When it comes to Ralph Nader, the blog and diary entries while giving Nader his historical accolades, tends to degrade into ridicule and vitriol when discussing his candidacies. As a former Nader supporter in both 2000 and 2004 and for those who incorrectly believe that Nader takes votes away from Democrats are missing the point of Nader's run.
Those that fear a Nader candidacy are those that believe politics is a zero-sum game and we the people are left having to decide between only two political parties -- the duopoly. That irrational fear only proves Nader's point that the American people unlike many European countries are stuck with limited choices. Also, and especially in 2004, Nadar faced many unfair legal roadblock by the Democrats that drain his coffers. Which, when you think about it, illustrates the undemocratic nature of the legal system whereby the high cost litigation creates a judicial divide among ordinary citizens and the elites.
For the past 20 years, I did not vote for a Democrat -- the last one being Jesse Jackson in 1988. The Democrats have been complicit in supporting policies that favored the rich and corporations over the people. For example, during the Reagan years, in 1983, the Democrats supported the regressive tax shift by going along with Alan Greenspan plan to shift tax burdens on the Social Security payroll tax rather than rollback the 1981 Kemp/Roth tax cut for the rich. In 1986, the Democrats, Bill Bradley and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, in particular, supported the awful income tax "reform" that lowered the top tax rate to 28%!
Democrats, in their desire to win back the White House supported the triangulation and "50 + 1" strategies of the Clinton's that ironically led to a Congressional Democratic minority and the eventual rollback of critical liberal programs like AFDC and Glass/Steagal and gave us, which is very important to Daily Kos, the 1996 Telecommunication Act.
In 2000, the Democrats served up Al Gore whose running mate was fervent reactionary neo-con Joe Lieberman. The bogus, wasteful, and unnecessary "Department of Home Land Security" was Lieberman's big idea and as we see Lieberman supports the 100 years war candidate who wants to maintain a costly long term military presence in the Middle East. In 2004, John Kerry ran to the right of GWB and against the public desires to withdraw from Iraq. In 2006, the public sent a message for withdrawal by electing the Democrats to Congress. Unfortunately, the Democrats in Congress failed in their mandate to be a real opposition to Bush and their rating in many cases was lower than the President.
With this backdrop, the Democrats only have themselves to blame for providing Nader the space to make a legitimate run. This year in 2008 Nader still offers a real alternative. The strongest stance and contrast Nader is offering this year is on health care. Other important issues that Nader promotes are:
- Reduction of the military budget
- Repeal of Taft-Hartley
- Building a progressive tax code and taxing corporations
- Taxing speculative activity
- Palestinian rights
A Nader run may help change the narrative on Israel-Palestine. It is very true that Obama altered his support of Palestinian rights and this conflict has cost the U.S. plenty due to the country's involvement in Iraq. In addition, neither Obama or Clinton offer single payer health care.
The difference with Obama however is the nature of his campaign. Obama campaign invites public participation and accountability unlike that elitist campaigns of Clinton and McCain.
Obama clearly demonstrates his political acuity and is an extremely smart politician. Rather than fear a Nader candidacy he'll "cherry pick" away Nader's rhetoric. This is already happening as Obama has adopted some of John Edwards populous rhetoric. Therefore the best way for Democrats to deal with Nader in 2008 is to offer the American people a real choice.
Clinton clearly is more of the same. Obama can give the public a choice. The key is whether Obama shift to the right during the general or adhere to his message of change, hope and accountability. If he does that people who would consider voting for Ralph Nader will look to Obama instead.