Feb 28 2008
Why Nader Matters
When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, as a rule the majority are wrong. The minority are right.
–Eugene Debs
Five times, Eugene Debs ran for president, including once while imprisoned for violating the Espionage Act by criticizing U.S. involvement in World War I. Five times he lost badly, never winning more than 6 percent of the vote. Yet, despite his lack of success, he continued to run, and run, and run.
What makes a man spit in the face of conventional knowledge, shake off the guarantee of sure defeat, and toss his hat into the presidential ring over and over again?
On CNN on Tuesday night, news anchor Anderson Cooper posed that question to perennial presidential candidate Ralph Nader, who had just announced his fifth run for president.
Cooper: Do you worry that your reputation will be tainted? I mean, all the things you have accomplished thus far, will people just see this as some farcical and narcissistic run?
Nader: I’m a fighter for justice, Anderson. When there’s perennial injustice you have got to keep going after it.
Nader, who turned seventy-four yesterday, is best known for his exhaustive accomplishments in areas of environmental preservation, auto safety, and corporate regulation. His early clashes with the automobile industry were integral in the passage of the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which mandated a series of safety features that were previously not included in cars. His actions drew such ire from GM that they hired call girls to seduce him and detectives to dig up dirt on him. As a result, Nader successfully sued them for $425,000 for invasion of privacy.
He used the money to found the first of hundreds of nationwide Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGS). Composed of college-aged staff and volunteers, these grassroots organizations–often referred to as Naders’s raiders–joined with Nader to champion government reforms such as the Freedom of Information Act, the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Consumer Protection Agency.
Mr. Nader is also the direct cause of a significant piece of airline reform that affects all of us. Bumped from an overbooked Allegheny Airlines flight in 1972, he successfully sued the airline for $50,000. As a result, airlines were forced to compensate individuals they bumped from flights.
But despite the fact that he’s accumulated a progressive legislative record more formidable than Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama combined, Mr. Nader has become the whipping boy of the liberal intelligentsia as of late.
Earlier this week, Democrats across the country frowned menacingly at Nader’s announcement that he’d be running again. They cursed him, they mocked him, and they whispered his name like it was a rare form of cancer while balling up their fists and hissing.
The liberal media were angry as well:
[Nader] remains as obstinate, prickly, and egotistical as ever,” said the New Jersey Star-Ledger.
“Nader: Unsafe at Any Age,” headlined the Louisville Courier-Journal.
Current Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama also reacted hostilely to Nader’s announcement. Mrs. Clinton stated that Nader is “responsible” for George Bush, while Obama alleged that Nader “doesn’t know what he’s talking about.” In addition, an article at Politico.com reported that Democrats had already committed to preventing Nader for accumulating votes by “working behind the scenes and using court challenges.” These are the same tactics that the Democrats utilized in 2004 and that are currently the target of a lawsuit by Nader—who alleges the Democrats abused the court system in 2004 by filing frivolous lawsuits to keep him off the ballot.
The Democrats main irritation involving Nader is their belief that he’s responsible for George Bush’s victory in 2000, and has the potential to swing the 2008 election to the GOP as well. The sheer math of the 2000 election returns seem to validate their concern. Nader won over 96,000 votes in Florida in 2000, while Gore lost by only 542 votes to Bush. Since a higher percentage of Nader voters would have gravitated to Gore than Bush, many Democrats find it appropriate to scapegoat Nader for Bush’s victory.
This may be a convenient line of reasoning, but it’s not a sensible one.
There were myriad ways that the Gore could have triumphed in 2000. He could have won his home state of Tennessee, he could have captured the close race in New Hampshire, or he could have done a better job of winning the Democratic vote in Florida, just to name a few. Twelve percent of Florida Democrats voted for Bush, and if even 1% of them had voted for Gore, he would have won. It makes just as much sense to blame those voters, to blame Gore, or to blame the DNC, than to blame Mr. Nader.
In fact, blaming Nader for Gore’s 2000 loss is the equivalent of blaming a slow elevator for getting to work a minute late. Sure, the elevator seems like a convenient excuse, as it’s an easy scapegoat. But, if you had set your alarm earlier, not hit the snooze ten times, forgone flossing your teeth, jogged out the door, run a red light, found a found a better parking spot, or taken the stairs you probably would have arrived on time.
Many also feel Nader’s run to be unjustified because they assume he’s just a slightly liberal version of the Democrats, which is about as sensible as saying the Democrats are just a slightly more liberal version of Mr. McCain.
Mr. Nader holds distinctly different opinions than Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton. He would create a true single-payer healthcare system, which neither Democrat will pursue. He would drastically cut the defense budget, which they will continue to fund at equal levels, and he would aggressively pursue environmental and corporate regulation to a degree much higher than either Democratic candidate desires.
Lastly, he would force the issue of third party ballot access, while the Democrats have and will continue to fight tooth and nail to prevent Americans from having the chance to vote for Mr. Nader or any other candidate that threatens their “liberal sovereignty.”
In 2004, Nader met with Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, who wanted to work to win the support of Nader and his voters. Nader provided over 20 pages of issues ranging from environmental protections, labor, healthcare and tax reform to Kerry. He told Kerry that if he highlighted three of these issues in his campaign he would refrain from running. Kerry failed to act, and later lost to George Bush.
If the Democrats continue to obfuscate democracy and scapegoat Mr. Nader for his desire to make the political process a more diverse one, they deserve the same fate in 2008.