In what now seems like a quadrennial occurrence, consumer advocate Ralph Nader has once again declared his presidential candidacy. Members of both dominant political parties will be quick to react, one to denounce the bid and the other to gloatingly embolden it, but voters have an opportunity to consider the political freedom it represents.
In his appearance on “Meet the Press” on NBC this past Sunday, Nader justified his candidacy by comparing his stances on major issues facing the country with those of Obama, Clinton, and McCain. Of the four, Nader is the only candidate to support a single-payer national health insurance program, a reduction in the military budget — consider the latest finding by the Institute for Policy Studies that in America the proportion of military spending to spending on climate change initiatives is 88 to 1 — and to oppose nuclear power (prioritizing solar power). At a time when “change” seems to be swaying the electorate, Nader is the truest to that spirit.
Admittedly, he stands little chance of earning enough votes to earn the presidency. Nader himself stated, “If the Democrats can’t landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form. You think the American people are going to vote for a pro-war McCain who almost gives an indication that he’s the candidate for perpetual war?” It is therefore especially important for the progressive agenda (and the American political landscape at large) that a plurality of platforms and candidates participate in the upcoming election. Nader’s presence, if it isn’t marginalized by the Democratic Party establishment, can hold major party contenders accountable to their professed ideals.
For Nader to be accused of “spoiling” the 2000 presidential election by appearing on the ballot in Florida is ludicrous. Florida gave him 97,488 votes, whereas 250,000 Florida Democrats voted for Bush. Exit polls show that 25 percent of Nader’s votes would have gone to Bush, and slightly less than half would not have participated in the election had he not been in it. Is it fair to dismiss Nader’s campaign and the citizens who endorse it? Isn’t that tyranny of the majority? Consider, too, that Gore’s loss was more likely the result of behind-the-scenes manipulation than actual defeat, not to mention that Gore was a centrist Democrat, in favor of militarism, the death penalty and NAFTA.
For half a century, Nader has fought tirelessly for the rights of workers, consumers, and the American people. He is a true patriot, and his legacy lasts in such regulating bodies as the EPA and OSHA, to name just two. It is a testament to his steadfast commitment to the country, and not, as his detractors often suggest, egocentricity that he continues to run for president.
Leave a Reply