I share Duck's concern about Ralph Nader entering the Presidential election, but I have a more basic question: what is he hoping to accomplish?! He knows he can't win, right? Heck, even in 2000 he didn't have a chance, and I am only just now learning that he ran in 2004.
If Nader really wants to show that people who feel marginalized can influence their government, what better way than to demonstrate that than to show that he himself can have a positive impact on our nation without running for President? I mean, let's face it, most of us will never have the chance to seriously run for any public office, let alone President. And Nader has done a lot of great things -- like advocating for consumer safety -- without being elected for the job. He can influence this election without running himself.
I agree with Nader that we need to break out of the two party system. But the way to do that is for viable third parties -- like the Greens -- to run serious candidates to win less glamorous offices. There are Greens on city councils and other local offices, and that's where they should be building support for their party. We need Greens at local levels: school boards, water reclamation districts, state representatives.
I guess the Republicans must be happy, though. If Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, they'll be 2 for 2!
Monday, February 25, 2008
Buckle your seatbelts...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Eh, I think Ralph ran in 2004 and was so far away from being statistically significant that it wasn't funny. Assuming Obama is the candidate, I don't think anyone who's thinking of voting for him will vote for Nader. Now, if Clinton's the nominee...well, for her to become the nominee at this point would likely involve a lot of wheeling-dealing that would piss at least a segment of potential voters off. But I'm thinking that those pissed off enough to vote for Nader, knowing the example of 2004, would be the people unlikely to vote for Hillary anyway. (I am firmly convinced that Hillary's not going to drop out until/unless she's forced to come convention time, so there's a while to wait.)
Why is Nader running? Hey, in 2000 he supposedly changed the outcome! He was important! He'll go down in the history books! Product safety is small beer now. How could he not run for president again given all that? :) Besides, running for president can be a lot of fun if you really don't care if you win. I think he'll get federal matching funds and Secret Service protection, though that could just be for the major party candidates.
The real question is if Ron Paul will leave the Republican party and run as a third-party candidate if he is successfully challenged for the party's nomination for his seat in Congress. Such a challenge is going on as we type. He's said he wouldn't do that, but you never know. If he were to do that, he'd likely be a much more significant factor than Nader.
I agree with Marion. Nader's not much of a threat, although the media would love you to think so just long enough to become outraged. Once outraged, you might sit through another Enzyte commercial or two to hear more about Nader's hubris and pay Lou Dobbs' paycheck in the process.
Or that Yaz commercial up at Res-ponse. Good heavens, that's pathetic!
But yes, I agree with Marion's insightful analysis. It seems this is far more about Nader's ego than about what kind of positive change he can bring. That's what I find a little depressing -- can he honestly not think of another way to make a difference, after everything he's accomplished in his life?
That's what I find a little depressing -- can he honestly not think of another way to make a difference, after everything he's accomplished in his life?
Ah, I knew that poli sci degree would come in handy for something. :) I think part of the issue is that Nader is sort of old news. He could get coverage easily back in the era when consumer products were flagrantly dangerous and there was relatively little oversight of them. It's not that consumer products are never dangerous now, Freya knows, but there's a large infrastructure dedicated to dealing with that problem, and the massive lawsuits that tend to get filed in the wake of consumer issues dwarf anything Nader might do.
If he runs for president, he HAS to get a certain amount of coverage. I'm sure he thinks he might get included in a debate or two, which would be immense free publicity. If Ron Paul decides to run as a third-party candidate (which I find somewhat unlikely but still possible), there would probably be a lot of Paul-and-Nader coverage, since they'd be seen as the most recognizable third-party candidates on the right and the left.
To be fair to Nader, I think he really does truly believe that there is little substantive difference between the Republican and Democratic parties. A lot of Europeans would probably agree with him - from their perspective, our parties represent a choice between right and center-right. :) That having been said, I don't think that most voters agree with him. Just because people don't take you seriously doesn't mean that you're right. I think Nader's confusing himself with Sarah Conner. Also, I think he does really believe that he's the best guy to point out the "similarities" between the Republicans and the Democrats. We may disagree with him, but I don't think he surrounds himself with people who disagree with him.
Where I think he could do some good would be an investigation of the food industry from a non-anti-meat-eating standpoint. There are a lot of practices in, say, the beef industry that could use improvement. The problem is that the groups that tend to publicize this the most are ones such as PETA that are against meat eating in general. Now, maybe we'd all be less at risk of heart disease if we went vegetarian, but I think that possibility is highly unlikely, so people tend to tune out publicity campaigns that they believe have that as an ultimate motive. If Nader could work with other consumer protection types to say, "Hey, we like hamburgers too, but the process needs to be made safer, and here's how," that might be effective. Alternatively, he might try to organize a *serious* campaign against the drug war, bringing in people from the right and the left who agree. There are a lot of people on both sides who have serious problems with the drug war - imagine a book written by Nader, the editor of the Nation, and the editor of the National Review on the depredations of the "war on drugs." However, both of those options would take a lot of work that would often be boring and difficult. Running for president as a third-party candidate, if you're like Nader, is fun.
Hey Marion, great points! Wouldn't it be great to have Nader take on the meat industry! (I say this not as a vegetarian, but as someone who limits meat consumption for environmental reasons) Maybe being in the debates will raise interesting issues, assuming he is even invited. We'll have to wait and see, of course.
Post a Comment