Nader Vs. Kerry: The Liberal’s Dilemma
Last week, we witnessed the culmination of a long and
interesting Democratic primary race. With his sweeping victories on
“Super Tuesday,” John Kerry was able to claim with virtual
certainty the Democratic nomination for president. His closest
competitor, John Edwards, has resigned from the race, and no
remaining candidates have even a remote chance. To most mainstream
voters, therefore, it seems that only two candidates – Bush and
Kerry – matter now.
But those who remember the photo-finish 2000 election know that
there is another candidate who cannot so easily be dismissed. Ralph
Nader, icon of the populist left and longtime figurehead for the
Green Party, became notorious in 2000 when he was accused by
Democrats of being the “spoiler.” Nader primarily received votes
from those who would otherwise have supported Democratic candidate
Al Gore. Had those votes gone to Gore, it is argued, Bush’s thin
margin of victory would have disappeared and Vice President Gore
would have been President Gore.
Now that Nader has announced his intention to run for the
presidency again (this time as an Independent), the “spoiler”
argument is back in full force. Moreover, it is safe to say that
there is a much broader base of support for Kerry than there was
for Gore in 2000. This is not because of Kerry’s virtues, but
because of the current administration’s (alleged) defects. Poll
after poll has demonstrated that liberals are primarily concerned
with one thing this election year: evicting Bush from the White
House. By standing in the way of this goal, Nader is likely to draw
much criticism from Democrats (and, ironically, praise from
pragmatic conservatives.)
Now, I’ll be the first to praise Ralph Nader’s career. He has
been a tireless and selfless advocate of the democratic process and
the rights of citizens. He has adhered to his left-of-Democratic
values for over forty years, through all the controversy that such
reformers face. He was a key advocate for the creation of the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Health and
Safety Administration. A large part of the environmental and
consumer advocacy movements of the past few decades can be traced
directly back to his activism.
Furthermore, Nader’s present concerns are just as incisive and
relevant. He calls for the investigation and elimination of
corporate crime in the period of Enron and “outsourcing.” He calls
for electoral reforms – such as full public funding of elections –
that go far beyond anything Congress has done to bring the
electoral process back to the common citizen. It is concerns like
these that drew 3 percent of voters in 2000 to the Green
ticket.
The problem with all of this, of course, is that such proposals
are so far removed from the mainstream that Nader has little to no
chance of ending up in the White House. Thus, his campaign in such
an important (to Democrats) election year can be interpreted in one
of two ways: as an admirable display of principle or as a selfish
and antagonistic ego trip.
For me, it is hard to see Nader’s campaign as anything but the
latter. As one of those who thinks that the critical goal this year
is the defeat of the Bush/Cheney behemoth, I find that criticism of
Nader is, in such a year, all too valid.
Judging from a recent AP poll, voters are as divided between
Kerry and Bush as they were in October of 2000 between Gore and
Bush. While much can happen in the next seven months of
campaigning, it is unlikely that there will be a dramatic change in
this split and therefore the election will probably be very close.
Now in that same AP poll, about 6 percent of respondents said they
would most likely vote for Nader. Assuming that most of this 6
percent would vote Kerry if Nader was not in the race, it is easy
to see why fears of Nader “spoiling” the election again are well
founded.
It is true that John Kerry is not exactly the ideal candidate
for those of us left of the center. His support for the PATRIOT Act
and the war in Iraq along with his endorsement of Bush’s tax cuts
(among other things) show that he is unlikely to bring any radical
proposals to the table in his bid for the presidency. Nontheless,
it is agreed Kerry is “better than Bush” and this is really what
liberal voters are looking for so desperately in 2004.
So what do I propose Nader should do? He could drop out, but I
think the more effective use of his appeal would be to campaign for
Kerry. This would involve some ideological compromises, surely, but
by throwing his support behind Kerry, Nader would not only direct
his loyal voters to a more practical means of effecting change but
he would put pressure on Kerry to consider proposals outside of his
present platform. The combination of the two candidates would be a
formidable obstacle for the Bush campaign, and might just be the
only thing that will give liberals the edge in November.
Brent is a freshman is studying philosophy. His column runs
every Tuesday.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.