Don't you love it when the press assumes a controversial point to be fact?

Response to ("Ralph Nader's Shadow Still Hanging Over Democrats" by Martin Seiff, Insight, July 27, 2004)

I would like to object to the implication that Mr. Seiff makes regarding Ralph Nader's 2000 candidacy and, by extension, his effect in 2004. Seiff presents as incontrovertible fact that Nader "cost [Democrats] the presidency… four years ago." But even repeating this ad nauseum in every major press account will not make it true. To begin with, the belief that one candidate can "cost" another an election depends on voters predisposed to "owing" votes to a particular candidate who may or may not best represent his or her positions. Outside of systems of government with pseudo-elections, like Saddam Hussein-era Iraq, this statement is unacceptably presumptuous – and if it's a political reality in the United States, it's not something to boast about.

But even without examining the offensive semantics, Seiff's assertion is questionable at best. Nader's fraction of the vote certainly affected the outcome of the 2000 election – indeed, Al From of the Democratic Leadership Council cited Democratic exit polls (Blueprint Magazine, 1/24/01) showing that Nader's absence from the race would have resulted in a wider margin of victory for Bush (even gaining the popular vote). So even the claim that Nader negatively impacted Gore's vote in just the right places is a questionable assertion. But it also neglects any number of Gore tactical campaign mistakes, Gore's neglect of Nader supporters (and the 50% of registered voters who stayed home), complaints of disenfranchisement in key regions, and many things left completely to chance (like hanging chads).

To be fair, why ought Democrats have engaged in any serious self-examination (of their party or our voting system) to eliminate these potential problems when they could just spend time and money on the campaign trail demonizing an opponent not for his positions or his accomplishments, but for advocating them? Indeed, Seiff's belief that "Nader can still make ALL the difference -- and he knows it" (emphasis added) is a character assassination of the same stripe. It seems the Nader tar-and-feather act is more a scare tactic to pressure Nader supporters, many of whom would not have voted at all in 2000 if not for Nader, into voting for candidates they don't believe in.

Or perhaps it is more aimed at keeping the Democratic rank-and-file in line as the "big tent" drifts rightward in the wind. Now this would have been a real strident but substantive angle for Seiff to tackle: many Democratic voters, unconvinced by Nader's attacks on the duopoly in 2000, are registering their growing displeasure with politics-as-usual through dissent in 2004. Not a "still-hanging" Nader shadow, but a growing Nader shadow.