Lay off Nader
Saturday, February 28th, 2004I don’t like Ralph Nader’s politics one bit, and I would be frightened if he became our nation’s leader. However, he should be a part of this presidential election. Not because his entry will particularly benefit one candidate, but because American voters deserve a range of choices in their most important election. And the flurry of personal attacks directed at Nader that have come out in the past week reinforces two of the most negative stereotypes about American liberals: that they are elitists who think they know what is best for voters and that they save their most vicious attacks for those considered to be traitors to their cause.
The premise of many attacks is that Nader cost Gore the 2000 election, and that he may do the same to the 2004 candidate. I am skeptical of the claim about the 2000 election (although its relevance is more emotional than factual). It is true that Nader captured enough votes in Florida to swing the state, and that if only a modest proportion of these voters would have voted for Gore over Bush in a Nader-less race Gore could have won. But this ignores the two ways that Nader’s candidacy generated votes for Gore. First of all, thousands of voters engaged in illegal internet-based pacts in which they promised to vote for Gore in close states (like Florida) in exchange for voters in other state voting for Nader. Also, by presenting himself as a credible left-wing candidate, Nader validated Gore’s stance as a moderate, which surely helped him capture independent voters. As hard as it is to say what Nader’s impact was on the last election, it is harder to see how he will affect the next one. History indicates that third-party candidates tend to have less impact the second time around, and my gut tells me that Dean has exhausted a lot of the activist support that Nader will need. But then again, I have been wrong in almost every other prediction I have made about this race. More importantly, whether Nader can tip the scales is an issue that each voter can consider in deciding which candidate to support. Candidates should and will articulate the benefits of voting for major party candidate (which the Gore campaign did a decent job of by focusing on the idea that Bush would appoint several Supreme Court Justices, although that seems pretty silly in retrospect). But it is not appropriate to try to taunt Nader into leaving an election just because one fears that voters might like him.
American voters are not dumb. They understand that the presidential vote they get to cast every four years matters, both in terms of who governs the country and what signals it sends about the direction our nation should go. These are often difficult factors to reconcile, but voters make decisions they can live with and vote accordingly. All Americans should understand that their vote can make a difference in determining both who wins and what lessons they learn from the election. The last election certainly helped reinforce that belief. Many voters believe that the most important thing in this election is for Bush to lose, and they will vote for a Democratic candidate. Nader believe that Americans aren’t well served by our two parties and desperately need an alternative. Some voters will agree and support him with their vote. Howard Howard Dean captured the heart of the Democratic Party by suggesting that voters need to find candidates with ideals they can agree with, not just pragmatically follow pundits looking for winners. Numerous third-party candidates run in every election trying to appeal to principles underserved by major party candidates. Mainstream politicians generally do not attack them for being ‘egotistical’. If anything, they are criticized for being too idealistic. Nader deserves the same treatment, and the same opportunity to battle for supporters based on his ideas. Americans are smart enough to make good political decisions, and the idea that Nader shouldn’t run because his supporters might vote for him because they don’t ‘know what’s best’ is elitism at its crassest.
This week did not bring out the best in the Democratic camp. (However they still managed not to advocate a reprehensible Consitutional amendment dedicated to abridging Americans’ civil rights, which probably puts them ahead.) It will be instructive to see how long Nader stays in the race, and how he is treated by both sides.
