As Jerome Armstrong wrote almost a year ago,
Ron Paul, an "icon of American conservatism," will probably be the nominee of both the Libertarian party and the Constitution party. Remember, in 2002, the Libertarian party alone polled more than
twice as strong as the Greens.
Even if this wasn't the case, I mean for crying out loud--whatever happened to building a coalition? Since when was bemoaning freedom of choice seen as a more viable political strategy than like, yeah know, appealing to people through a positive agenda and working to bring them into your fold through activism? We shouldn't bemoan the possibility that a slightly smaller number of people won't feel forced to vote Democratic if Nader runs. Maybe I'm a little naive on this subject, but hoping to reduce the number of choices someone has at the ballot box in order to force many unwilling people to join your coalition is politics at it's worst. Replacing activism and progressivism with a semi-totalitarian attitude toward election options is hazardous to democracy and demonstrative of profound electoral weakness.
Its time to face up to some reality: Nader was a factor in 2000 largely because Republicans did a much better job of bringing potential Buchanan voters into their coalition that Democrats did to bring potential Nader voters into theirs. If in 2004 the Democratic nominee acts toward potential Nader voters much in the same way that Democrats did in 2000, then who knows, he might be a factor. As I remember it, "vote for us you hopelessly left-wing jackasses, no matter what we do!" was not exactly the best slogan to build a coalition around.
We need to convince as many people as possible to join our coalition, and we need to do so for positive reasons, not just anti-Bush reasons. We need to do so through work and activism, not mindless insults. I am a member of the Green party, and I voted for Nader twice, both in 1996 and 2000. I am not ashamed of what I did. Instead, I am glad that in 2004 I can feel good about taking part in a national coalition headed by a Democrat. It's going to feel damn good voting for the Democratic nominee next year (and yes, I will vote for the winner, no matter who it is, even Lieberman. I can't take part in the Democratic primaries and then bolt because my guy didn't win--that would be semi-totalitarian as well). I haven't been this excited about voting for a Presidential candidate since 1992, when I was 18 and I voted for Bill Clinton.
As the prospective nominee of a different political party, Nader is indeed an enemy of Democrats. However, as many people around here seem to forget, his voters are not Democratic enemies. Instead, they should be viewed as potential Democrats. Keep it positive. Build a bigger coalition that includes Nader voters and "swing voters" (I'm pretty sure Dean has found a way to do this, despite DLC claims from 1995-2002 that it was impossible). Don't bemoan increased choice. After all, if the biggest problem facing Democrats is that there are too many non-Democrat choices on the ballot, then the party is deservedly in its death throes.