Pubdate: Wed, 12 Jul 2000
Source: Boulder Daily Camera (CO)
Copyright: 2000 The Daily Camera.
Contact:  http//www.bouldernews.com/

NADER'S FANTASY

Ralph Nader doesn't mince words. He's the only presidential candidate 
talking openly about the failed war on drugs, the only candidate with a 
passion for campaign finance reform, and the only candidate who pledges to 
restore a balance between working people and "the pinhead corporate 
executives at the top." As a pioneer in the consumer movement and a 
crusader for economic justice, Nader has been a fighter all his life. He 
still is.

And yet, for all his defiant rhetoric, he's waging the wrong fight at the 
wrong time. Ralph Nader has every right to run for president whenever he 
chooses, but his campaign this year is based on a premise so transparently 
false that it calls into question his image as a man driven by issues 
rather than by ego. To hear Nader tell it, there's no significant 
difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush 97 and therefore no reason to 
worry about the likely effect of a Nader vote on the presidential race.

Gore vs. Bush? Tweedledum vs. Tweedledee. That's the Nader refrain. "The 
difference (between Bush and Gore) is the velocity with which their knees 
hit the floor when corporations knock on their door," Nader told one 
reporter. On another occasion, he commented that "the two parties are going 
downhill and every four years they get worse. And because you think one is 
not ... quite as bad as the other, why legitimize the downward spiral?"

There's no mystery about the political reasons for Nader's curt dismissal 
of the two major-party candidates. In contrast to 1996, when he drew less 
than 1 percent of the vote, Nader may have a measurable impact on this 
year's race 97 and most of his support is likely to come from voters who 
otherwise would have voted for Al Gore, if they voted at all. Simply put, 
Ralph Nader will help Bush by hurting Gore. Knowing that some of his 
potential supporters may be reluctant to use their votes for the practical 
benefit of a Republican candidate, Nader is working overtime to persuade 
them that it hardly matters one way or the other.

Anyone who buys his argument either isn't paying attention or is deep in 
denial. Do Nader and his staunch supporters believe that the Supreme Court 
will look no different in 2008 regardless of which candidate wins, or that 
the difference is of no consequence? Do they expect to see no important 
difference between the environmental policies of Bush and Gore? No 
difference in the Social Security program? In national priorities and 
spending on defense? In education reform?

Nader isn't the first third-party candidate to dismiss the difference 
between a Democrat and a Republican, but seldom has the claim been so at 
variance with reality 97 or with the candidate's own image as a straight 
talker. By playing the role of spoiler in this campaign and pretending he 
isn't, Nader is compromising his own hard-won credibility. Third-party 
campaigns have an honorable place in the history of American politics. As 
the Green Party candidate, Nader is part of that tradition. He will hold 
the allegiance of men and women who care as deeply as he does about 
campaign finance; who share his views on trade and workers' rights; who 
respect his long record of activism; who appreciate the feisty, 
uncompromising tone of his campaign; and who dislike Gore and Bush so much 
as individuals that in their minds the only alternative to voting for Nader 
is staying home. Those voters have as much right to their position as any 
supporter of Bush or Gore.

But if it's your position, take it with both eyes open. The gap between 
Gore and Bush is wide. The election will make a real difference in the 
lives of real people. And those who vote for Ralph Nader may influence the 
future of their country in ways they never intended or wanted.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart