I flipped on "Meet the Press" last weekend, hoping to catch the erudite analysis of the campaign with Tim Russert and other media analysts for whom I have become so enamored, only to see that familiar asymmetrical face of equally asymmetrical politics - Ralph Nader - announcing his presidential candidacy. I don't know if I was more shocked by seeing him after so long, or that he would announce his candidacy with only nine months until the general election.
On the program, Nader discussed our nation's problems, cited issues he feels are ignored by the major candidates and gave a defense of his 2000 candidacy. More importantly, however, he addressed the issue many people are talking about: Will his campaign hurt Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in November, possibly catapulting McCain into office? Is he a voice of sanity and needed change, or a traitor whose radical idealism is endangering the nation? It is fair to say that he knows he won't win the presidential election. What, then, is his goal?
Many Democrats blame Nader for Al Gore's loss of Florida in 2000, where Bush won by 537 votes and more than 95,000 were cast for Nader, when exit polls suggested at least half of those would have gone to Gore. Nader called Bush and Gore identical twins, only for the nation to see one president lead us into a national security fiasco while the other won a Nobel prize. But Nader claims that by pushing Gore to take up more Green Party issues, Gore got more votes than he lost to Nader. Nader also decries the idea that candidates should not throw their hat into the electoral ring or subjugate their ideals to a huge political machine. He argues that America must get over its two-party system and accept a third party, as Western Europe and Canada have done.
His desire to move away from two-party dominance has merit. The U.S. deserves a four-party system (at least) that recognizes the differences between economic conservatives and liberals and social conservatives and liberals. The political spectrum is infinitely more nuanced than to be espoused by only two parties. But Nader must realize that the only way to create a viable third-party system in America (if that's even possible) is through grassroots mobilization in state legislatures, because that is where independent candidates can actually get elected.
To accomplish this, Nader should first stick with one party. In 2000, he was a Green, and in 2004, he was an independent but was endorsed by the Reform Party. He should stay with one party and build that party from the grassroots up to win local and state offices, and then, and only then, he should focus on federal seats. If he wants third-party ideas to gain currency, he's can't hard-headedly force his way in; he should take advantage of political space when it's available. When its not, he should endorse candidates of other parties who adopt his positions, building political capital for future campaigns. Later he could be a party chairman or run for a House or Senate seat, which with his national recognition he might stand a chance of winning.
Keep trying to change politics, Mr. Nader, but only do so in a way that might actually help and not harm the candidates who are close to your position. The only way to change this nation is by shifting the center of the political spectrum, not by clipping off its wings. Be radical in your centrism, and realize that the most radical ideology is the realization of the pragmatic, the devotion to what can actually be accomplished by compromise and consensus building. After all, what makes a democracy is the ability to work together to build a better tomorrow. Wilson is a Plan II senior.
Be the first to comment on this article!