Author: Brett Fujioka
On February 24th, Ralph Nader announced his candidacy on behalf of the Independent Party on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Millions of Democrats across the globe groaned, while the Republicans undoubtedly moaned in appreciative response. Was Ralphie really going to do it again?
I’ll give Ralph Nader credit. He did a lot of good work in his day, which is all the more reason why he shouldn’t run for president. He’s tarnishing his own legacy. Rather than commemorating him for his activism, people will remember him as the braggart who empowered his rival candidate-twice.
Nader repeatedly denies spoiling the 2000 election, and refuses to accept responsibility for electing an incompetent president who led America in the wrong direction. Al Gore required only 537 votes in Florida to defeat George W. Bush. Nader purloined 97,421 votes from politically challenged Floridians. If even a fraction of those votes were doled over to Gore, then we wouldn’t have had a President who blindly catapulted his country into one of the most mismanaged American wars since Vietnam. Most importantly, we wouldn’t have a President who ignored the rising concerns of global warming. Many of the voters who supported Ralph Nader’s run in the Green Party during 2004 undoubtedly did it due to concern for the environment. Ironically, if even a fraction of those voters transferred their choice to Al Gore, we would have had the greenest President since Teddy Roosevelt.
Voters who are disappointed with both the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates shouldn’t turn to Nader because he is-despite his limited political prowess-quite possibly one of the most conceited and arrogant candidates in the election. He’s not even president and he calls what he’s doing a “Jeffersonian revolution.” The only other asinine politician to liken himself to a great president was George W. Bush (he claimed that he was like Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt). Nader further humbly claims to have “saved millions of lives.” This guy isn’t running for the people, as he once claimed, but merely to inflate his ego.
Nader’s arguments are unoriginal and irrelevantly whiney. He claims to be running in order to protest corporate and lobbyist sponsorships for partisan candidates, however Barack Obama claimed not to have received any contributions from lobbyists during his speech in Des Moines, Louisiana on Nov. 10, 2007. If this is true then Nader’s run is completely unnecessary. Nader’s criticisms of Obama are completely unrelated to any other campaign issues. In an interview on CNN, Nader questioned why Obama didn’t “come down hard on the economic crimes against minorities in city ghettos” as a community organizer in Chicago. As concerned as I am with social injustice, economic crimes aren’t even an issue at hand on the campaign trail. You might as well take another stab at him for not being black enough.
Nader supporters have heard this time and time again, but voting for him is like voting for the Republicans. Even John McCain admitted that Nader’s run is helping the Republican party. Ralph Nader is 74 years old-that alone makes him old enough to be a viable Republican candidate. Even Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot stopped running once they realized how much they had harmed their party of origin.
I’ve heard that some who voted for Ralph Nader did so in protest of the rigid bipartisan system. Point taken. I haven’t seen a presidential election with two likable opponents since 1996. At the same time, there are other third party candidates to vote for besides Nader. Don’t give this guy another reason to feel proud of himself.
I know that people are frustrated with the bipartisan system, but it isn’t leaving anytime soon. Most of the people who voted for Nader did so to send a message to this “system,” but the only message they are sending is that they’re stupid enough to waste their vote on someone who whines all the time on his website like some distraught emo kid. Voting for Nader only further encourages the Republican Party to put his name on the ballot rather than reserving it as a write in.
The one thing that Nader voters refuses to acknowledge is that politics is all about compromise. Even though the bipartisan system is pathetically narrow-minded, voting for one of two candidates is a way of compromising between the best selection available-voting for Nader is a way of whining like some angst ridden teen on Livejournal.
This article has been archived, for more requests please contact us via the support system.
