He's Done It Again

Ralph Nader has announced a third-party run for President -- again. I first met Ralph in the 1970's and had an opportunity to work with him and some members of his public interest group, Public Citizen, on litigation involving thousands of innocent citizens paralyzed with Guillain-Barre Syndrome as the result of swine flu vaccinations. I have been an admirer of his devotion to public interest causes for three decades. That said, I am not and have not been a supporter of his four previous runs for the White House and am not a supporter of this one either. I am not sure whether these political efforts are a function of pure idealism or a healthy dose of ego or some combination of both. What I am sure of is that the result in 2000 -- regardless of whether it was inadvertent or intentional -- was to further the cause of policies which are or should be an absolute anathema to Mr. Nader.

His argument then and again today is that he did not contribute to the Bush victory in 2000 -- Gore and the Democrats lost the election for themselves and needed and got no help from him. While there is a certain amount of truth to that argument, I don't entirely agree. Ralph is certainly a very intelligent and knowledgeable man. He understands how closely divided this country is and that his natural constituency comes generally from the left end of the political spectrum -- not the middle and certainly not the right. In other words, his 2000 candidacy picked the political pockets of Al Gore -- not George Bush. This year, Ralph Nader, as the uberpopulist, will be skimming votes from Barack Obama (or possibly Hillary Clinton) -- certainly not John McCain.

I am not worried that Ralph may once again snatch 2-3% of the popular vote nationwide. My concern is that he may put one or two states into play -- say, for example, Florida or Ohio. Or some of the other so-called "red" or "purple" states in which Obama has done quite well during the primaries and caucuses but which may be very close in the general election. Under our electoral college system, several of those states (or even one perhaps) could once again swing the entire presidential election to the Republican candidate.

I do not pretend to be smarter or more savvy than Ralph Nader. He knows and understands these issues better than me. Therefore, my questions to him are "Why are you really doing this if the result could be to promote the election of a candidate who remains committed to the current war in Iraq and who generally favors and is currently pandering to the continuation of those Republican Party principles and corporate welfare you so vehemently oppose?" and "If you do appreciate that potential consequence, is what will amount to no more than a mere nod to the principle of dissent worth the sacrifice of so many of the other principles to which you have devoted your life's work?"

I do not believe this presidential run contributes to the proud and impressive legacy of that life's work of accomplishment. I also do not believe Ralph cares about that personal legacy. Although it is possible -- given the Quixotic nature of this newly announced candidacy -- that I could be misjudging him on this account. To be true to my own core principles, I defend Ralph Nader's right to do this. I am sure he would defend my right to criticize him for it and would certainly agree, I think, that I do not have to like it. And, I don't.