Why I support Ralph Nader for President

These days, everybody’s talking about Barack Obama and John McCain. It’s true that Barack Obama and John McCain are not without merit. They both have a measure of honor and integrity: McCain bravely served his country in the military, enduring torture, and Obama, by choice, became a community organizer in Chicago rather than a rich businessman or lawyer, as he could have done. I recognize that, for progressives, “Barack-my-world” Obama is the better, more viable alternative to John McInsane. I recognize that, for conservatives, John McDreamy is the better, more viable alternative to Barack Obama-mania. However, more importantly, I recognize that, for me, Ralph Nader is the best alternative to Barack Obama and John McCain. It seems to me that there is only one main viewpoint on this ThinkYouth website: Barack Obama for President—End of story. Political discussion is mostly limited to the Democratic and Republican nominees for President. In this country, both sides, Republicans and Democrats, dislike and are afraid of the other—enough to vote for one candidate for fear that the opposing candidate may get elected, which is something regarded as dangerous by both sides.

As a result, many people may be turned off by a third-party candidacy. You may be wondering why exactly I am supporting Ralph Nader, of all people, for President of the United States. The answer consists of two main aspects: Nader’s career and history serving citizens of the United States (taking on corporations and the powerful time after time, advocating for consumer safety); and his progressive, intelligent, and civic-minded thoughts on the issues. Frankly, these two aspects make Nader completely different from the two major-party candidates. These things make him unique, irreplaceable, independent, worthy of a vote.

Read more

Election 2008: Ralph Nader in Athens, Georgia

On July 25th, 2008, my father, my thirteen-year-old brother, and I went to go see Ralph Nader, consumer advocate and 2008 Independent Presidential candidate, speak at “Master’s Hall” on the University of Georgia campus in Athens. I had been incredibly excited to see that Nader was coming to Georgia on his “Southern Tour”, and no more than forty miles away from my town, no less! My father, being the good open-minded fellow that he is, agreeably drove myself and my uninterested brother there and paid the $10 each to get in. We each received a free Nader/Gonzalez ‘08 pin for this payment. There was a long table set up just outside the hall for this practice of collecting money, and for collecting signatures on a petition to get Ralph Nader on the ballot in Georgia. The number of signatures necessary to get Nader, or any Independent candidate, on the ballot in Georgia is inane: 42,489 signatures by July 8th. Such ballot access laws are implemented so that independent candidates cannot make a significant challenge to the two major parties in power (who are the ones that make the laws, of course).

The event was at 5:30 in the afternoon; we three were situated in our seats by 5:00, and we watched as the hall filled up with likely about two hundred people. Since Ralph Nader had held an event in Columbia, South Carolina, at 12 o’clock that afternoon, and since he had run into some bad traffic on the way to Athens, he did not arrive at the hall until about 6 o’clock that evening.

After giving a brief press conference upstairs, Nader arrived, amidst a burst of applause. He walked down the aisle, right next to where I was sitting (close enough that I could have touched him, if I lacked judgement and prudence), towards the podium. Nader sat down and briefly rested from his busy schedule while a young African American campaign volunteer, a “concerned citizen”, gave an earnest introductory speech. In this speech, the young man affirmed how much he cared about the country and the issues at hand, and how important it is for everyone to care and be civically involved. And then he said, “And now I am proud to present a more-than-worthy 2008 presidential candidate, Mr. Ralph Nader.” The crowd erupted into applause. This was the moment that we had all been waiting for. We three were not disappointed.
Read more

Politics of Insanity

Over the past couple decades, the American people have seen the incompetence, corruption, and inability to get anything done among the collective group of their elected officials. These elected officials find themselves indebted to lobbyists and corporations who donate to their political campaigns, rather than their constituents, and so they often find it necessary to represent and work for their corporations rather than their constituents. Many Americans these days are probably now wondering, “How do I go about picking a candidate who is competent and able and who is not corrupt, so that I can then vote for them and work for them, so that they can get into office and work for me?”

It is difficult attempting to scrutinize each candidate to try to determine what exactly they are thinking, so I have come up with a better solution to ascertain that the candidate that you elect will work for you, and work hard. For those candidates running for elected office, what the constituents need to do is to all get together, have the candidates in front of them, and then everyone stand back and each throw one dart towards the candidates. I almost can guarantee you that the candidate who receives the most darts will work, and work hard, for his or her constituents. They shan’t want any darts thrown at them again.

But, seriously, friends, there is an incompetence, corruption, and ineffectiveness that seems to be held collectively among our elected officials, with a few exceptions. It also seems to be held, generally, among both of the major political parties. What we, the American people, have essentially been doing these past several decades is swinging back and forth between the Democrats and the Republicans, reverting from one to the other when one does not satisfactorily execute its promises. When we tire of one party, the other party shouts, “Here! We can do all of the things that you want, and more! We shall be a ‘change’ from this other useless party!” But this new party does not deliver on its promises either.

We switch back and forth, finding each party unsatisfactory over and over again, and we expect different results each time the Democrats or each time the Republicans promise to bring different results. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is, according to Albert Einstein, the very definition of insanity.
Read more

Mike Gravel is a Libertarian now?

I have supported Mike Gravel for a long time now. I have always admired his willingness to call out the liars within the Democratic establishment. I have supported the National Initiative for Democracy, which is an idealistic and romantic idea of how the system should work. Gravel’s Fair Tax is also idealistic and romantic, however, the problem with the Fair Tax is that it is unfair, but really that is another matter.

Quite a few times throughout his campaign I have wondered why Senator Gravel has done certain things. Some of them do come across as crazy and a little bit wacky. In one video Gravel is seen on a street corner with Ron Paul supporters trying to set up a debate with Paul and another time Gravel dressed up as Santa Claus for a special holiday musical video. Neither of these times, was I really concerned that Mike Gravel did not deserve my support.

However, last night Senator Gravel announced that he would be switching parties and joining the Libertarians.

I wanted to update you on my latest plans before news gets out. Today, I am announcing my plan to join the Libertarian Party, because the Democratic Party no longer represents my vision for our great country. I wanted my supporters to get this news first, because you have been the ones who have kept my campaign alive since I first declared my candidacy on April 17, 2006.

I completely agree with the criticisms about the Democratic Party, however the Libertarian Party is the wrong direction to go. It is said that the two pillars of the Libertarian Party are “greed and weed.” I am a Liberal, I believe in helping the working poor. So really, I could never support a candidate who entered the same party Ron Paul shied away from. I don’t know who I will support now, I may stick with Gravel. The other options are a celebrity speech reader and a famous wife of a famous president. Nader of course, is a possibility, but maybe that is too cliché.

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.

Why not Gravel or Nader or both?

“I think the job of the Democratic Party is to be so compelling that a few percentage [points] of the vote going to another candidate is not going to make any difference.”
-Barack Obama

http://gravel08.us