it should come as no surprise to anyone that ralph nader has decided to run for president. i mean, the news broke a few days ago that he was appearing on meet the press to announce his intentions in the presidential race, did anyone seriously believe he would go on the air just to say he was giving it a pass?
at the same time, i have no hostility towards ralph or his supporters. first, on a practical level, i do not buy the underlying assumption that while nader is in the race he will attract votes from people who will otherwise vote democrat. i have no idea whether that was true in 2000 (can anyone cite a poll of nader voters about that issue?) i am fairly certain that the 2000 nader voters i personally know would not have voted at all if nader were not in the race. that anecdote may not count much as evidence, but it at least illustrates that the prevailing wisdom is not necessarily right.
as for this coming election, it seems even less likely that nader will "take" democratic votes than it did in 2000. rook argues that nader will attract disenchanted republicans, not democrats. i don't know if he's right, but it seems to me to be at least as plausible as the "stealing democrat votes" assumption everyone else is operating under. furthermore, (and this is not far from rook's point) i think that the majority of the kerry or edwards or whoever vote this time around will not be pro-kerry or edwards, but rather anti-bush. i know my vote will be. in other words "the democratic vote" this time around will be people united in their commitment to get rid of bush. those people will not be wooed by nader, even if they happen to agree with him on everything.
another difference with this election is that now nader is running as an independent. i know that some of his appeal last time around was from people who voted for nader largely because they wanted him to reach the 5% threshold and thus strengthen the green party. (a political party is only eligible for public financing if its candidate receives 5% of the popular vote in the prior election). thus, those voters were not voting to support nader as much as to support the green party. this time, nader is running as an independent so that's not an issue.
also, i am philosophically opposed to the whole concept that anyone can "steal democratic votes." the democratic party does not own any votes, only individual voters do. i can't understand how anyone who believes in democracy can hold it against someone for voting their conscience.
finally, i'm a little tired of the occasional attacks i hear about nader as a person. i think america is deeply in debt to him for his consumer-based political campaigns in the 1970s and his lobbying is part of the reason that we have various environmental legislation such as the clean air act. it will take a lot more than putting his name on a presidential ballot to erase those accomplishments from my mind.
the most common charge i hear against nader attacks his "big ego." while i'm sure that's absolutely true. so what? all presidential candidates have huge egos. it's really part of the job description. a humble person does not get up in front of the american people and say "i deserve to be president." you simply cannot even contemplate running for the job unless your ego is a little inflated. so when people say that ralph has a big ego, in one sense, all that says is that he has one of the prerequisites for the job.
so nader can run if he wants. he won't have my vote or my money, but i bear him no ill will for his choice, and i'm not convinced that it will hurt the democratic nominee's chances in the general election.
