A great many people on both sides of the red/blue split believe that Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the election in 2000. Democrats and Bush-bashers hate him for it; Republicans love him. These animosities and affinities are in greater form in the runup to the next election because we are so painfully aware of how close a presidential election can be, how close this one is shaping up to be, and what effect Nader can have. There have been accusations that Republicans and conservative PACs have been supporting Nader in hopes that he will edge Bush over the finish line and further vitriol aimed at him from Democrats for allowing himself to be taken advantage of this way. Considering that most polls that include Nader indicate that John Kerry gets fewer votes with Nader on the ballot, this appears at first glance to be a legitimate complaint. Of course, whether this pans out at the ballot box or not remains to be seen: just ask Howard Dean about discrepancies between polls and results (Check out this analysis for a sharp perspective on what went wrong with Dean and his supporters, namely the internet and social software).
I (currently) believe that the hatred of Nader is misplaced and rather infantile; I've actually seen people blame him for the war in Iraq! (i.e. if Nader hadn't run, he wouldn't have cost the election, Gore would have been in power and Bush et al wouldn't have been able to go to war, blah, blah, blah. C'mon!) Without bothering to address this sort of nonsense, arguing that Bush's victory was Nader's fault ignores a host of other much more relevant and important points. Did we forget about the eligible voters who were stripped from voting rolls by a partisan Florida Attorney General? What about voters who were turned away from polling stations for fraudulent and disingenuous reasons? And I guess no one is going to try to remember and take responsibility for the idiotic ballot structure that caused so much confusion. Had that ballot been properly organized, there never would have been any question. Finally, are we going to let Al Gore (or George Bush, for that matter) off the hook for their failure to mobilize barely more than half of the voting public? It's pretty sad that no one has the integrity to actually focus on the issues that would have made a real difference. Hell, every single one of us should take responsibility for not doing more to get out the vote. If you really care, organize a votingpool and head down to the polls together.
Ralph Nader is doing what he believes is best for American democracy. There is no reason why you have to agree with his vision of what our country should be like, but if you care about vibrancy and robustness in politics, you should welcome his and all other third party platforms. They broaden the debate and offer alternatives, some of them good, some implausible. Options are a good thing and additional parties can have effects by focusing on one issue and raising public awareness about it. Imagine if a third party candidate gained national prominence and attention and focused all of the parties energy on campaigning, for example, on ending our dependence on oil in lieu of cleaner, sustainable energy. Clean energy is such a no-brainer than everyone would quickly get behind such an idea and the major power parties would be forced to address it. Individuals often feel powerless (and for good reason, since we are!) in the political process since lobbyists and political action committees dominant the attention of elected officials. Third parties give voters an additional voice.
Third parties as they stand now are so small they must pay closer attention to their support bases and they must focus their message on salient issues. Just as a small person can throw a larger one with proper deployment of force and leverage, smaller parties can affect national trends and currents by strategic deployment of communication. They are more responsive and people who become involved in them can feel that they are part of the party rather than just a faceless mark on a ballot every election cycle. Smaller parties are more nimble, which serves the public interest as well.
Some people have observed the similarities between the Republicans and Democrats as parties. There are differences indeed, but even so-called conservatives such as Reagan and Bush have ballooned the cost of governing and liberals such as Bill Clinton brought us under fiscal control. There is so much overlap on so many issues (and in so much funding) that the similarities between the two are not so far off. Domestically especially, the major issues are gay marriage and snow mobiles in national parks. Pretty amazing convergence going on there that puts us in such a climate.
There are differences, but they are nowhere near as substantial as the differences between Republicans/Democrats and say the Greens, the Libertarians, or the Natural Law party. I'm not suggesting that we need to abandon the tried and tested 2 parties we are accustomed to; I'm saying we would all benefit from the wider perspectives and added vibrancy and robustness that would develop from including other parties in national debates. One potential flaw in a two party system that we have seen emerge from the shadows of potential into the realm of the real is vicious partisanship that destroys flexibility and politicking in the Capitol. We have gone from a two-party cooperative system to a one-party power system that may flip from one of the two parties to the other at election time. That isn't a good system, thank you very much.
If we had a 70-70-20-20-20 split among Republican/Democrats/Greens/Libertarians/Natural Law senators (wouldn't that be a hoot!), no one party would be able to dominate outright. Sure, the Dems and Repubs could easily sideline the 3rd parties by coordinating their efforts, but they would be forced to deal with each other and a bit of both agendas would get advanced, a good thing. Or imagine if there was a 60-60-30-25-25 split of sorts. Now the minority parties would have the power to gang up on the others and would have real power that the president would have to reckon with. Now that is a democracy that I would be very very proud of.
But to get there, we have to have 3rd party candidates running for office and promoting their parties and we need people to vote for them. No matter how bad Bush is, he is gone after one more election cycle regardless. The damage he will wreak can be undone, as unfavorable a proposition as it is. But putting off the development of a stronger democracy is self-defeating. We only get a chance to advance the state of the system every four years and change comes slowly. But as support alternative platforms, more of the disenfranchised who aren't voting at all because they don't like the options they are given will begin to see new options and new hope and the effect can begin to gain momentum.
To ask Nader not to run is a slap in the face to all the people that would vote for him. Rather than asking him not to run, minimally opponents should be convincing voters not to vote for him. His campaign is a good thing that helps our struggling democracy stay alive. There is no acceptable reason why his campaign has to hurt any other candidate. If a candidate has to run against an incumbent unopposed in order to win, they really aren't a very good candidate. And if an incumbent needs a third party candidate to draw votes away from his opposition in order to maintain power, such an incumbent really isn't a very compelling leader. Both or either of these scenarios suggest that the options provided to voters are drastically lacking and thus we need more alternatives, precisely the thing that third party candidates that Nader represents.
It is fine to believe that people should focus on voting for Anybody But Bush. But many people don't believe that their vote should be sacrificed to vote for someone they don't like just to get rid of someone they like even less. Some of us want to use our vote to vote for someone who we agree with more, regardless of their electability. If those who think that continue to vote that way and help to to convince others that there are worthy candidates out there, different from the big two, options can grow and the nation will be better off for it.
But we have to take a long term view and be willing to endure short-term discomfort in order to reach the higher ground. Fear of the transition traps us in short-term stopgaps that leave us perpetually dissatisfied, disappointed, and disenfranchised.
Posted by Nutrimentia at June 24, 2004 01:49 AM | TrackBack