Following up on a brief item from yesterday, it’s probably worth noting that a certain third party candidate is moving forward with plans for a fourth presidential campaign. (Apparently, the results of the first three weren’t quite clear enough.)
Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate who ran for president in 2000 and 2004, said he is considering another bid for the White House because he believes the current contenders aren’t standing up enough to corporate interests.
“Look at the major areas of injustice, deprivation and solutions that are not being addressed by the major candidates,” Nader, 73, said in a telephone interview today. Among other issues, he cited the need for a “practical timed withdrawal” from Iraq, programs to crack down on corporate fraud and a rearrangement of the U.S. tax system.
The Bloomberg report doesn’t mention it, but Nader was also a Green Party candidate in 1996, which would make this year his fourth campaign, not his third.
As for a certain presidential election that led to the Bush Nightmare, Nader still insists that Gore would have won easily in 2000 if only he had done everything Nader told him to do. “We had proposals that if Gore had picked up on, he would have landslided Bush,” Nader said.
The unpleasantness of 2000 notwithstanding, Nader appears anxious to run yet again — it’s just not quite clear why.
By his own admission, Nader doesn’t expect to win, he doesn’t expect to change the Democratic Party’s agenda, he doesn’t expect to appear in the debates, and he doesn’t even expect to make the ballot in every state. So, what exactly is the point here?
Asked about this a few months ago, Nader said, “What third parties can do is bring young people in, set standards on how to run a presidential election and keep the progressive agenda in front of the people. And maybe tweak a candidate here and there in the major parties.”
Is it me, or is this wildly unpersuasive? Major parties can and do bring young people into the process; in fact, Barack Obama seems to be pretty good at it. For that matter, Nader’s multiple efforts have never affected election standards, and his campaigns have generally done a poor job of promoting progressive ideas, instead focusing on his personal disdain for the two major parties.
Yes, I suppose Nader could certainly “tweak a candidate here and there in the major parties,” but isn’t that a pretty shallow reason to launch four consecutive presidential bids?
It’s possible that Nader, like Michael Bloomberg, is convinced that there’s a real hunger in the country for a third-party candidate, but there’s ample evidence to the contrary.
To be sure, it’s likely that Nader’s ability to influence election results has passed. After “peaking” in 2000, with 2.7% of the popular vote, Nader dropped to 0.38% in 2004 (which was even worse than the 0.7% he garnered in 1996). It stands to reason that he’ll fare no better in 2008.
But given all of this, why bother? Why would someone with an impressive legacy on behalf of consumer take additional steps to make his enemies happy, his allies resentful, and his reputation tarnished?