By Danna Farhang
Although Ralph Nader goes to bed every night with taunts of “there’s no chance in hell that you’ll be President” in his ear, he’s getting back into presidential business.
The race to elect the most powerful man in the world has begun and Democrats are choosing John Kerry as the man to compete against the current President George W. Bush. But in the background they are busy having hissy fits over the announcement that a third contender, independent Ralph Nader, wants to try his luck at the presidential slots once again.
According to the Democrats, who have thrived in what Americans believe to be the freest democracy in the world, only two candidates from the two established political parties have the right to join the presidential race.
Democrats argue Nader, a familiar face in Washington and long-time activist and consumer advocate, can do no good by throwing in his hat as an independent candidate.
Four years after Nader first ran for president, he is still accused of being a “spoiler” in the 2000 elections.
Many Democrats claim that by remaining in the presidential race Nader took away precious votes from Al Gore. They argue the same thing will occur a second time around, ensuring another four years of Bush.
Not the case.
In the last election, Gore failed to win even his own state of Tennessee. It’s almost unheard of for a presidential candidate to lose his own state.
Second, just over 50 per cent of voters turned out to cast their ballots, one of the lowest turnouts in U.S history. Therefore, it should be assumed that Americans voted for the candidate they wanted to win.
Although Al Gore lost in Florida by a small margin, those who didn’t vote for him simply didn’t want to.
But a vote is still a voice andNader shouldn’t be discounted just because he doesn’t represent the majority.
Most experts agree, Bush as an incumbent and war time President will not be easy to unseat and Democrats need all the votes Kerry can grab. Nader can do them no favours. However, they have no right to discourage him from running simply because they realize the difficulty they will have in winning.
It’s unlikely Nader will win the same amount of votes he did in 2000.
Running as an independent in 2004, Nader is hardly guaranteed the same support he received under the Green Party banner in 2000. More important, the political climate is tense and the United States is more polarized than it has been for many years. This kind of atmosphere will change the way people vote.
But the electoral system needs people like Nader. As an independent, he will likely win protest votes from Americans tired of the ambiguities, similarities and cliches of both Bush and Kerry.
Although Nader’s personal record is less than shining, what’s important is what he represents ideologically.
If he gains less than one per cent of the vote, he still represents over 2.5 million disaffected and fed up Americans.
But Democrats have developed their platform based on Bush being replaced at all costs and Kerry is the only man to do it. Anyone who throws in their hat is doing nothing to help America rid itself of the “nightmare” that is Bush, they say.
As young American soldiers go abroad to fight and die for the principles of democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s insulting to the American public that Democrats should get themselves in a knot over democratic principles being applied at home.
This presidential race may be marked by the need to replace Bush. However, a third, fourth or fifth candidate representing different views and concerns within the American landscape can only add to the legitimacy of the democratic process.
What happened to the notion of a vote actually meaning something?
Remember the old saying “every vote counts?”
According to the Democrats, this doesn’t apply if Americans don’t vote for the established parties.
With voter apathy in the United States at an all-time high, more options and more voices should be added to the mix.
While Democrat and Republican primaries provide an opportunity to hear a wide range of positions, taking a fit when someone doesn’t want to join the established clubs seems somewhat “un-American”.
In the end, Nader will not become President and Kerry may not either.
But if the Democrats lose, they should concede and drop the excuses: Bush is the “deserved” (this term being used somewhat lightly) winner of a second term. And while they’re at it, they should blame Al Gore for his loss in 2000.