Ralph Nader turns 74 today. By contemporary standards, that does not seem to be terribly geriatric.
But after watching Nader declare that he is running for president yet again on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” I couldn’t help but think that the longtime consumer advocate has turned into that stereotypical senile grandfather who putters around the house.
It’s dinnertime and everyone is sitting at the dinner table discussing politics, and Grandpa Ralphie chimes in with his ludicrous comments about how all the politicians are “no-good fascists, and there ain’t no difference between any one of them.” Everybody looks softly at Ralphie and offers him a patronizing smile, because the family respects all the achievements and sacrifices that he’s made over the years. But nobody at the dinner table actually takes anything Ralphie has to say seriously.
He is gently into orbit, blissfully unaware of the political realities that surround us. And just like the angry old grandfather at the dinner table, he is the only one who doesn’t know how much of a fool he has become.
So there Nader was on Sunday, proclaiming to moderator Tim Russert and the rest of the country why he feels a moral obligation to represent the truly progressive principles of single-payer health care, reduced military spending and corporate accountability.
This is the kind of principled and articulate voice that Nader gave to so many of his causes over the last 50 years and what made Nader’s political achievements so stunning.
He helped legally mandate seat belts and air bags in cars. He led the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Without Nader, we would not have the Freedom of Information Act.
Nader is one of the most important liberal activists in this country’s history, which is why it is so sad to see him reduced to a painfully out-of-touch demagogue.
We needn’t dwell on Nader’s role in the 2000 presidential election, which many people firmly believe to have cost Al Gore the election. I don’t blame Nader for running in ’00, even though George W. Bush won Florida by a slim 537-vote margin, and Nader received over 97,000 votes in the state.
During the 2000 campaign, Nader referred to Gore and Bush as “Tweedledum and Tweedledee,” reaffirming the belief that there was no ideological daylight separating the two candidates.
Eight years later, everybody concedes how it was wrong to lump Gore and Bush together ““ except Nader.
I suppose Nader’s ego won’t allow him to recognize the irony in his Green Party candidacy costing this country what would have been the most environmentally conscious president since Teddy Roosevelt.
Fast forward eight years, and Nader is still perpetuating the dangerous myth that there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.
I, for one, don’t think it is merely a matter of Nader’s ego propelling yet another ill-fated presidential run. I think he is so wrapped up in his own bubble of nostalgia, wishing to rekindle the good ol’ days of FDR liberalism, that he no longer has a firm grasp on the political realities of 2008.
When asked by Russert if he was worried about taking votes away from either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, Nader said, “Not a chance. If the Democrats can’t landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form.”
Of course, Ralphie. Because it is going to be such a slam dunk for a woman or a black man to get elected leader of the free world, especially when running against a Vietnam veteran who is portraying Clinton and Obama as promoting some sort of treasonous “surrender to terror.”
There are so many things hanging in the balance in this election. We have a catastrophic war that Clinton and Obama want to end but McCain wants to prolong. The Supreme Court is one more reactionary appointment away from overturning Roe v. Wade and affirmative action. The rising cost of health care is out of reach for a shrinking middle class, and we are witnessing arguably the largest economic disparity between the rich and poor since the Gilded Age.
Clinton and Obama have staked out liberal positions on each of these issues, and McCain is far to the right.
And there is Grandpa Ralphie at the dinner table, muttering to himself about “all those fascists, there ain’t no difference.”
Poor Ralphie. Maybe we should take him outside to play in the yard. You hear that Ralphie, the yard! How does that sound? Fun?
E-mail De Jong at adejong@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu