By Stephen Sears
Ralph Nader has been a prominent liberal voice for decades. He is arguably the most famous consumer advocate of the past 50 years. A legitimate presidential candidate in 2004 he ain’t.
Nader, who turns 70 Friday, announced on “Meet the Press” last Sunday that he plans to run for president as an Independent.
“There’s too much power and wealth in too few hands,” he told moderator Tim Russert. He bemoaned the “two-part duopoly” and also shot back at critics who say he is a spoiler. “A spoiler is a contemptuous term, as if anybody who dares to challenge the two-party system is a spoiler, and we’ve got to fight that.”
His words sound very nice, and are true in many respects, but he has the potential to turn the election. Liberal voters, who remember what happened in 2000, are the only ones who can stop him.
We all know the story of the Presidential Election four years ago, except for Nader of course. If he does not remember, let me remind him. Al Gore lost Florida by a scant 573 votes to George W. Bush. Nader won 97,488 votes in the Sunshine State. It is safe to say that had Nader not run, Gore would have received more than 537 of those nearly 100,000 votes. That gives him the presidency.
Many Democrats explicitly blame Nader for Gore’s defeat in Florida, and subsequently, the entire election. This is unfair. Gore, behind a strong economic record and eight years as vice president, against a thoroughly inexperienced, uninspiring candidate, should have won easily. He also lost his home state of Tennessee, an unacceptable and stupefying occurrence. It should not have come down to Nader’s votes, but it did. Nader appealed to disillusioned liberals with refreshing, outsider rhetoric.
“The only difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is the velocities with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door. That’s the only difference,” he told an Amherst College crowd four years ago. “The two parties … are becoming one corporate party, with two heads wearing different makeup, and that is not a good enough choice for the American people.”
He received 2.7 percent of the vote on Nov. 7 and quickly disappeared.
Until now. And this time, he will deserve the blame if the Democrats lose another close election to Bush.
This coming election will feature a Democratic senator from either Massachusetts or North Carolina who will face a huge, efficient political machine with the power of the White House and hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign money.
This time around, there can be no schisms between idealistic liberals and pragmatic Democrats.
While some may rightly decry the spinelessness of the Democrats, it is wrong to say there is no difference. Do you really think a Bush White House would have the same priorities as a Kerry or Edwards White House? Are Tom Daschle and Tom DeLay kindred political brothers? Absolutely not.
This is the most head-scratching part of Nader’s decision. He wants cleaner air. He wants workers and consumers’ rights. He wants what a Democratic administration can possibly deliver. Yet he runs — knowing full well that he will not win — but he may well attract votes away from the Democrats.
He cannot be the protest candidate he was in 2000. Howard Dean has already played that role, and played that role with far better results than Nader did in 2000. A protest vote from an idealistic liberal will only broaden Karl Rove’s smile.
So what drove this decision? Ego? Stubbornness? Delusion? I have no idea. But a man as smart as Nader must know that he is a spoiler.
What he also should know is the backlash that is sure to come his way. As rumors swirled about Nader’s announcement this month, a Web site (www.RalphDontRun.net) experienced a significant upsurge. The site usually received 100 hits a day.
Following the rumors, the number ballooned to 9,000. High-ranking democrats, like Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe and California Senator Dianne Feinstein, have already expressed their fears. The magazine, The Nation, practically begged him not to run. There will be more such actions to come.
Sadly though, it is too late to change Nader’s mind. But it is not too late for the voters. I am talking to you, idealistic liberals here in Massachusetts or in Missouri, Florida, New Hampshire or Ohio. You proudly showed your Nader/LaDuke bumper stickers four years ago and that was fine and if you choose to do so this time, then so be it. Just remember, your votes could tip the scales and put one of the more extremist administrations in recent history in power for another four years.
Less corporate regulations. More wars most likely. Restricted civil rights. Public service cuts. These and more for a protest vote. That’ll show ’em.
–Stephen Sears can be reached at
