Why Nader Matters

Current Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama also reacted hostilely to Nader’s announcement. Mrs. Clinton stated that Nader is “responsible” for George Bush, while Obama alleged that Nader “doesn’t know what he’s talking about.” In addition, an article at Politico.com reported that Democrats had already committed to preventing Nader for accumulating votes by “working behind the scenes and using court challenges.” These are the same tactics that the Democrats utilized in 2004 and that are currently the target of a lawsuit by Nader—who alleges the Democrats abused the court system in 2004 by filing frivolous lawsuits to keep him off the ballot.

The Democrats main irritation involving Nader is their belief that he's responsible for George Bush’s victory in 2000, and has the potential to swing the 2008 election to the GOP as well. The sheer math of the 2000 election returns seem to validate their concern. Nader won over 96,000 votes in Florida in 2000, while Gore lost by only 542 votes to Bush. Since a higher percentage of Nader voters would have gravitated to Gore than Bush, many Democrats find it appropriate to scapegoat Nader for Bush’s victory.

This may be a convenient line of reasoning, but it's not a sensible one.

There were myriad ways that the Gore could have triumphed in 2000. He could have won his home state of Tennessee, he could have captured the close race in New Hampshire, or he could have done a better job of winning the Democratic vote in Florida, just to name a few. Twelve percent of Florida Democrats voted for Bush, and if even 1% of them had voted for Gore, he would have won. It makes just as much sense to blame those voters, to blame Gore, or to blame the DNC, than to blame Mr. Nader.

In fact, blaming Nader for Gore’s 2000 loss is the equivalent of blaming a slow elevator for getting to work a minute late. Sure, the elevator seems like a convenient excuse, as it’s an easy scapegoat. But, if you had set your alarm earlier, not hit the snooze ten times, forgone flossing your teeth, jogged out the door, run a red light, found a found a better parking spot, or taken the stairs you probably would have arrived on time.

Many also feel Nader’s run to be unjustified because they assume he’s just a slightly liberal version of the Democrats, which is about as sensible as saying the Democrats are just a slightly more liberal version of Mr. McCain.

Mr. Nader holds distinctly different opinions than Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton. He would create a true single-payer healthcare system, which neither Democrat will pursue. He would drastically cut the defense budget, which they will continue to fund at equal levels, and he would aggressively pursue environmental and corporate regulation to a degree much higher than either Democratic candidate desires.

Lastly, he would force the issue of third party ballot access, while the Democrats have and will continue to fight tooth and nail to prevent Americans from having the chance to vote for Mr. Nader or any other candidate that threatens their “liberal sovereignty.”

In 2004, Nader met with Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, who wanted to work to win the support of Nader and his voters. Nader provided over 20 pages of issues ranging from environmental protections, labor, healthcare and tax reform to Kerry. He told Kerry that if he highlighted three of these issues in his campaign he would refrain from running. Kerry failed to act, and later lost to George Bush.

If the Democrats continue to obfuscate democracy and scapegoat Mr. Nader for his desire to make the political process a more diverse one, they deserve the same fate in 2008.

 1  |  2