Our
View: Nader’s run causes ambivalence
Noted
consumer advocate and against the grain
runner Ralph Nader on Sunday announced he
would pursue the presidency as an independent.
Leading
Democratic voices immediately decried his
decision, labeling it egotistical and virtually
inexplicable.
As
one of the foremost voices for a movement
positioned to the left of the Democratic
Party, Nader’s primary foe is the
incumbent president.
In
light of his nonexistent chances for winning
the White House, Democrats argue, his candidacy
serves little practical purpose save swaying
would-be Democratic voters to his side and
thereby strengthening George Bush’s
chances for four more years.
Nader
counters this argument by describing the
current political establishment as an undemocratic
and corrupt “two-party duopoly.”
They’re
both right and they’re both wrong.
The
Democrats have a valid fear of Nader’s
impact on the election. His presence certainly
cost Gore the electoral votes of New Hampshire
and Florida in 2000, the wicked improprieties
of that latter state notwithstanding.
In
four other states, the Nader bloc made the
Gore-Bush duel much tighter than it otherwise
would have been.
This
time around, however, Democrats will have
less to fear. For one, the novelty of Nader’s
candidacy could be waning. Whereas he was
once a fresh alternative, his fourth presidential
campaign will likely gain a somewhat tired
quality.
Furthermore,
Bush has proven to be a polarizing president.
Even devoutly orthodox political southpaws
may be willing to sacrifice their usual
third-party vote of principle in order to
stave off a Bush victory.
Moreover,
Bush is the favorite in this election, despite
what some early polls may say. The same
did not hold true in 2000, when the point-spread
favored Gore and leftward bound voters could
ostensibly vote their conscience without
fear of a Republican triumph. So it follows
that those who oppose Bush will be less
inclined to vote third-party this time around.
As
for Nader himself, his commitment and cause
are both admirable. He is right about the
entrenchment of the current two-party system,
and anyone who dismisses his goal of a viable
third-party as impossible is simply ignoring
history.
The
nascent American political party system
was a system in flux, and it changed enormously
during its first half-century or so.
After
that, the Democratic and Republican parties
evolved, shifting to some extent in both
ideological and geographical bases.
And
recently, independents like Ross Perot —
who garnered 19 percent of the popular vote
in 1992 — have shown that the two-party
status quo is not necessarily invincible.
More
abstractly, the presence of a third party
candidate can highlight areas of popular
discontent and inspire reform within the
dominant political camps.
All
that said, Nader’s principled stand
does provoke questions as to where his priorities
lie. All mature adults know that they can’t
have everything in life.
So,
Nader might be oblivious to this fact. Or,
more probably, he feels that it is more
important at present to challenge the political
landscape than it is to defeat a leader
whose policies he reviles.
What
will matter in the end, though, what will
decide the course of the country, is which
goal the American voter feels is more important.
|
