This past spring I watched my friend graduate from San Francisco State. The whole university graduated together, with one large convocation in a stadium. They invited various famous speakers to address the assembled crowd, including the guy who founded eLoan. Somewhere in the middle of his talk he veered off on a tangent. He had been talking about how, even working in business, you could still have a social conscience, and his remarks made reference to the influence of Ralph Nader. But as soon as he mentioned his name, he immediately digressed from his prepared notes. That Nader used to be cool, he said, "but now he's a dick."
It's very sad that Nader's ethos as a crusading cowboy for the common man has become so tarnished to those who would otherwise have welcomed him as an ally. Liberals have been rushing to excoriate him, while Republicans have suddenly signed up to be his best friends, just because of the perceived impact he may have on the ballot this election day.
I tend to think that this criticism is undeserved. Nader has a point: there should be more than two choices for president. Perhaps if there ordinarily were, we wouldn't keep having elections where the choice feels like one between the lesser of two evils. Consolidating political power in two parties is not healthy for governance. Whoever wants to be on the ballot should be able to run, and it's noble for him to want to change the political landscape so that 3rd party and independent candidates will be able to have more viable candidacies.
The problem is that he is personally blamed for the debacle of the last election, which inserted Bush into the White House. His presence on the ballot is widely thought to have diluted the liberal vote, which, had it not been, would presumably have consolidated into enough support for Gore to claim the victory. I feel, though, that criticizing him for this outcome is unfair.
For one, it is not at all certain that everyone who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore instead (they might have just stayed home if he hadn't been on the ballot), or that if they had all voted for Gore the electoral votes would have necessarily changed to Gore's advantage. Secondly, one can easily argue that Gore did in fact win the election, and that political maneuvering and horrendous Constitutional Law (Bush v. Gore) is what actually robbed him of his rightful victory. None of that is Nader's fault.
The real problem, and one that persists in this upcoming election, is that Bush is seen as a palatable candidate to so many. Blaming Nader is misplaced: the lost Gore votes that should be mourned are not the ones lost to Nader but the ones lost to Bush.
The current liberal hatred against Nader is grounded in the theory that his appearance on the ballot will again rob the Democrats of those they need to unseat Bush. But the rush to marginalize him may be detrimental to their own political objective. Had Nader been invited to the debates this time around and been able to add to the political dialog, his participation could have helped Kerry poke holes in Bush's facade, thus reducing his appeal to those for whom it still holds.
On the other hand, Nader may only have himself to blame for his loss of reputation, even though that loss may be undeserved. He is a man who is both right and wrong at the same time. His insistence on running in this election may have been a bridge too far, one too many battles, which, though worthy on its own, may have undermined the others he also wished to fight. Nader has many people working hard in his non-profits, trying to affect positive policy changes. (I should know: in the interest of full disclosure, I worked for one of them this summer.) These dedicated people keep pressing for important changes that this administration refuses to adopt. They need an alternative one in order to get their job done. Nader knows he isn't going to win this election, but if he even slightly (and however inadvertently) contributes to the re-election of the current administration, it will be extremely counter-productive to his other causes.
I don't really think, however, like many other liberals apparently do, that he really would be responsible for a possible Bush victory this time around, even if he did appear on the ballot in all 50 states. All the factors affecting the results of the 2000 election are still in play in 2004, and should Bush win again it will be for the same reasons. But the shame of it is that Nader's mortgaged his credibility in order to take on this fight. Even being undeserving of the criticism, because it is so widely accepted, whether in the big picture he is right or wrong or whether his critics are right or wrong doesn't really matter because he's alienated himself from his allies, and that is really too bad.
If I had his ear (I don't - I never met him) I would have counseled him not to pursue this election because of these pragmatic concerns. It will likely be a close election, and even if his impact in it is minimal, perhaps that will still be too much. Plus laying everything on the line to participate in this election, despite the storm of criticism, compromises his chances to run again at a time when he would seem to be more a legitimate candidate and could really help change the political landscape. But I wouldn't force him to make this decision, and I refuse to join the chorus of liberals who are so frightened of a Bush re-election (though rightfully so) that they prefer gang up on him in a smear campaign and ignore the valid principles motivating him. The zeal with which he has been turned into a liberal pariah is disturbing, and ill-befitting of a party who purports to value open-mindedness.
That said, I'm voting for Kerry.
Date changed because I couldn't get online until 11/1. Edited slightly 11/24, 11/30, and 3/1/08.