Nader Nonsense

Is Ralph Nader kidding?

The fragmented Republicans, going against thirty years of history, seem poised to nominate John McCain, despised by much of “the conservative base,” whose image as a Maverick, though largely mythologized and undeserved, appeals mostly to moderates and party outsiders.

The Democrats, meanwhile, have narrowed their choice to a woman and an African American man. Despite being married to Bill, Hillary Clinton’s gender would represent a radical departure from our nation’s presidential history, and Barack Obama’s success has been powered by an appeal for a dramatic change in the way our leaders practice politics. Both have gathered massive crowds and generated record turnout in Presidential primaries, including large numbers of independent and first-time voters.

In other words, to differing extents, all three candidates represent radical, transformational change, and their success is a measure of the voter’s desire to alter the status quo.

Recently, however, Ralph Nader has decided to throw his hat into the ring and run for president, saying on MSNBC’s Meet The Press, “You go from Iraq, to Palestine to Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bumbling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts." He concluded, "In that context, I have decided to run for president."

Never has Nader’s egomaniacal arrogance been more starkly displayed. Despite a high probability that our next President will be an African American Democrat, Nader somehow sees Barack Obama as an undesirable insider. And yet Obama seems to embody so many of the principles Nader claims for himself. Obama was always against the Iraq war. Obama is a Washington newcomer, not yet entrenched in the culture of payola and cronyism. Obama is a champion of the little guy. Obama’s entire campaign has been crafted around the notion that the political process must change.

So when Nader starts whining and spewing his distaste for the presidential field, only two conclusions can be drawn. He is either incredibly stupid or wildly arrogant. Given his history of intelligent consumer advocacy, the only possible conclusion is the latter. By running for president, and hopefully appearing in debates alongside nominees who had to work hard to get there, Nader can stroke his own ego and insert himself into the political dialog regardless of the cost to the nation. Indeed, Nader is incapable of taking responsibility for the consequeces of his actions. His presidential bids in 2000 and 2004 likely cost the Democrats the presidency in at least one of those cycles.

And yet Nader sees no harm in this because he seems to see both parties as twin sons of different mothers. In other words, the world would be no different now if a Democrat had been president the last eight years.

This flawed and thoroughly absurd notion lies at the heart of the Nader deception. The truth is, our nation would be radically different in a host of significant and life-changing ways if George Bush had not been elected president. But for Nader to acknowledge this would also require him to acnowledge the part he played in getting Bush elected. And it would also rob his presidential aspirations of any weight.

The fact is, America has already been voting for radical change for months now, and Nader’s presidential bid will only serve to illuminate his vast insecurity and bottomless need for relevancy. This time, his candidacy will not be a deciding factor in the election, and the voters will once again recognize that Ralph Nader is, in fact, irrelevant.

We can only hope that no organization is spineless enough to allow him on stage for any of the debates.

- JT Compton
.