Making the Best of Nader’s Run
To the chagrin of Democrats, Ralph Nader has chosen to run for what will be his 40th quixotic campaign for the Presidency. Why are we annoyed? We’re annoyed because we thought he cost us the election in 2000 (the oft-cited, convenient, and lazy excuse for that loss); we’re annoyed because he takes away votes from potential Democrats. The Democratic establishment’s disgruntlement stems from Nader’s willingness to talk about issues (Washington corporatism) that exposes the hypocrisy of the party base.With the Republicans split and reeling, McCain running for Bush’s 3rd term, and the entire planet obsessing over Barack Obama, now is the time for Democrats to pursue an unabashedly progressive agenda, and Ralph Nader can provide a voice of constructive ideas for the creation of this agenda that was silenced with the exit of John Edwards. The only camp that stands to lose are the folks in the second group, the Corporate Democrats.
Of any of Ralph Nader’s campaigns in the 21st century, this one has the potential (for the reasons listed above) to be the most effective in encouraging discourse on his ultra-liberal platform. Consider this the second coming of John Edwards, a man who set the agenda for the Democratic race and received the endorsement of Mr. Nader before dropping out. Edwards proved that because Republicans have lost credibility in both the economic and foreign policy arenas, 2 areas where they traditionally monopolize credibility, we can start pursuing policies that were previously dismissed as fiscally irresponsible (universal healthcare) or not politically feasible (leaving Iraq).
Unfortunately, we ended up with Senator Barack Obama, who, as I mentioned in my previous article, Beef with Barack, is the status quo candidate. Obama’s revolutionary vision for the future of America, an America that transcends the limits of partisan politics does so through the corporatisation of universal healthcare? Nader wouldn’t have entered the race if Obama showed some fortitude against the special interests that have been dominating Washington (Remember McCain’s challenge to Obama regarding public financing?). It is these issues that Nader, who, unlike Edwards, can raise with his trademark erudite condescension without regard to his public persona, to improve on an election that shows great promise for progressives and no sign of Democratic defeat. I would even say that Nader, in the absence of anyone else doing so, has the responsibility of raising these issues (though I wish it didn’t have to take the form of a presidential run). Why does policy have to continue to be filtered through corporate interest?
Nader, if you actually give him a chance to say anything, raises some issues that mainstream politicians don’t dare broach. The Israeli occupation of Palestine is a big one that comes to mind. Voter suppression, bloated military budget (Obama wants to increase the size of the military) are others. These are issues that people care about, and because they get caught in the filter of special interest, are taken off the table.
Now is the time to transcend these political taboos; with so many people blindly drinking the Obama cult’s Kool-Aid, I think he can afford to slip in some more progressive policies. While you may loathe Mr. Nader’s candidacy, he’s not going to pull another “2000” and may even (with the help of the blogosphere?) help shift our discussion a bit further to the left to incorporate the unheard champions of common sense.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...Matthew Beck is a 23 year old Chicagoan who is currently doing some freelance political writing. He will be attending George Washington University in the fall. View all posts by Matthew Beck.
I have two points to make to this argument of Nader’s ability to shift the political dialogue or expand it. First, Nader can only effect the conversation if he is allowed into it, which I do not think he will. In this specific way he does have a negative affect, and maybe even some positive effect, but not too significant because not only is he ignored and mocked by the media, until the green party passes a threshold he will not be able to participate in any debates. So, one might answer, then voting for him may get him past that threshold and into the debate next time around, which brings me to my second point.
Nader is not bad for the democratic process, but he is bad for the Democrats. Most of his criticisms are directed at the Democratic party’s hypocrisy and many of his voters are ones that would have (perhaps grudgingly) voted for the Democrats. In this way his negative affects is isolated to a party that may produce universal health care, assistance for college tuition, take us out of a unjustified bloody war, and many other positive policies. His success means some division of the American left between the Green party and the Democratic party, which would likely push the latter towards a more centrist position in order to be able to compete with a unified republican party. (The party mergers of the past were a result of a desire to win or a need to compete with other merged parties.)
Finally, and in culmination, we would be better off electing more liberal local and state representatives, as well as congressmen, if we want to push the conversation left. It is far more likely that the Democratic party could be pushed left internally then the national debate could be shifted externally. Let’s push for Nader’s ideals within the party, shifting it, taking power, and really changing politics. We shouldn’t shy away from competition, but calling Nader ‘competition’ is an overstatement.
28 February 2008 at 6:29 pm