Greener Pastures: Why Ralph Nader Doesn’t Matter

Published March 4, 2008
One Comment (at bottom of article)

By Mac Smith

The campaign season so far has been looking to be a very promising one for Democrats. No matter what the outcome, the party will make history by nominating either a black man or a woman as their nominee. National polls show Barack Obama ahead of GOP frontrunner J ohn McCain, and the Democrats just keep building on their momentum that swept them into Congress in 2006. So logically, you must ask yourself, what can possibly stop the Democratic Juggernaut?

There is one man.

Two Sundays ago, Ralph Nader announced on Meet the Press that he would seek the presidency for the fifth consecutive time. In addition, he has picked a relatively unknown running mate in independent Matt Gonzalez. Although this appears to be a seemingly inconsequential candidacy, the 70% of us who currently disapprove of our President are reminded of Nader’s impact eight years ago.

Nader sought his Green Party’s nomination in 2000 because he believed that the United States was becoming dominated by a two party system that failed to differ on many issues he deemed important, like healthcare, education, labor, and the environment. In a 2000 speech, he declared that “Active citizens have solutions, yet their voices are not carrying across the democracy gap…” because “our political leadership has been hijacked.” His ideas resonated with many progressive Americans, who felt that Post-Reagan politics had taken their nation down a bumpy road, and wanted a change. The election resulted in Nader’s grabbing a respectable 2.74% of the popular vote. Unfortunately, many Democrats felt he pulled votes from Al Gore in the key states of New Hampshire and Florida, where a victory in either state would have given Gore the electoral majority.

Nader blamed Gore himself for losing the election, which may have been a valid claim. But exit polls proved that 38% of people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore, 20% would have voted for Bush, and the rest wouldn’t have voted. That 38% would have put Gore way over the top in either state, rendering the controversy of Chads, Butterflies, and Katherine Harris unimportant.

Nader also believed that there wasn’t much difference between Gore and Bush, but as the last eight years have shown us, his campaign kept out one of the Greenest presidents we may have ever had, and at the same time brought in a man whose environmental, foreign, and educational policies leave something to be desired. So what happens this year? It appears that Nader’s rally cry for change may fall on deaf ears.

Barack Obama’s ideas are similar to many of the ideas Nader brought to the table in 2000, recently arguing, “Washington is where good ideas go to die.” Aided by the Internet, Obama’s call for change and unity has sparked grassroots monetary support that no other candidate has been able to claim, and national popularity amongst all planks of the Democratic platform.

In 2004, with Florida still in recent memory, Nader managed only .3% of the national vote in 34 states. In November, he should be very lucky to get even that amount. Earlier this month, Nader said, “If the Democrats can’t landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form.” Voters haven’t forgotten, and this year they should heed his advice–by not voting for him.

Print This Article

Comments