Seven Oaks Magazine.

If you turn south, squint your eyes, and open you ears, you can hear the not-so-faint sound of establishment liberals gritting their teeth. Ralph Nader’s decision last week to take a third run at the presidency has provoked a complicated collective temper tantrum that is interesting not just for its manifestations of plain-and-simple, ugly nastiness, but also for the way in which it has divided liberals into varying shades of Nader haters -- from the quiet regret of former supporters like Susan Sarandon, to the likes of distinguished Professor Bruce Jackson who wishes that Nader would just “douse himself with gasoline and exit this world…in a blaze of protesting glory.”

Right after the wild 2000 U.S. elections the argument against Ralph Nader went something like this: ignore the fact that 250,000 Florida Democrats voted for Bush, forget the corrupt Supreme Court ruling, forget that the votes of tens of thousands of working class black voters were thrown out, ignore the work of Jeb Bush and Catherine Harris, and never mind the fact that Al Gore was so politically impotent that he couldn’t even defend his home state against an inarticulate son of wealth with a horrific record. Forget it all ‘cause at the end of the day if Nader hadn’t run, the Democrats would have gotten all of his votes, and we wouldn’t have gotten Bush.

Putting the crimes of Florida aside, the Democrats’ only other example of Nader and the Greens costing them their rightful crown was the four Electoral College votes of New Hampshire. That state was lost to the Republicans by a margin smaller than the total number of Nader votes. It isn’t often reported, though, that exit polls found that Nader in fact captured more Republican votes in New Hampshire than he did Democrat votes. What’s also seldom mentioned is that Gore would have lost Wisconsin, Oregon, Iowa, and New Mexico if only a portion of Pat Buchanan’s Reform Party voters hadn’t reverse-spoiled against Bush. Nonetheless, the message was that Nader and the Greens had stolen the Democratic victory. Nader and the Greens had given us Bush, end of story.

Ralph Nader turned 70 on Friday, and after over 40 years of work for the public good, he’s considered even by his foes as a kind of citizen superhero. This son of Lebanese immigrant parents is credited with single-handedly creating consumer advocacy, as we know it today. He has produced hundreds of victories against unfair corporate crime, and brought us things like the Freedom of Information Act, non-smoking sections, clean air and water bills, and safety regulations in cars that have saved literally millions of lives. Nonetheless, the Gore loss of 2000 created the first generation of enraged anti-Ralph liberals. Anger had finally started to ooze from all corners of the liberal apparatus. After sitting through eight years of Clinton and Gore’s welfare slashing, the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis through bombing and sanctions, the introduction of 50 new crimes punishable by death, a health care plan that produced three million more uninsured Americans, a Telecommunications Bill that gave away billions to corporations, and the signing of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act -- after all that, Democrats, activists, labour leaders, environmental honchos, and liberal pundits had finally found something that really pissed them off: Ralph Nader.

The backlash spread right through his own Green Party. At their national meeting, the already-diverse Greens were hopelessly split on whether or not to run a full candidacy. In the end, the party decided to put off the decision until the summer of 2004, effectively killing the possibility of any serious full-scale run.
But maybe none of it mattered. Earlier this year, as Nader mulled over whether or not to run as an independent, there seemed be a feeling that the Democratic Party was turning left -- that maybe they were no longer simply the lesser of two evils. In their heartfelt “Open Letter to Ralph Nader,” the editors of the Nation magazine described a new, much-changed party: “2004 is not 2000…the odds of this becoming a race between Bush and Bush Lite are almost nil. For a variety of reasons -- opposition to war, Bush’s assault on the constitution, his crony capitalism,…Ralph, please think of the long term. Don’t run.”

Events seemed to back up that feeling of hope for progressive Democrats. With the quick end to Lieberman’s “Joe-mentum,” the conservative Democratic Leadership Council (of which Clinton was once poster boy) had lost its only horse. Also, the images of the party had changed from a plastic, politically stagnant Al Gore, to one of whooping “Deaniacs,” strong anti-war chutzpah, and young, new dialogue through the “blog” movement. But Dean has since tanked and the smart money is now on John Kerry, with John Edwards running as his vice president.

The left turn never came. Now liberals are told that their best and only choice is Kerry, another son of wealth who, as a senator, supported NAFTA and Permanent Normalised Trade Relations with China (forever skipping human rights checks). He voted to repeal welfare, and supported the USA Patriot Act and Bush’s call to war in Iraq. Kerry’s proposals show that he isn’t pushing the big party anywhere new. Once again, a Democratic leader opposes equal rights for gays and lesbians, he has no plans to increase social spending, and he refuses to make any cuts the gargantuan American military and defence budgets. Kerry calls for an additional 100,000 new police officers on the streets, and he wants to send more troops into Iraq.

So, as Ralph arrived at NBC’s Meet the Press last Sunday, the table seemed set for another honest run in the face of all the predictable ugliness. But the Nation was right: For Nader, 2004 certainly isn’t 2000. Under the Greens, Nader had run an impressive campaign, managing to get onto the ballot in all but seven states and drawing bigger crowds than Gore or Bush (over 10,000 at a time to a series of star studded “super rallies”), all the while attracting some big names to his campaign like Phil Donahue, Michael Moore, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Paul Newman, Willie Nelson, Ani DiFranco, and even cynical libertarian Bill Maher, who apparently suspended his animosity towards Arabs in general to endorse this Arab-American in particular. But as Nader announced his candidacy this year, ballot access was far from guaranteed, and all the stars have either turned or disappeared. Even former running mate Winona LaDuke has distanced herself from America’s greatest spoiler.

All along, the Nader camp has maintained that his candidacy could only help the weak-kneed Democrats defeat Bush, and after a week to cool down, it looks as though even a few within the establishment are starting to relax. Nader’s nephew Tarek Millington urges the Democrats to remember that “electoral battles are fought mainly against incumbents.” He also assures them that Nader’s “potential Democratic vote has all but dried up while the 675,000 registered Republicans who voted for Nader would be just as likely to vote for him again.” The Dems could also simply do what mainstream politicians have done historically against growing third parties: steal their ideas. Here in Canada it worked well enough for the Liberals against Tommy Douglas and the CCF/NDP with old-age pensions, unemployment insurance, family allowances, and Medicare. The Democrats could apply some political cunning: Why not use Nader to attack Bush on issues that they couldn’t touch because of their own voting records, such as demanding impeachment for misleading the country to war, attacking the Patriot Act, or going after Bush’s projected $2.75 trillion deficit for the next decade. Incidentally, these are also issues that resonate with angry Republicans.

As it stands now, Americans in 2004 will choose between Bush and a Democrat with nicer rhetoric, but few important differences. Although Ralph has spent ample time trying to calm down hysterical liberals, pleasing people within the American duopoly has, thankfully, never been a real concern to Nader. His presidential campaigns have divided Americans between those hoping that the Democrats can one day change, and people who see the Democrats as one of the ugliest parts of the problem. Liberals still believing in today’s two-party America can only be those comfortable enough to ignore the symptoms of the “lesser evil” administrations. For the majority in America and in the provinces of the Empire, things are well past desperate for change.