Nader Again?
Saturday, February 7th, 2004 11:39 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
flwydI got an email from the Ralph Nader 2004 Presidential Exploratory Committee. Here's my response:
I hope to help select Bush as ex-president this Fall, though I don't yet
know what role I will play in this effort. I do not, however, believe
that a Ralph Nader candidacy is the way to do it.
I put a lot of energy into the Nader campaign on the University of Colorado
Boulder campus in 2000. While I was disappointed in the way election night
and the ensuing month turned out, I think the campaign had several important
effects. First, it got young people involved. The two biggest reasons
students I saw got excited about registering to vote were Ralph Nader and
Colorado's medical marijuana initiative. Second, even without major media
attention, the campaign helped educate lots of people about the important
issues Ralph and the Greens were raising. Third, it sent a message to
our allies in the Democratic Party that a lot of people were unsatisfied
with their lurch to the center and their lack of concern for what we
consider very important issues. After the disappointing appointment of
George W. Bush to the presidency, I hoped that the silver lining would be
a Democratic realization that they couldn't ignore their base and would
take strides to adopt some of the issues the Greens care about. This
shift doesn't seem to have played out, but the midterm elections showed
that enabling the Republican agenda didn't help either.
First, from a pragmatic standpoint, Ralph Nader has no shot at victory.
I seriously doubt he would be able to pull off half the numbers he did
in 2000. A Nader campaign would rely on committed activists for its
foundation. However, I think most such volunteers will either turn their
efforts pragmatically to the Democrats or, if they can't support the
nominee, they will work locally, not wanting to hurt the chances of the
only party with a reasonable chance to defeat Bush. The Howard Dean
campaign has tapped into a strong vein of activism. It's hard to say
what might become of that energy if he doesn't get the nomination, but
I think it will be hard for Ralph to draw that much support.
Furthermore, even if a Nader campaign could create as extensive a
volunteer network as we had in 2000, I think we would be hard pressed
to convince a third of the people who voted for Ralph last time to do
so again. John Kerry's Primary success thus far indicates that even
primary voters, who are by and large at the left end of the political
spectrum, are thinking about things like "electability." I don't think
Kucinich, who is similar in many ways to Nader, has polled as much as 2%
in any state primary. I would be astounded if a Nader campaign could
garner 1% nationally.
Thinking long term, I was glad to hear that Ralph decided not to run
as a Green, though I hear he's open to being drafted. Given the media
coverage in 2000, all that many people know about the Green Party is
that Ralph Nader ran and "cost Gore the election," as poor as that
argument is. If Ralph were to run again as a Green, this "vanity party
for Ralph Nader" stereotype would likely be reinforced, hurting the
credibility of Green candidates running at the state and local levels,
where I think they should focus this year.
The fundmental question which must be asked regarding a Nader campaign
is "How can Ralph be the most effective in bringing about the ends that
he and his supporters desire?" In the Democratic primaries Dean has helped
draw the centrists to the left, opposing the war, supporting universal
health care, and so on. In contrast, Gore's strategy was to ignore Nader
rather than shift his positions to attract Nader supporters. I think
Nader would again get the cold shoulder this year, so I question whether
entering the presidential race would shift the issues and course of debate
to the issues with which we are concerned. Ralph may be more effective
as an outspoken personality, presenting arguments and calling both major
candidates on disingenuity. Nader may have a better chance to influence
policy by having the Dems seek his endorsement (if they deserve it) than
by running himself.
I recognize that the Greens and Nader are not just a spin-off of the
Democrats, and they appeal to folks who might otherwise vote Democratic,
Republican, or Libertarian, or not vote at all. But in my experience
the movement is supported most actively by politically active leftists,
a group who I suspect will want to put their efforts elsewhere this year.
I hope that Ralph Nader puts his efforts, resources, and energy into
something other than a presidential run this year. I think he will be
much more effective elsewhere.
Sincerely,
Trevor Stone
Green Party member and supporter
I hope to help select Bush as ex-president this Fall, though I don't yet
know what role I will play in this effort. I do not, however, believe
that a Ralph Nader candidacy is the way to do it.
I put a lot of energy into the Nader campaign on the University of Colorado
Boulder campus in 2000. While I was disappointed in the way election night
and the ensuing month turned out, I think the campaign had several important
effects. First, it got young people involved. The two biggest reasons
students I saw got excited about registering to vote were Ralph Nader and
Colorado's medical marijuana initiative. Second, even without major media
attention, the campaign helped educate lots of people about the important
issues Ralph and the Greens were raising. Third, it sent a message to
our allies in the Democratic Party that a lot of people were unsatisfied
with their lurch to the center and their lack of concern for what we
consider very important issues. After the disappointing appointment of
George W. Bush to the presidency, I hoped that the silver lining would be
a Democratic realization that they couldn't ignore their base and would
take strides to adopt some of the issues the Greens care about. This
shift doesn't seem to have played out, but the midterm elections showed
that enabling the Republican agenda didn't help either.
First, from a pragmatic standpoint, Ralph Nader has no shot at victory.
I seriously doubt he would be able to pull off half the numbers he did
in 2000. A Nader campaign would rely on committed activists for its
foundation. However, I think most such volunteers will either turn their
efforts pragmatically to the Democrats or, if they can't support the
nominee, they will work locally, not wanting to hurt the chances of the
only party with a reasonable chance to defeat Bush. The Howard Dean
campaign has tapped into a strong vein of activism. It's hard to say
what might become of that energy if he doesn't get the nomination, but
I think it will be hard for Ralph to draw that much support.
Furthermore, even if a Nader campaign could create as extensive a
volunteer network as we had in 2000, I think we would be hard pressed
to convince a third of the people who voted for Ralph last time to do
so again. John Kerry's Primary success thus far indicates that even
primary voters, who are by and large at the left end of the political
spectrum, are thinking about things like "electability." I don't think
Kucinich, who is similar in many ways to Nader, has polled as much as 2%
in any state primary. I would be astounded if a Nader campaign could
garner 1% nationally.
Thinking long term, I was glad to hear that Ralph decided not to run
as a Green, though I hear he's open to being drafted. Given the media
coverage in 2000, all that many people know about the Green Party is
that Ralph Nader ran and "cost Gore the election," as poor as that
argument is. If Ralph were to run again as a Green, this "vanity party
for Ralph Nader" stereotype would likely be reinforced, hurting the
credibility of Green candidates running at the state and local levels,
where I think they should focus this year.
The fundmental question which must be asked regarding a Nader campaign
is "How can Ralph be the most effective in bringing about the ends that
he and his supporters desire?" In the Democratic primaries Dean has helped
draw the centrists to the left, opposing the war, supporting universal
health care, and so on. In contrast, Gore's strategy was to ignore Nader
rather than shift his positions to attract Nader supporters. I think
Nader would again get the cold shoulder this year, so I question whether
entering the presidential race would shift the issues and course of debate
to the issues with which we are concerned. Ralph may be more effective
as an outspoken personality, presenting arguments and calling both major
candidates on disingenuity. Nader may have a better chance to influence
policy by having the Dems seek his endorsement (if they deserve it) than
by running himself.
I recognize that the Greens and Nader are not just a spin-off of the
Democrats, and they appeal to folks who might otherwise vote Democratic,
Republican, or Libertarian, or not vote at all. But in my experience
the movement is supported most actively by politically active leftists,
a group who I suspect will want to put their efforts elsewhere this year.
I hope that Ralph Nader puts his efforts, resources, and energy into
something other than a presidential run this year. I think he will be
much more effective elsewhere.
Sincerely,
Trevor Stone
Green Party member and supporter
