Ralph Nader is the man, contrary to popular belief.

Since Ralph Nader announced that he will once again run for President this morning, the blogosphere has been abuzz with negativity and outright hostility. Glade at Cobalt 6 is quite blunt in stating:

Ralph, you cost Al Gore Florida and the election. You sentenced us to 8 long years of lost rights, environmental damage, misguided war, and the list goes on and on. Ralph you can blast the “liberal intelligentsia” and say Gore should have won Tennessee or that the Supreme Court stopped the vote count. It all sounds hollow. I, for one, will never sign a petition to put Nader on the Virginia ballot.

I couldn’t help but think (respectfully, of course) that the wording of this statement is entirely ambiguous, as it acknowledges the two biggest factors in Al Gore’s 2000 defeat - political thievery and poor showings in states that could easily have gone blue - yet still paints Ralph Nader as the sole culprit. Another major factor not taken into account by Glade is the 250,000 Florida Democrats who jumped party lines to vote for George W. Bush.

I have never subscribed to the theory that Ralph Nader cost anybody anything in 2000. On Meet The Press, Mr. Nader mentioned a GMU professor (Solon Simmons) by name who argues that, by moving Mr. Gore to the left in 2000 with his aggressive, resolutely left-of-center rhetoric, Nader may have actually delivered more votes to the Democrats than he took away.

I have no trouble believing that such was the case, and I expect it to be the case again this year (to what extent, I could not guess). Indeed, that’s the kind of effect that should be welcome by Liberal commentators such as Glade, who has written on Cobalt 6 in support of things like impeachment and single-payer healthcare, but who, on factually unstable grounds, passionately castigates the only candidate for president who supports both impeachment and single-payer healthcare.

I suppose that I’m just too much of a populist to believe that any candidate for any office who raises legitimate issues and makes fair points is anything but an asset to a democratic nation at the end of the day. Therefore, it should come as no surprise to anyone that I also don’t believe that a vote for such a candidate (regardless of their chances of winning) is a wasted one, as long as whomever is casting that vote does so on the grounds that they genuinely believe they are voting for the best candidate.

Lowell at Raising Kaine, with whom I usually agree, says:

In 2000, Nader helped give us George W. Bush as president. Will he help give us Bush Part Deux this year? Check out Meet the Press for the thrilling scintillating news this morning.

He expounds on his position in a subsequent comment:

[I think it’s pretty much an objective fact] that Ralph Nader’s candidacy contributed to Al Gore’s defeat in 2000. Now, whether it contributed 1%, 10%, or whatever, I don’t know, but still, I think we can all agree that it was a factor. By the way, I say this as someone who greatly admires the work Ralph Nader’s done in his life.

Lowell at least words his criticism of Nader’s candidacy in a way that acknowledges the existence of more than one variable in the negative outcome of the 2000 election. Of course, if you subscribe to the theories of scholars like Solon Simmons, then you don’t believe (like Lowell does) that Nader was a negative factor to even the slightest degree. In fact, you believe that he helped the Democratic party. If you do believe that Nader was a negative factor, I hope you’ll take a look at the big picture and also concede that his impact was so truly minimal when compared to some of the other factors in play, that blaming him for the misery of the last 8 years is complete nonsense.

A blogger who I greatly respect, Anonymous Is A Woman, commented earlier on Vivian Paige’s Nader-themed post:

I remember when Ralph Nader was a serious and extremely respected crusader who took on the auto issue on life saving issues. It’s sad that he is destined to end his legacy as a spoiler and the punch line of late night jokes.

I disagree with a couple of AIAW’s points. The first point is her characterization of Nader as a spoiler. I’ve already discussed in detail why I do not consider this to be an entirely accurate assessment of his past presidential bids. Another portion of AIAW’s comment that I didn’t agree with was her characterization of Ralph Nader as a crusader on life saving issues in the past tense. Criticisms of Nader almost always come attached to praise of his early days as an activist; the halcyon days of Nader, if you will. Days fondly remembered, but existing only in the past.

What seems to be ignored, however, is that fact that the days of Nader’s activism and crusading on behalf of average Americans are certainly not gone, nor has he, in my opinion, devolved into the electoral nuisance and laughingstock that he has been accused by many of being.

Most political scientists would probably agree that that the manner in which America was formed - and the manner in which it has evolved - make a two-party system, not only inevitable, but also necessary. Democracy in America depends upon compromise, and that compromise comes from having two major parties that, essentially, hug the middle of the road on every major issue. The Democrats stay slightly to the left of center, while Republicans stay slightly to the right. This creates enough difference between the two parties to allow for contrasts, but leaves a number of similarities between them sufficient to make compromise possible.

Independents and third parties like Ralph Nader have historically played a very important role in this dynamic. That role, of course, is changing the direction of the overall discussion; pressing major party candidates to talk about controversial “third rail” issues, and presenting ideas, some of which might create so much excitement and support that the two major parties have no choice but to react to them, either by adopting the idea as their own or taking a firm stance in opposition to it.

The fact is, I’m a Democrat; a proud one, and one of the duties that I believe comes with applying that label to myself is making sure that everyone’s voice is heard and everyone’s vote counted. From the party platform:

Voting is the foundation of democracy, a central act of civic engagement, and an expression of equal citizenship. Voting rights are important precisely because they are protective of all other rights. We will call for legislative action that will fully protect and enforce the fundamental Constitutional right of every American to vote — to ensure that the Constitution’s promise is fully realized and that, in disputed elections, every vote is counted fully and fairly.

How it is even remotely in step with the Democratic Party platform to tell 2,882,995 people that they wasted their vote, when the fact is that they overwhelmingly voted for him because they believed he was the best candidate? How is it Democratic to say that Ralph Nader - a candidate capable of receiving nearly 3 million American votes - shouldn’t have even run because he was destined to fail? Quite simply, I don’t believe that it is.

Manufactured Populism

Let’s play “Guess the candidate!”. I’ll write a few lines about different 2008 presidential candidates (all facts, no opinion, although I am selective about my information), Republican and Democrat, and then you guess who it happens to be. Most of my information comes from whitehouseforsale.org, opensecrets.com, or vote-smart.org (I recommend these websites; you should definitely take a look at them if you would like to know more about the current state of our government).

#1: This first candidate that I will mention has the most money bundlers out of all of the candidates: he or she has 543 money bundlers (or people who funnel large amounts of money to campaigns), one of which is a lobbyist. He or she has raised less than $30 million dollars, but he or she has raised over $8 million of that money from lawyers or law firms.

#2: The second candidate has raised the most from Lobbyists (over $500,000), and he or she has also raised the most from lawyers and law firms as well, at over $9 million dollars. He or she has taken the largest amount from commercial banks ($919,000), the second largest amount from Hedge Funds and Private Equity Firms ($970,000), and the first largest amount from the Pharmaceuticals/Health Products industry ($269,000). He or she has 322 money bundlers, 18 of which are lobbyists.

#3: The third candidate has taken over $70,000 from lobbyists, has taken the second largest amount from the commercial banks ($879,000), has taken the third largest amount from Hedge Funds and Private Equity Firms ($950,000), and has taken the second largest amount from the Pharmaceuticals/Health Products industry ($261,000). He or she has 314 money bundlers, eight of which are lobbyists.

What’s more, none of these three candidates will pledge to have the United States out of the Iraq War by 2013, the end of their first term.

Who are these three candidates? They must be Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain? No, indeed, they are three supposedly “completely different” candidates. They, in order, are John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. Don’t believe my facts? Check them yourself. Although, to be fair, the Republicans are just as bad (you just expect more out of the Democrats), and, notably, Rudy Giuliani took vastly more money from the Oil and Gas Industry than any other candidate.

It is a direct contradiction if you claim to run a political campaign based on populist values but finance that campaign with the money of businesses and special interests. The supposed populism of the Democratic Party is manufactured populism; it does not really exist, we just percieve it to exist because of how the Democratic Party attempts to present itself. If you broadly survey the two political parties, they look very different, but, if you look closely enough, there are few substansial differences between the Democrats and Republicans when it comes to how they operate: they are all Demoblicans.

The reality of the situation is that, if you want a good candidate the truly represents you, you must not vote solely on the basis of which political party they occupy: you must vote by carefully weighing and examining each candidate’s individual aspects, like a good and informed voter should. You should examine which candidates truly represent the people, not the businesses and special interests, and, in my opinion, the only major presidential candidates (that I know of) who even begin to fit that bill are Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and Ron Paul.

You may say that “Well, the Democrats are better than the Republicans though, so I vote Democratic.” Our society presents you with a false choice between either Democrats or Republicans. You do have other choices. Not just the Independent candidates, but the Green Party, Populist Party, and countless others as well. The Democrats and Republicans, however, have made such a good effort to stamp out these smaller parties and the Independent candidates that you really see very little of them. An example of this is Georgia’s very unfair ballot access laws.

In conclusion, the Republicans and the Democrats are not so different after all; the Democrats just present us with a manufactured image of populism, while the Republicans usually don’t attempt to do so. The infighting between the Democrats and the Republicans in our society distracts us from the real fight: the struggle between those who have power and those who have none, the struggle between the people and the politicians.