Ralph Nader throws hat into presidential arena
Last week perennial presidential candidate Ralph Nader once again announced his intention of entering the race. At its best his candidacy is a long-shot, at worst he will be called a “spoiler” once again, but this time many look at his run merely as a bad joke.
The 73-year-old consumer advocate would potentially be good for Republican John McCain insofar as making the 71-year-old look slightly more youthful. But more seriously as has happened in the past, Nader would most likely take votes away from the Democratic candidate if the nominee from that party could not attract independent voters.
Nader’s repeated injection of himself into the process of presidential politics, he says, is driven by the fact that both parties are too tied to corporate lobbyists and by his desire to throw a third party into the mix.
In 2000 and 2004, as well as 1992 and 1996, Nader also ran as a third-party candidate. Many Democrats directly blame him for costing the party the White House in the 2000 election by taking votes away from Al Gore.
At that time he said that Gore and Bush were virtually on the same page on most of the important issues. On that premise, Nader won nearly 3 million votes and in such a close contest it was enough, along with the Supreme Court’s infamous decision, to hand the presidency to George W. Bush. And as the world now realizes that has been a pure disaster for everyone.
Even though Nader, like the rest of the country, can see that there are clear differences in the potential nominees from both parties in the 2008 election, he still feels the need to throw his hat into the arena. His main reason, according to Associated Press reports was that, “He says most Americans are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties, and that none of the presidential contenders are addressing ways to stem corporate crime and Pentagon waste and promote labor rights.” Nader has also always advocated grassroots support being necessary.
This sounds as though Mr. Nader is truly living on another planet, at least part of the time. True, many Republicans seem not to be too enthusiastic about Senator McCain. Republican primary turnout does look pretty dismal, but lack of enthusiasm may be precisely because he used to claim to be against lobbyists, which goes against the current Republican philosophy, although recent revelations have cast some doubts about the validity of this as a true McCain cause.
The Democratic turn out in the primaries contradicts Nader’s assertion that voters are disenchanted with their choices of Obama or Clinton. There have been record turn outs in primaries as well as caucuses. And it is overwhelming clear to the rest of us that both candidates have supporters who are enthusiastic to say the least. It is also obvious that there is much grassroots participation, particularly in the Obama campaign.
Nader has admitted that differences are evident to him between McCain and Obama, although as the New York Times reported when it comes to issues like single-payer health insurance, labor-law reform, the Iraq war and “cracking down on corporate crime,” he insists they had been “taken off the table” by the major-party candidates. Nader claims to be running to bring attention to the issues he considers to be important to voters. But many see if as though he merely wants attention for himself.
So this year once again, it comes into question as to whether Ralph Nader will be looked upon as the potential “spoiler” in the 2008 general election, given that he has as a third-party candidate in the past been labeled as such for siphoning votes away from the Democratic candidate.
If Barack Obama wins the nomination, the Nader-effect won’t influence the end result much because Obama has a grassroots campaign that has brought new people into the process and given them the power to participate in the promised change he advocates of their behalves.
But if the nominee ends up being Hillary Clinton, Nader may more easily pull voters away from her because she is clearly the establishment candidate and her connections are more deeply rooted in the past, so that her promise of change appears to ring much more hollow to voters.
So if Clinton gets the nomination and runs against McCain in the fall and assuming that the race is close, the Nader-effect could once again be a disaster for Democratic chances. However if the nominee is Obama, I think that Nader will be just a footnote in the history books for looking rather ridiculous in his latest quest for the presidency.
ABOUT THE WRITER
Carol Jensen is a long-time Barstow resident, graduating from Kennedy High School and Barstow College, where she was an English instructor for many years. Much of her time now is spent writing political and social commentary. She may be contacted at cajensen49@msn.com.
