ben, was a bit zealous.
#27 Ben Roark
on March 16, 2008 at 11:52 a.m.(Edmonds, WA | Unverified Name)
I understand your problem with the words I used and in the right forum they would be interesting avenues to explore and discuss. But for the purposes of my original reply, which was meant to be quick and to the point, I stand by my description.
I've read the Orwell book you mentioned, though I have not read the Steven Pinker book. I'll look into it and see if it offers anything new on the subject.
I'll also suggest a book of my own, one which takes you beyond the mere theoretical constructs of language and actually looks at them in practice in the mainstream media. It is "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg. Warning: he is a conservative...but any respectable free thinker shouldn't take issue with that.
#28 Reynold
on March 17, 2008 at 2:44 p.m.(None, None | Unverified Name)
Being a superior being of knowledge, I believe correct phrase is "folded like a cheap lawn chair."
Other than that, your column did not <i>sock</i>. I am convinced, and you indeed left me satisfied and smiling.
Yes, I know what you're thinking, and you're right. I am that sophisticated.
Post a comment