I support Ralph Nader’s independent campaign for
president, but I will not be voting for him. My support for his
candidacy doesn’t come from a belief that he’d be a
good president ““ in fact, I think he would not be much of a
president at all. What he might be able to do, however, is make the
next president a better one.
For years, Nader has criticized the way Democratic and
Republican political positions have become so close to one another
““ so close in some instances that the two parties agree. He
is partially right. Consider, for example, the political positions
of Sen. John Kerry, the current front-runner in the Democratic
nomination process. Kerry supports the Bush doctrine of preemptive
war; he signed the October 2002 congressional war resolution, and
said at one point, “Every nation has the right to act
preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat.”
Take into account Kerry’s views on free trade. In 2000,
the United States and China established new trade relations,
allowing China to enter the World Trade Organization. Expansion of
free trade is generally viewed negatively by traditionally left
factions, like unions or environmentalists, and positively by
traditionally conservative factions, such as large corporations.
The Nation reports that although “Kerry anguished at length
over human rights, the environment, and other concerns,” he
“concluded that opening China’s vast market to American
companies was more important.”
These are only a few examples of the similarities between Kerry
and Bush. Overall, there appears to be less difference between them
than one might think. Thus, Nader’s campaign, which stands
much further to the left than Kerry’s, might be able to
capture the votes of those Democrats who, disturbed by the
political homogeneity of the two, would have begrudgingly voted
Kerry only as the lesser of two evils.
Nader will force the Democratic nominee to pay more regard to
those votes ““ he will be able to apply pressure to the
campaign by holding these votes hostage. Nader could effectively
make the Democratic Party act more like a real Democratic Party by
forcing the nominee to push his positions more toward the left.
As Nader put it himself, “It’s up to them to grab
away my votes and my issues.” Moreover, this same pressure
could force the Democratic Party to better organize itself.
All the same, some people regard the Nader campaign as a genuine
threat to the Democratic nominee. After all, conventional wisdom
has it that Nader’s 2000 candidacy gave the election to
George Bush (this seems too simplistic of a notion to be correct,
but so many people perceive it to be true that it might as well
be).
However, Nader’s chances seem to be even slimmer in 2004
than they were in 2000, when he pulled in 2.7 percent of the total
U.S. vote.
One indicator of a candidate’s public support is how many
people register to support them at Meetup.com. Meetup.com is a Web
site that provides free service to groups so they can organize
local gatherings. The site has come into wide use for political
campaigns, allowing complete strangers who support the same
candidate or cause to organize themselves effectively.
As a sign of Nader’s support at this point, consider the
following excerpt concerning Meetup.com from the Weekly
Standard:
“(John) Pearce (who runs www.RalphDontRun.net) has been
following Nader’s support on the Meetup.com Web site for
weeks. “¦ (The results) show very little support for Ralph
Nader. For example, on February 3, John Kerry, the Democratic
front-runner, had 37,000 people registered on the Meetup Web site.
Nader had 373. Eight days later, Kerry had 44,600 people registered
““ an increase of 7,600. Nader had 374.”
Furthermore, hordes of powerful Democrats have made a point to
oppose Nader’s campaign, including the Rev. Al Sharpton,
Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe, and even a
close friend of Nader, former New York mayoral candidate Mark
Green.
Nader will probably not be a threat to the Democratic nominee,
try as he might. The most he can do, and what I hope he does
accomplish, is make Democrats nervous. If they’re worried
about Nader, then they might be forced to reform and remake
themselves.
With a little luck, the Democratic nominee will be forced to be
better and truer to the Democratic base ““ and for that,
he’ll be a better president in 2005 if he can beat Bush
““ and Nader.
Raimundo is a fifth-year economics and political science
student. E-mail him at araimundo@media.ucla.edu. Send general
comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.