A Bush Win In 2004 Will Destroy The Nader Legacy

More than any other single person, Ralph Nader is responsible for the fact that George W. Bush is President of the United States. Nader is more responsible than Al Gore, who, in 2000, put himself in the clear by persuading more of his fellow-citizens to vote for him than for anybody else, which normallyÑin thirty-nine of the forty-two previous Presidential elections, or ninety-three per centÑhad been considered adequate to fulfill the candidateÕs electoral duty. Nader is more responsible than George W. Bush, whose alibi complements GoreÕs: by attracting fewer votes, both nationally and (according to the preponderance of scientific opinion) in Florida, Bush absolved himself of guilt for his own elevation. A post-election roguesÕ galleryÑJeb Bush, James Baker, Katherine Harris, William Rehnquist and four of his Supreme Court colleaguesÑhelped, each rogue in his or her own way, but no single one of them could have pulled off the heist without the help of the others. Nader was sufficient unto himself.

For the past three years, everything Nader accomplished during his period of unparalleled creativity, which lasted from around 1963 to around 1976, has been systematically undermined by the Administration that he was instrumental in putting in power. Government efforts on behalf of clean air and water, fuel efficiency, workplace safety, consumer protection, and public health have been starved, stymied, or sabotaged in tandem with the shift of resources from public purposes to high-end private consumption, the increasing identity of government and corporate interests, and the growth of a cult of secrecy and arrogance that began well before September 11, 2001. Nader bears a very large share of responsibility for these spectacular traducements of his proclaimed values. So it is quite a tribute to the brilliance of his early achievements that an argument can still be made that the net effect of his career has been positive.

That argument will no longer be plausible if Nader succeeds in doing in 2004 what he did in 2000. This time, though, he is unlikely to garner enough strategically placed votes to push the electoral college past the tipping point. Neither before nor after his announcement last week that he will try to get on the ballot in all fifty states was there the slightest sign of enthusiasm for his candidacy. The liberal and leftish outlets that serve what was once his natural constituency overflowed with critiques that ranged from mournful disavowal to bitter denunciation, some of them written by former supporters. The Democratic Party, meanwhile, is in the final stages of a primary campaign that has been as amicable as any in living memory. Thanks to President Bush and the passionate wish of the Democratic rank and file to see the back of him, the Democrats are more united and energized, and less beguiled by the narcissism of small differences, than ever.

ItÕs safe to predict that Nader will come nowhere near matching the 2.9 million votes he got in 2000. HeÕll be lucky to get half of the 685,000 he got in 1996. His reasons for running, as he announced them in an interview with Tim Russert on ÒMeet the Press,Ó donÕt add up. ÒDo you believe,Ó Russert asked him, Òthat there would be a difference between a George Bush Administration and a John Kerry or a John Edwards Administration on judicial nominations, on tax cuts, on environmental enforcement?ÓÊÒYes,Ó Nader said, but he went on to say that Òcorporate government remains in Washington, whether itÕs Democrats or RepublicansÓÑas if the Supreme Court, the tax code, and the environment were bagatelles. ÒThis candidacy is not going to get many Democratic Party votes,Ó Nader admittedÑor lamented, or promised (it was hard to tell which)Ñat a press conference the next day. He noted that he faces Òoverwhelming opposition by the liberal intelligentsia,Ó and added, ÒI think this may be the only candidacy in our memory that is opposed overwhelmingly by people who agree with us on the issues.Ó His strategy, therefore, is to get votes from people who disagree with him on the issuesÑi.e., Republicans who, he suggested, will support him because they donÕt like the Bush deficits. Also, he argued, he will help Democrats win congressional seats. Also, his candidacy will constitute Òanother frontÓ against Bush. A fifth column is more like it.

Ralph Nader turned seventy last Friday. If a Democrat is elected President in November, then the old crusaderÕs 2004 campaign will be merely a happily inconsequential ending to the story of a life spent mostly in creative service. If Bush is elected to a second term, then four more years of Bush policies, Bush deficits, and Bush judges will likely undo what remains of NaderÕs positive legacy. But if Nader once again succeeds in making himself the decisive factor in a Bush victory, then his legacy will be less than zero. --Hendrik Hertzberg, The New Yorker, 03.08.04

Nader: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves

"George Bush is a giant corporation in the White House, masquerading as a human being." --Ralph Nader, 02.22.04

Given his beliefs as stated on Tim Russert this morning, and given a Bush-Kerry (or Bush-Edwards) campaign, my beliefs are closest to those of Ralph Nader, and today he has announced that he is running in the 2004 presidential election. But I'm not going to vote for him. He can't beat Bush. I belive that Bush is such a danger to the beliefs and policies of a human, enlightened U.S., that we can't afford to help give him another four years to continue to wreck the nation by voting for Ralph Nader. With Nader in the race, some progressive votes will go to him, thus helping Bush to beat the Dems, just like, according to the facts, votes for him beat Gore in 2000.

Nader has declared his candidacy too late to run a national campaign, given the rules of candidacy in the individual states. Consequently, his campaign will most likely focus on states like Wisconsin and Oregon, states with larger pockets of Nader progressives. But what about closely-contested races like Florida and New Mexico? Will he be there to tilt those states toward Bush? You bet, if he acts like he did in 2000, and indications are he will, particularly if GOP donors provide the cash, like they did in 2000.

In 2000 Nader claimed the country needed to be taught a lesson, that four years of hardship under Bush would move the country toward progressive third parties. That hasn't happened. What has happened is that progressive third parties are next to invisible and the major Nader supporters in 2000 were begging him not to run, to back the Dem candidate in order to beat Bush. Obviously, Nader thinks the country is in need of more punishment under a Bush lame duck administration that will let it all hang out. But as we wrote in 2000, it's the poor, the weak, the minorities, the children, and the seniors who suffer under Bush, not Nader or the Naderites, who are generally in other demographic sub-groups, although their time will come when the growing, massive weight of the Bush deficit will become due during the next decade. --Jerry Politex, www.bushwatch.com, 02.22.04

Dean's Warning And The "Coke-Pepsi" Progressive Pundits

Last week we warned that Dean was under pressure from the "Naderites" in his campaign to form a third party in opposition to the Dems. The previous week we saw how, under much the same pressure, Dean went back on his promise to quit the campaign if he didn't win in Wisconsin. We were concerned.

The letters came in, informing us that Dean had the right to change his mind. Of course he did. The same week, in the face of progressive pressure on Nader to forget about a third party run this time around, Ralph told members of the media that he wouldn't be censored, that he'd be the one to decide. Of course he would be.

But if Dean and Nader want to defeat Bush, the way to help is to back the Dem, whoever he is. Dean has gotten the message, electing to work within the Dem Party to defeat Bush.* Michael Moore has gotten the message, too, but, to date, not Nader.

We said it in 2000, and we're saying it in 2004. The way to help defeat Bush is for the progressive third parties to get behind the Dem candidate, no matter who he is. Which brings us to Kerry, the probable Dem nominee. Kerry is not our ideal candidate, but he's a lot, a lot better than Bush, on all counts.

That's why we're concerned when we read that some progressives are already attacking Kerry's foreign policy. In 2000 Nader rationalized such attacks on Gore as "keeping him honest." There's always a need to keep Dem candidates honest, to hold them to their promises and to help square their policies with the basic principles of the party. But it's another thing to use such a strategy to keep one's credentials as a third party maverick, which is obviously what Moore and Nader did in 2000 and what is being practiced today with snide "Coke-Pepsi" GOP-DEM comparisons.

In short, just like Moore and Nader in 2000, the "Coke-Pepsi" progressive pundits are simply helping Bush. Face it, guys, the only nominee capable of defeating Bush is the Dem nominee, and we can be sure that neither Kerry nor Edwards are going to have domestic and foreign policies as repugnant as Bush's. --Jerry Politex, 02.19.04

*"For all the establishment's fear of him, Dr. Dean warned against an independent candidacy that might again sap the party's chances against Mr. Bush." --NYT Ed, 02.19.04

Nader Watch is a non-advocacy site paid for by Politex, a non-affiliated U.S. citizen.
Editorial Policy: All entries are dated and documented as needed.
Text (c) Politex. Permission of author required for reprinting.
Duration of working link not under our control.
Updated weekly at various times.
Send all e-mail to Politex
Nader Watch has not reviewed all of the sites linked to our site and is not responsible
for the content of any off-site pages or any other sites linked to our site.
Your linking to any other off-site pages or other sites from our site
is at your own risk.