Once again, Ralph Nader is making a bid for the presidency. After seeing the effect he had on the 2000 election, one must wonder if he actually cares about the causes he stands for. Although we cannot blame Nader for Al Gore losing the election, the fact remains that if he had not run, Gore would have beaten Bush. As far as their policies on the environment, the disparity between Bush and Gore is enormous. Gore would have been the best environmental president this country has ever seen and Bush has been one of the worst if not the worst. I would be willing to bet that in the four years of Bush’s presidency, he will have more negatively affected the environment than Nader has helped it in his entire lifetime. What I am left wondering is: Why would Nader or anyone who cares about the environment in their right mind risk helping Bush win another four years in the White House?
In the 2004 election, either John Kerry or John Edwards would be worlds better on environmental issues than Bush is. I will grant that if Nader were to win he would be an incredible president as far as protecting the environment, but he has no chance of winning whatsoever. He and his supporters need to wake up to the reality of the situation: The only thing Nader can possibly accomplish in the 2004 election is to help President Bush get re-elected. That is the reality and, given that we all live in the real world, I think it would be wise to make our decisions based on that and not on how we wish things were.
Nader claims, as quoted from CNN.com, that he wants to “’challenge the two-party duopoly’ that he said is damaging American democracy.” This statement is so misguided that I do not even know where to begin. Someone should explain to Ralph that the reason we have a two-party system in the United States is due to our first-past-the-post election system and the distribution of American voters on the political spectrum. When the majority of the people are grouped in the center of the political spectrum and with a winner-take-all election system there simply is no room for more than two parties (except for during brief realignment periods like when the Republicans replaced the Whigs in the mid-1800s).
How can a two-party system be damaging to American democracy when it in fact is American democracy and always has been? Maybe what he means is that he wants to change our political system as well as the views of the average American voter, but this is a cause entirely beyond his power and one that running for president cannot further in the least. Nader will have absolutely no effect on the “two-party duopoly” but he may serve to help put the man who least represents his views back in the White House. However, he cannot do this if no one supports him. So, to all of those who care about the environment, I beg of you, support the Democratic nominee. Do not support Ralph Nader and risk condemning us to four more years of Bush.
Leave a Reply