This article is the second in a four-part series.
The American political process is a fickle creature; consider, for a moment, the roster for the presidential election. In one corner, we once had a populist attorney, John Edwards, who suffers the fate of being gone but not forgotten, and in another we now have another populist attorney, Ralph Nader, who has always suffered from precisely the opposite problem! (And lest one accuse the association of being forced or contrived, Mr. Nader had since before his own campaign declared Edwards his top candidate.)
The differences between the two are very slight – Edwards is the more accomplished lawyer, Nader the more rousing activist – yet the latter hasn’t the slightest chance of ever winning an election, and the former very nearly did. We’ve seen a marginalization of the protest vote on a systematic level this season, too: despite enthusiastic audiences, robust grassroots campaigns, and an abundance of support, both Rep. Paul and Rep. Kucinich couldn’t even earn invitations to their own respective debates. And when Nader declared his candidacy back in February, the news was buried by the fanfare of Raúl Castro’s ascendancy in
But neither Nader nor any of the rest of them are the ultimate casualty of the media’s machinations – we are. Subjects without broad sex appeal generally go uncovered, ignored and eventually forgotten, and then we pay a dear price for our inattention. To what extent? Well, ask yourself a question: can you name the current Chief Justice and the current Chairman of the Fed? If you can’t, don’t despair your inclusion in this overwhelming majority, but be aware: both men do have an immediate and considerable impact on your life. And so will Nader, if we all don’t tread carefully in November
Everyone knows he has no chance of election, but of what existential value is his actual message? Is a ballot submitted for him a voice engaged in constructive dissent, or is it just misguided support for a political parasite? For his own part, he seems earnest in his efforts, and throughout the season, he will certainly continue to play his signature role: the quintessential activist, ever in pursuit of Big Business malfeasance and sadly, his own vanishing historical relevance. But as noble a goal as that might be to progressives, at what cost will it come? While it seems unlikely that he will actually be able to take responsibility for a Republican victory in November – a part that he has vociferously denied ever playing in any election – the Democrats can no longer afford not to take him seriously; a Zogby survey two weeks ago bestowed exactly the same number of percentage points to him as to the spread between either Democratic candidate and Senator McCain.
Although torpedoing presidential elections for the purposes of protest does make him reckless and intractable, a point can still be made on his behalf: he’s a tireless champion of consumer causes, and yet since 2000, progressives have been his very harshest critics. Wealthy Democrats with their pledges and the ordinary Democrats with their sentiments have continued to plead with him, “Don’t run for office. Don’t ruin another election,” oblivious to the fact that if they had paid closer attention to their own interests, he wouldn’t have to. Ralph Nader has earned his right to be acknowledged as a real candidate; we may not vote for him, but hopefully we don’t again make the mistake of forgetting about him.
