Nader’s Unforgivable Sin
In a 2.26 N.Y. Times opinion piece called “Mr. Nader’s Unforgivable Wrong,” Ron Klain reminds that “the Ralph Nader presidential vote in the 2000 election was larger than the Gore-Bush margin of difference — not just in Florida, but also in New Hampshire — is grating and significant.
“So let’s just put it this way, as neutrally as possible: while there are several reasons why Al Gore was not sworn in on Jan. 20, 2001, one of them certainly is because Ralph Nader drew votes that would have given Mr. Gore the election — in not just one state, but two — making Katherine Harris, dimpled chads and the Supreme Court wholly irrelevant.
“But, some Nader sympathizers object, who could have known back then that Mr. Nader’s campaign would help throw the presidency to George Bush? Who could have seen it coming? The answer is that Mr. Nader did, which is why he initially promised supporters that he would not campaign in swing states or take other steps that might make him the ‘spoiler’ in the race — a promise he inexplicably broke, to the chagrin of many environmentalists, in the final weeks of the campaign.
“The risk that Mr. Nader might cost Mr. Gore the election was so well understood that one of the country√ɬ¢√¢‚Äö¬¨√¢‚Äû¬¢s most creative progressives, Jamin Raskin, hatched an elaborate plan to try to minimize this risk while preserving a chance for Naderites to make their voices heard — a plan that Mr. Nader refused to back. There’s simply no escaping the fact that Mr. Nader knew the risks he was taking, and did not care, believing that a vote for Mr. Gore was a vote for Mr. Bush, and that there were ‘few major differences’ between the two major party candidates.”
I fully agree with this response from N.Y. Times reader Shoji Suzuki, to wit: “I firmly believe that Mr. Nader had already proved his point in 2000. A minute drop of toxin in our environment can destroy the balance of nature. He was the toxin in the political nature then.”
See the docufilm An Unreasonable Man for a refutation of the “Nader campaigned swing states” and “Nader cost Gore Florida” myths.
The Democrats REALLY should worry about defining themselves as different from the Republicans, rather than keeping minor-party candidates off state ballots in their thuglike way.
This is the stupidest political meme of the 21st century.
Let me remind the so-called Democrats that there is more than one party on any given ballot. Green, Independent, Libertarian etc. If you’re voting for Nader, you’re not likely to be woo’d by Clinton or McCain or anybody else. That’s called CHOICE. Which I used to naively think the Democrats supported.
Nader was censored from the 2000 debates, even literally forced out from attending a debate he had every right to be at. The Democrat’s paranoia sometimes surpasses that of the Repubs, who don’t try to stifle democracy the way some “liberals” do. Nader was pointing out issues that the Dem corporatists fear to this day. They’re still unaddressed. And sorry, the differences between the parties at this point are almost cosmetic.
Nader is no factor in 2008 outside the outraged phonies who should not call themselves progressive. Or even Democrats.
No matter how you slice is, Ralph Nader is a tremendous douche bag. Election myths or not.
You are right, Nader’s involvement in the 2000 election was one of the major reasons why George W. Bush became the President of the United States.
However, Nader’s point, as he said on Meet The Press on Sunday, is also a valid one i.e. if we are a democracy then we cannot tell Nader that he cannot run for president because we oppose the person who benefits from his candidacy.
Either we are a democracy, where people can run for office if they so choose, or we are not; in which case Nader should not run for office because we only allow people from the two mainstream parties to run.*
* While the libertarians and others will always field candidates, given their previous “success,” they don’t count for this hypothesis.
“And sorry, the differences between the parties at this point are almost cosmetic.”
Christian, do you honestly mean to tell me that we’d be in the exact same position had Gore won? Gore was/is one of the most environmentally sound politicians out there and Nader felt he wasn’t good enough. You can’t make an argument that Nader was taking votes away from Bush, so if there’s truly CHOICE in this country then what was the other choice for conservative-minded folks? Nader was taking votes away from one candidate and it is ONE of the reasons (amongst many) why we are where we are right now.
I saw Nader interviewed on Charlie Rose during the 2000 campaign. After Nader repeated his assertion that there wasn’t much difference between Republicans and Democrats, Rose asked him point blank whether he wouldn’t be happier if Gore won. Nader replied that he would not. He approved of some of the things Bush had done in Texas and held Gore complicit in some of the things the Clinton administration had done that he deplored. He said he didn’t like either one, but asserted that in any event, he did not favor Gore over Bush.
He might well give a different answer now. But in 2000, Ralph Nader was not a friend of the Democrats, any more than he was a friend of the Republicans. Nader may have cost Gore the election, but at the time, he could not have cared less.
Noah, I have no idea where we’d be with Gore. We still would have been attacked on 9/11. But Iraq would not have happened.
Still, blaming Ralph Nader is pathetic. Bill Weber is correct, watch the Nader doc which blows apart this easy scapegoat meme.
And in the end, please blame American voters. We’re a DEMOCRACY. We bomb around the world proving we’re liberators and at home we act like fascist thugs when somebody else not approved by the system decides to participate.
Gore acted like a “douchebag” in his 2000 run. He bears responsibilty — along with a crooked Florida election process. That’s the NY Times piece that should have run. Funny dat it didn’t. And I know more Democrats who voted for Bush in 2000 than voted for Nader. You know who y’all are.
Nader has a right to run, but that doesn’t mean there’s no cost to splitting a two-man race into a three-man one. Just ask the South, which split the 60% pro-slavery vote in 1860.
Really, the proof that Naderites know they split the progressive vote in 2000 is the fact that they haven’t repeated the mistake. If Nader truly did no harm to their cause, they’d have stuck with him on principle in 2004. If they really believed the Clinton-Gore years were too right-leaning, they wouldn’t use them as a counterexample to the Bush years, either. The left threw a tantrum in 2000 over a centrist Democrat, and got taught a hell of a lesson by their standards.
Honest to blog. Are we still talking about this? It’s 2008. There’s been an entire other presidential election since then, which Bush STILL at least apparently won, and there’s yet another election going on now.
The argument that Nader took votes away from the Democrats is only valid if you think of the political system as two parties and think of all other parties as some kind of bizarre attack on the two parties in power.
Personally, I vote for the candidate I most want to have in the Presidency, and it’s clear to me that if everyone in the country felt free to vote for whoever they think is best, and had access to debates and information from all the candidates, we would no longer have almost all the power and the positions held by those two parties – and the whole damn thing would be moot.
The argument that third-party candidates take away votes from the two major candidates (subtext being “the real candidates”) is hilarious because it perpetuates itself. As long as we buy into that idea, we have to consider those two candidates the only electable ones and have to vote for them in order not to “throw our votes away” and have to look at third-party candidates as stealing from us. As soon as we really let go of that idea, it becomes clear that every candidate is competing for the majority of the votes. You could as easily say that Bush took votes away from Gore or Nader.
Personally, I’m MUCH more concerned about all the documented tampering with Diebold machines and blocking people from voting in Democratic areas that had a huge impact on the apparent outcome of these elections. And I think if people are really concerned about Nader taking votes away from Gore, there’s a simple solution: fight for a voting system that uses None Of The Above as an option and that allows voters to rank their first and second (or more) choices of candidates. The electoral system we have now is clearly not working.
What Oakling said.
Ralph Nader falls for what any successful politician should never be so naive to succumb to, especially not in the ‘dog and pony’ show the American election has become – he says what he means and his politics are based on his own reasoning and deduction.
His anti-corporate incentives and his interest in the Israel-Palestine debate actually having two sides are enough for him to have my vote forever. If I was an American that is.
And don’t think for a minute I’m going to compare political systems, if British politicians could have it so that they could not get the most votes and still win, they would. It’s a very creative political machine you people have.
Funny how all these Democrats who think Ralph Nader committed an unspeakable atrocity by appearing on the ballot in 2000 have nothing to say at all about Ross Perot.
And there are plenty Dems who whine about Nader, but who voted for our crooked robot governor.
Steve Lopez sums it up nicely today:
Only a year ago, Gov. Schwarzenegger was telling us we were in good shape financially, with no need for a rainy day fund. Now he says the wolf is at the door. He’s planning to lock the gates at 48 California state parks and beaches. And give get-out-of-jail-free cards to tens of thousands of prisoners statewide. And slash school budgets.
These and many other draconian horrors have been proposed by the governor who rose to power on three main recall promises: No more gaping budget holes. No more reckless borrowing. No more out-of-control fundraising and caving in to special interests. Is it time for Total Recall: The Sequel?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez13jan13,1,6127011.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
I always thought Gore lost in 2000 because he couldn’t even win his home state, a state that Clinton took in ’96. But maybe that’s just me.
Check out Al Gore’s environmental record in the Senate and vice presidency; not nearly so “progressive.” And he said “I agree” to Bush in a debate a dozen or so times.
Oakling-
I completely agree with your theories about how to overthrow the two party system. Unfortunately, your way only works if every American citizen (well, the registered voters, anyway) does their due diligence and researches all the different options.
Since my vote only counts once, do I really want to spend hours informing myself of all the relevant facts, only to have that cancelled out by someone who doesn’t care a whit about all that nonsense, and just blindly votes for the latest Republican flunky, based on something totally tangential like gay marriage?
As I said, I agree with you in theory, but I think you’re living in a fantasy world.
“And he said “I agree” to Bush in a debate a dozen or so times.
Exactly how Gore helped himself lose. You don’t point out your party’s differences by repeatedly agreeing with the other side.
I’ve always dug many of Nader’s principles, but his attitude has grated on me over the last eight years. Still, I don’t hold him responsible for Bush’s win. I willingly voted for Nader in 2000, because I did not live in a swing state. I appreciate the dialogue that Nader brings to the table, and if it’s a free country he should be able to run for office whenever he damn well chooses.
Voters in Florida and New Hampshire had the responsibility to know how the Electoral College works and that they might make the difference in the election. If you have to place the blame on anyone for this facet of the 2000 debacle, blame them.
Instead of worrying about the past we should look to the future and try and convince everyone who is elligible to vote to go and register and vote. We may have a great governmental system, but it’s appalling how few vote.
“Exactly how Gore helped himself lose. You don’t point out your party’s differences by repeatedly agreeing with the other side.”
Christian, you had it right in the earlier post: Gore lost because he was a douchebag.
Kerry lost because he was a douchebag.
Had Hillary been the nominee, she would have lost because she would have been a douchebag.
Obama is many things, but he is not a douchebag. McCain? I will be shocked if his temper and petty meanness doesn’t get the better of him. Everything people caricatured Bob Dole about is actually *true* when it comes to McCain.
That said, I don’t care about politicians, I care about ideology, and for that reason, I won’t be voting for Obama. But for the many millions of Americans who don’t care about policy, I believe that Obama will be nigh-unbeatable in the fall. He’s the perfect post-modern vessel for all our hopes and dreams, the ultimate blank-slate that we can all imagine supports what we all want done.
Well played, Barack Obama. Well played.
Forgetting for a second about the people who voted for Nader, what about all the people who voted for Bush? Didn’t they have more of a part to play in getting him elected?
Amen oakling. I’m glad to see that most of the posters find this to be a rediculous argument. We are not supposed to only have two choices in an election. We are supposed to have an infinite amount of choices. You can vote for anyone you want. Why does it have to come down to just two people? As far as MattC’s argument, while somewhat valid its only a fantasy because everyone makes it that way. Every person that doesn’t fall into this one or the other trap is just one more step in the right direction. It might not happen in our lifetime, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t make a difference. We will get there some day.
Nader voters don’t go to Gore, they stay home. Furthermore, Bush wiped him all over the floor in a few debates. Not to mention: HE LOST HIS HOME STATE.
Had the more likable, more human Al Gore of the last 5 or so years run in 2000, he would have won. But back then he came off as another bought and paid for centrist, regardless of his environmental stance. It certainly wasn’t enough to get my vote.
As someone said earlier, the blame rests with the people in swing states who GAVE their votes to Nader, not with Nader for asking for those votes. As he himself put it, it wasn’t his responsibility to help elect Al Gore. Gore was the default nominee because of his position in an incumbent administration with high approval ratings. But he was a pretty awful candidate.
John Kerry, by comparison, also came off a bit stiff but had a hell of a lot better credentials, and more conviction. Nader wasn’t enough to dent his percentages, but he was victim of the same voter fraud in Florida that sunk Gore, as well as voter fraud in Ohio, and of course the despicable Swift Boat campaign. I’d say he’s less to blame for his own defeat than Gore was, but he shouldn’t have just rolled over and accepted defeat so easily considering all the complaints about what went on during the election process in those swing states.
Had the more likable, more human Al Gore of the last 5 or so years run in 2000, he would have won. But back then he came off as another bought and paid for centrist, regardless of his environmental stance. It certainly wasn’t enough to get my vote.
Had the self-regarding, radical-green, hypocritical enviro-scold Gore of the last 5 or so years run in 2000, he would have carried Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.
That’s bullshit, Mgmax. People already labeled him as an environmental guy. What he didn’t have was charisma, or the ability to energize the base, which he’s gained in the years since his loss.
Nader has a right to run, but that doesn’t mean there’s no cost to splitting a two-man race into a three-man one. Just ask the South, which split the 60% pro-slavery vote in 1860.
Really, the proof that Naderites know they split the progressive vote in 2000 is the fact that they haven’t repeated the mistake. If Nader truly did no harm to their cause, they’d have stuck with him on principle in 2004. If they really believed the Clinton-Gore years were too right-leaning, they wouldn’t use them as a counterexample to the Bush years, either. The left threw a tantrum in 2000 over a centrist Democrat, and got taught a hell of a lesson by their standards.
For me the one moment that truly encapsulated Gore’s blowing the 2000 election happened during one of the debates. Gore sidled up to Bush with some sort of weird physical intimidation body language in an attempt to badger Bush into answering a question. Bush nearly jumped a foot in the air because he did not realize Gore was there.
I remember thinking: “What the hell are you doing, Al?” Gore’s composure lost. Election lost.
Noah: “Christian, do you honestly mean to tell me that we’d be in the exact same position had Gore won? Gore was/is one of the most environmentally sound politicians out there and Nader felt he wasn’t good enough.”
I’m guessing it’s because Gore still touted Clinton’s anti-environmental free trade policies.
“Nader was taking votes away from one candidate and it is ONE of the reasons (amongst many) why we are where we are right now.”
We are where we are right now, because the Dems have played Republican-lite for the last 15 years.
If Nader hadn’t run, Gore would’ve had as small a “mandate” as Dubya.
christian: “We still would have been attacked on 9/11.”
No, we wouldn’t, because Gore would’ve acted on the warnings.
Mgmax: “Nader has a right to run, but that doesn’t mean there’s no cost to splitting a two-man race into a three-man one. Just ask the South, which split the 60% pro-slavery vote in 1860.”
You act like that’s a bad thing.
“If Nader truly did no harm to their cause, they’d have stuck with him on principle in 2004. If they really believed the Clinton-Gore years were too right-leaning, they wouldn’t use them as a counterexample to the Bush years, either.”
I definitely don’t like Clinton any more than Bush. But no one expected Bush to go above and beyond the typical fascist tactics of the Republican Party. I didn’t vote for Kerry believing that my vote for Nader hurt him; I went with the person who had the best chance of stopping Bush before it was too late.
The only thing I’m willing to concede to Dems like Clinton is that they at least know what they’re talking about, when it comes to policy. I don’t feel that their policies are significantly better than Republicans, though, but they generally involve less ass-raping. But the fact that it took this long for them to state or suggest anything anti-Republican makes me feel even more justified to have voted for Nader.
justified=vindicated
Lazarus, the “new Gore” is to the environment as the “new Nixon” was to Vietnam war protestors. It may be charismatic to you, I find it frighteningly demagogic.
Mgmax: “Lazarus, the “new Gore” is to the environment as the “new Nixon” was to Vietnam war protestors.”
Replace environment with corporations which cause global warning, and I’ll agree.
Had the more likable, more human Al Gore of the last 5 or so years run in 2000, he would have won. But back then he came off as another bought and paid for centrist, regardless of his environmental stance. It certainly wasn’t enough to get my vote.
Had the self-regarding, radical-green, hypocritical enviro-scold Gore of the last 5 or so years run in 2000, he would have carried Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.
Lazarus, the “new Gore” is to the environment as the “new Nixon” was to Vietnam war protestors. It may be charismatic to you, I find it frighteningly demagogic.
Gore is as ill-informedly contentious on the environment as D.Z, is on corporations. That close enough?
Gore is as ill-informedly contentious on the environment as D.Z, is on corporations. That close enough?