Stop complaining about Nader, the Don Quixote of American politics

Like the inexplicable sequel to a movie no one saw, Ralph Nader is back.

The 69-year-old… Like the inexplicable sequel to a movie no one saw, Ralph Nader is back.

The 69-year-old bachelor, author and consumer-rights advocate, known for his tireless, crusading populism and ability to make young, idealistic co-eds swoon, announced Feb. 22 his independent candidacy for president of the United States.

The words were barely out of his mouth before a great cry went up among Democratic supporters. They wailed that his star power — in 2000, he swept up 3 percent of the national vote — would cast a shadow over the Democratic bid for the White House. Republicans chortled gleefully, polishing their monocles.

Let’s be honest, though. Ralph Nader is a non-factor. Democrats have already shown that their main concern is electability: that’s how Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., — still recovering from personality-removal surgery — became the current front-runner. William Saletan, crunching the numbers for Slate magazine, notes that, during the early caucuses, Kerry’s margins of victory were impressive only among voters whose main concern was electability. The “beat Bush” vote carried the caucuses, but among voters who vote according to whose policy they most agreed with, Kerry’s lead is considerably slimmer.

Which is where Ralph Nader comes in: As an issue candidate less concerned with playing the system than sending a message, he’s the Don Quixote of 2004, bravely soldiering on with his dream of returning democracy to the people, yet totally divorced from reality. He offers his idealism, still strong after decades of battling cynicism and corruption, only to be crushed — again — between the two pragmatic Leviathans of American politics.

Whether that makes him a noble crusader, a fool, a political martyr or some amalgamation of the three is a question of perspective. Either way, you have to admire someone who can pull off lines like, “Relax; rejoice that you have another front carrying the ancient, but unfulfilled, pretensions and aspirations of the Democratic Party,” with a straight face.

The best Ralph Nader can hope for is to reach enough people to again claim the scapegoat title if (when?) the Democrats crash and burn in November. Pre-emptive whining is already beginning on liberal-leaning editorial pages. The San Jose Mercury News accuses him of “putting his ego ahead of the causes he spent a lifetime fighting to support.”

Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., speaking for the Democratic and Republican wings of the Democratic Party, respectively, both urge voters to stick with the party.

Says Dean, “This year, our campaign has made the case that, in order to defeat George W. Bush, the Democratic Party must stand up strong for its principles, not paper over its differences with the most radical administration in our lifetime.”

It’s not clear whether Dean recalls being kicked to the curb in favor of Kerry, the man whose principles, where available, are on loan from the Dean campaign. Memory loss is a common symptom of blunt-force head trauma.

Frankly, all this complaining is a little sad. Yes, the election of 2000 was close; the story of just what happened in Florida may never be untangled, but arguably Nader’s campaign tipped the balance toward Bush. A more important question is why the election was so close in the first place. Maybe voters saw some truth in Nader’s lament about the lack of meaningful difference between the two candidates.

Instead of complaining about losing 3 percent of the vote, why doesn’t the Democratic Party learn from its mistakes? Why not ask who keeps coughing up poorly managed, stuffed-suit candidates? Which party is it that, since Bill Clinton, has moved ever rightward, checking its ideals at the door every election season?

Democrats have one big advantage in this election: The people have seen who Bush is. Yes, the nation is polarized. Yes, the race will be close. But if the Democratic Party can’t manage to find enough principles to beat the most radically conservative President in recent memory, don’t blame Ralph Nader.

Jesse Hicks is a columnist for The Pitt News. He can be reached at jhicks@pittnews.com.