Stop Nader from Running (with Poll)

A few days ago I received a fundraising letter from the Nader campaign. I was frankly (and perhaps naively) stunned that he was considering a run after 2000. I'm not sure what the overall sentiment is at DKos, but I line up pretty strongly with Eric Alterman, who strongly opposes such a run.  

Anyhow, I've pasted a copy of the letter I wrote to the Nader 2004 Presidential Exploratory Committee (with the address) and encourage those of you who don't want a Nader run to write him at this address.

As my letter makes clear, I'm adamant in my opposition to a Nader run, but am curious what others think.  

His website suggests that he'll make a decision in the next few weeks, so this is of the moment.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Nader 2004
Presidential Exploratory Committee
PO Box 18002
Washington DC 20077-5759

Dear Nader 2004 Presidential Exploratory Committee:

I donated money to the Nader 2000 campaign but by the time the election came around it was obvious to me that I had made a mistake. This was confirmed by a fundraising letter you just sent me. This letter included an attempt by Theresa Amato to argue that it was wrong to call Mr. Nader a spoiler in 2000.  This attitude is irresponsible, immature, and wrong. It's frustrating that we have a political system in which 3rd party candidates inevitably end up spoilers, but that's what we have, and I'll take the Constitution and its Amendments as a whole any day. Mature politics deal with reality; that Mr. Nader is even considering a 2004 run suggests he doesn't understand that.

I only hope Mr. Nader and those who continue to support his destructive presidential bids come to realize that his runs for President only serve to weaken the important principles he supports  Of course it is his right to run, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. In this context Ms. Amato's argument that it is "contemptuous" to call third-party candidates spoilers or that the term spoiler "signif[ies] second-class citizenship to third-party candidacies" reflects a desperate attempt to justify a bad argument, not logic. Third-party candidates in America are called spoilers not because people like me think that Mr. Nader does not merit full citizenship, but because third-party candidacies historically (almost without exception) cause the candidate representing a minority view to win an election with a plurality; other voting systems would produce different results, but that's not what we have now. I'm offended by this letter, by its misrepresentation of my beliefs, by its demonization of many good Americans, and most of all by the damage it does to the principles that Mr. Nader and I share.  

It's plain that there are many more effective ways than running for President to, as Ms. Amato says, "move . . . the progressive agenda and this country forward": Mr. Nader could recognize the political structure of the United States as it is and run in one of the party's presidential primaries, he could run for any other office, or he could use his considerable organizational skill to support and influence the current majority parties. Even the President doesn't control the whole of the political agenda, so perhaps Mr. Nader could settle for an influence profoundly greater than that of the vast majority of citizens. Many lesser individuals have done more good for the country by acting more realistically, and few Americans have been able to undermine so much of their own good work so quickly.    

Based on what you say in this letter, I am embarrassed to have ever given Mr. Nader any contribution and saddened that he'd discredit his laudable career this way. Unfortunately it took the 2000 election for me to realize how misguided his candidacy was. As long as your letter felt justified in throwing around terms like "contemptuous," I'll finish by saying that the damage Mr. Nader would do by running for President as a third-party candidate in 2004 would make him contemptible in effect if not in intent.

I hope I have some chance of persuading Mr. Nader not to run.

•  Damn Nader

  He should find some race where he can't be a spoiler. How about D.C. mayor? No matter how hard he tries, the Republican isn't winning that one.

  by jfern on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 09:49:38 PM PDT

  •  Re: Damn Nader

    Sort of like Jerry Brown being Oakland mayor. I was too young to follow Brown's career as CA governor, but I am impressed that he's run for mayor after being governor and a pretty successful presidential candidate (with a national reputation).

    It's hard to call running for mayor of a big city humble, but in one sense it is. And here Brown has a chance to do real good for people (assuming that's the goal of politics) while still getting his voice out there nationally.

    I honestly don't know if he's a good mayor for Oakland, but on paper this looks great and it reflects my overall point--you don't need to run for president to have meaningful influence, and it's in a sense uncreative to run for president, so why does Nader have to go and muck things up (assuming he does run)? There are many models of successful public service.

    by Natural Anthem on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 10:09:24 PM PDT

  •  Nader v Lieberman for Ct Senate!

    http://www.nader2006.com/

    by jdavidson2 on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 11:18:57 PM PDT

    •  I love the idea . . .

      Nader running v. Lieberman in the primary and then against the Republican would make perfect sense to me.

      by Natural Anthem on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 11:30:23 PM PDT

•  Stop fighting the last war.

  The only way Nader is a factor this time is if we nominate a lame-ass candidate.  Focus on winning the election, not on "not losing".  The ideas and will is out there for change.  Nader isn't the standard bearer for that and will not affect this election unless we make it close.  Let's not make it close.  Suck it up and fight (yeah I'm in a pissy mood, but GWB is still going down and that helps).

  by No One No Where on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 10:02:18 PM PDT

•  This is getting frightening...

  I think that it is getting really scary that people openly touting doing away with Democratic processes.

  • Don't count the vote (Florida)
  • Don't keep checks and balances of the power of the POTUS
  • Don't wait for a vote in the Security Counsel before going to war.
  • Don't speak up otherwise you will be seen as unpatriotic
  • Don't mention the war (until Howard Dean) does
  • Don't listen to the people (well, they are only a focus group)
  • Don't allow 100% of the Democratic voters to vote
  • Don't allow Nader to run

  When is this Democracy bashing going to stop. It was bad enough when the Republican scared folks into an illegal war. Now, the Democrats are doing the same but worse.

  The Democratic Leadership has made up another bogus fear that somehow uniting around the nominee now will aid in the defeat of Bush. Where's the proof??? There is none, just like they can't justify the electability meme.

  It is just more unmittigated crap.

  What is scary is that after Florida they are not even blinking an eye in regards to intentionally disenfranchising 75% of DEM voters.

  FACE THE FEAR AND IT WILL DISAPPEAR

  These options will only give a false sense of security...UNITING AROUND A NOMINEE NOW WILL NOT HELP DEMS BEAT BUSH, IT WILL ONLY DISENFRACHISE OUR OWN VOTERS

  by Chicken Little on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 10:03:11 PM PDT

  •  Re: This is getting frightening . . .

    Chicken Little: I share your general sense that uniting around a nominee is a risky strategy and wholly endorse your broader argument that our democratic traditions are eroding (electronic voting machines, Florida, etc.) . . . but is it really fair to imply (if that's what you were doing) that I'm saying that Nader shouldn't be allowed to run?

    I believe that it would be destructive if he ran, but my response is public debate, which seems like what we need for democracy (and what the Bush administration has shut down). Besides, how would I stop Nader from running, besides through persuasion (not that I'm convinced that will work)?

    What I'd love to see is an alternate voting system, like the runoffs they have in Louisiana or the "proportionate interest representation" system that Lani Guinier has proposed. Then a candidate like Nader could run without running the risk of throwing the election to a plurality candidate like Bush.

    by Natural Anthem on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 10:26:37 PM PDT

    •  This slow creep is gaining speed...

      Democracy is a muscle..if you don't use it you lose it.

      No matter what we can always justify putting Democracy on the shelf. Of course, we consider this temporary ...but just imagine if we had not started down that slippery slope 4 years ago in accepting an illegal election.

      Do you think the Democrats would have even dared to suggest not completing the primaries after less than 25% of democrats have voted? I don't think so, that people are actually pushing this is more frightening.

      I understand what you are saying about Nader (I do not like him either) but there is more danger in NOT ALLOWING democracy to take place. If that happens then we are aiding and abetting the rise of a facist state. No matter how good our intentions were.

      Next time, it could be why should we even hold elections at all!!!
      

      by Chicken Little on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 10:37:03 PM PDT

      •  re: Slow Creep

        I suspect that with democracy it's a lot easier to lose ground than it is to make up ground. I don't know what it will take to make up for the damage of the last 3+ years.

        I have been baffled at the response to Florida. Even for those who don't believe the election was stolen, it's still absolutely clear that votes weren't being counted. Even if that's just a product of incompetence (as opposed to dishonesty), it's unacceptable.

        When people don't take action when votes aren't counted, it makes me wonder if they have any real commitment to democracy, but by and large people didn't seem to care.
        

        by Natural Anthem on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 10:49:44 PM PDT

•  Green ballot status

  Last time, among his stated purposes was helping State Green Parties to achieve ballot status. Given that the Greens will again be running a Presidential candidate, by going Independent, Nader spoils their chance of hitting the thresholds to retain that status. If Ralph wanted to put another voice into the process this year, he should have, as he suggested in October, challenged the Shrub in the Republican Primaries.

  by ben masel on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 10:08:09 PM PDT

•  Nader will run.

  Nader is going to run and he will be well funded.  His Republican masters will make sure that his war chest has enought money to run ads in all the close states this fall.

  They did it last time, they'll do it again.

  It isn't about party building, or he would actually join the Green party.

  It isn't about policies, or he would be helping Kucinich.

  It isn't about teaching the Democrats a lesson, or he would be trying to talk to us.

  It's about spoiling the election, it always has been and it always will be.

  Nader wants to take our democracy and go home.

  The blood of our sons and daughters and the loss of our freedom is on his hands.
  

  by kamosa on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 10:30:52 PM PDT

  •  Speak for yourself...

    I'm thinking of sending Nader $100 instead of Kerry.  

    The blood of our sons and daughters and the loss of our freedom is on the hands of all the idiots who voted for "Mr. Electable".  

    by Asak on Sat Feb 14, 2004 at 01:28:46 AM PDT

•  Top down campaign for openness?

  A campaign website without a blog or a forum?

  "Ralph wants to know:
  In the 2004 election, should these issues be part of the debate?

  2. A responsive political system to expand the civic energies of the American people by, among other ways, facilitating the banding together of workers, consumers, taxpayers, small investors, and communities."

  Practice what thou preach. Responsive starts with the campaign.

  by ben masel on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 11:09:58 PM PDT

  •  from:

    Nader 2004 Presidential Exploratory Committee

    by ben masel on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 11:13:08 PM PDT

  •  Re: Top down

    I took a look at Nader's site and it looks like Ben Masel is right--there's no open forum or blog.  That's stunning.  The campaign does have an e-mail address, but otherwise is not interactive.  

    The first time I looked at it I thought this note from Nader on the front page was a little unusual: "Review our postings and please let us know what you think. Orchestrated campaigns and anonymous utterances, pro or con, are not very helpful and will be ignored. But how we best inspire our country's politics and bring out the best from our fellow Americans is an open question for exploration."

    Given the lack of interactvity, this sounds vaguely ominous, sort of like a teacher who starts class by telling students what not to do (this quote is from the front page).

    I take the point that debate should be civil, but I hear a subtle message about what Nader wants to hear in this paragraph.  What other candidate feels the first thing his potential supporters need to hear is a lecture on how to behave? I guess he knows what people would say if there was an open forum on his site.
    

    by Natural Anthem on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 11:26:51 PM PDT

•  I want Nader to run now...

  I'm more convinced than ever that the Democratic party is just a bunch of corupt corporate cronies.  The way the primary process has played out more or less proves it.  I don't care if Nader costs Kerry the election, because I don't think Kerry deserves to win in the first place.  Bush is a joke, but if he gets close to 50% of the vote again that's just a referendum about the stupidity of our country.  We'll collectively get what's coming to us, and I won't shed a tear.  

  by Asak on Sat Feb 14, 2004 at 01:26:37 AM PDT

  •  Of course you don't care

    You'd rather see millions of Americans suffer, and civil rights snuffed out forever, just out of your own selfishness and spite. You really think this will hurt John Kerry? He's loaded. He still has a career in the Senate.

    This will hurt your fellow Americans, many of whom never voted for Kerry, many of whom have voted for Dean or Edwards or Clark or Kucinich or Sharpton.

    What did they ever do to you? What did all the sick and the homeless ever do to you that you spit in their faces by supporting a man whose sole goal in this election is to once again benefit the Republicans and bring 4 more years of misery and terror?

    by JamesB3 on Sat Feb 14, 2004 at 01:40:22 AM PDT

    •  James

      He isnt speaking out of selfishness or spite. He's speaking from the heart believe it or not.

      The two party system doesnt work. The last quarter century proves that if it needed to be proven after a deeper look at american history.
      Our system is corrupt at its core. We can hope for a leader like Dean or a man of integrity like McCain to take the reins and change it but it is a long shot. How many of Kerrys policies do you agree with? How many do you even know? How many of the democratic parties? I doubt many.

      Wouldnt you like to live in a nation where you actually have the opportunity to vote for leaders who actually do represent you rather than the lesser of two evils both stained in the same hue?
      

      by cdreid on Sat Feb 14, 2004 at 12:07:59 PM PDT

•  Great letter

  Interesting how it brought out of the woodwork some people spouting the same old nonsense about how the Democrats and Republicans are slightly different shades of the same colour.  What nonsense!

  by SlackerInc on Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 05:10:39 AM PDT