Come Ride in My Corvair!

There seem to be fundamental misunderstandings about Ralph Nader's arguments claiming he was not at "fault" for Al Gore's loss in the 2000 presidential election, many of which were furthered in Knute Berger's article "Come Ride in My Corvair!" (Seattle Weekly, Feb 25-Mar 2). Though Berger claims Nader's justifications were "warped," he in fact does the warping.

As Berger mentions, Nader is at most "partly responsible for Gore's defeat." But Berger adopts the tone of many who make the leap from "partly responsible" to "devil incarnate." While it is fair to argue Gore would have won if Nader hadn't run, it is as fair to argue Gore could have won by any number of small campaign changes. The only way to write Nader off as a "spoiler" is to assume Gore was entitled to the White House, and was unfairly robbed. While this may be much easier for partisan Democrats to swallow (rather than accepting responsibility for a campaign and candidate that alienated its base), it is unfortunately a shallow and self-defeating perspective.

Berger also brings up the assertion popularly attributed to Nader that there "was no difference between the Democratic and Republican parties." Nader himself never said that, but did point out major similarities between parties and the willingness of elected Democrats to capitulate to conservative principals when enough special interest money or political pressure was applied. Nader continues to promote this belief today, not the bastardized oversimplification that Berger presents.

There's more mischaracterization when Berger mentions Nader's point about aiding the election of Democrats at local and state levels in 2000. Nader brought people to the polls who wound up casting votes for Democrats, as Greens were not on the ballot for most positions nationwide; his point in explaining this was not to argue that Democrats ain't so bad after all, just to counter the common claim that a vote for Nader was a vote for Republicans. This was not a secret admission that Nader truly believes there are mammoth differences between the two parties on all issues, just a reasonable argument against those claiming Nader's campaign ultimately helped only Republicans. (This argument is meaningless if one accepts Nader's argument about the similarities between major parties anyway, but seems more about correcting a logical contradiction than making a political point.)

Despite Berger's claims that the "rationales for his candidacy... seem to be about Ralph," Nader's runs for president – past and current – seem less about ego or vanity than most other presidential candidates. Nader is aware that he personifies a political movement concerned with new ideas and Americans who have largely been marginalized by the major parties. Democrats who craft their campaigns to appeal to moderates need to know they can't have it both ways – no party should feel "owed" a voting block while eschewing an ideology aimed elsewhere. To claim that Nader is acting out of ego while major party nominees are today grandstanding in support of their "principles" – based on political expediency and political tilt of their momentary audience – is intellectually dishonest and extremely demoralizing.

Partisan Democrats, and some sympathizers in the press, can and will continue to vilify Nader for their own ends, and in the short run it will probably be successful in gaining the support of the left to oust the purported menace of Four More Years. Mainstream pundits have long been successful in writing off different perspectives and their supporters as extreme or crazy, and their efforts to trade the oil king for the ketchup king will likely succeed. But in the long-term – the time frame Nader has always been considering – a liberal movement will embrace the ideas and motives he puts forth today.