First let me say that I am certainly not, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be, a Ralph Nader supporter. Now that you've all slightly lowered your guns, let me explain.
Let me put out some of my thoughts on Nader. If it wasn't for Ralph, we might not have seat belts in cars, not to mention an enormous amount of other good, progressive legislation and organizations like Public Citizen. Still, since then he's become a politician. For all his progressive stances, Nader has continually put what can only be described as his own ego over what is not only practical but principled, or even what is right. For instance, back in 2004 as some of you may remember, he got help from the Oregon Family Council, a group that is against gay rights, which Nader claims he stands for, something that I, as a militant gay guy am in no mood to forgive. But we all knew this.
That said, I think Democrats do have something to gain from Ralph Nader. In fact, I think we have much more to gain from him than we do to lose. Here's why.
I'm as bitter about 2000 as anyone, but I also recognize that people are entitled to vote for whoever they want to and that the fact that so many progressives went to a guy with a snow ball's chance in hell of winning show's a failure of the Democratic party. We have to remember, the people that voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, most of whom are smart folks who came out for John Kerry last time around, had reasons for voting for him, namely that they were pissed about things like NAFTA and the Democrats' failure in the nineties to differentiate themselves from the Republicans. Quite honestly, I don't blame them for being upset about those things; hell I am too. But the solution, of course, is not to bolt from the party (something that's not workable in our traditional two party system) but rather to try and make the lesser of two evils into the greater good. In my mind, that's what the netroots has been trying to do with candidates like Ned Lamont, Mark Pera, and Donna Edwards, and we should all realize that it is and might always be a work in progress.
Anyway, before I get off topic, back to the point.
Traditionally, third parties like the Populist Party, Bull Moose Party, and Reform Party have their ideas obsorbed by the two major parties. Now, I think that very few of us progressives would argue with Nader's issue positions. Some of them, like single-payer healtchare and solar energy, are things most of us are for, and I'm sure that most of us would agree with his stands on trade, corporate crime and power, the environment, progressive taxation, agriculture, etc. His old website used to have a really good issues page, one that I wish other politicians would emulate (hell, he even provided data and cited his sources-show me one mainstream politician who does that). His new website is less extensive at this point I'm afraid, which is a shame because I was hoping to provide a more detailed selection of menu items for future public policy. Regardless, I would like to see Democrats take up some of his platform, from single-payer to solar energy to repealing Taft-Hartley to banning GMOs. Or at the very least, I'd like to see them actually explain why they take their positions to the voters and (dare I pose something so radical) back it up with facts.
I think in the long run these sound progressive policies can make it into the Democratic platform, but the past prominence of the DLC in the nineties should show us that we shouldn't take it for granted that the Democratic party will always be the party of progressive values. But I think that progressive activists, both old hats and new faces (including myself), are much more engaged than ever before and (hopefully) will stay that way, facilitated in large part thanks to the tubes. That, I think, provides the potential for us to move those progressive ideas into the mainstream thought of the party and of the nation. Granted, we won't see the story tomorrow of "Democrats Emulating Nader" (Thank God!), but then again I doubt the movement of populists and progressives into the two party structure was noticed all that much at the time. Rather, change will come from the progressive and liberal activists that are swarming the Democratic party, and it will be the movement that rightly gets the credit. Then, fifty years from now, some academic locked in his ivory tower will point out that Nader was for single-payer way back when Bush and Gore were underwhelming everyone. Then everyone will shrug and go on with their lives. After all the grief that Ralph Nader's caused us, it's kinda poetic.