I AM NOT surprised that Ralph Nader has decided once again to run for president. He announced his candidacy in classic fashion, citing numerous examples of corrupt government policies, dishonest politicians and disillusioned American citizens as reasons for his decision. "Dissent is the mother of ascent, and in that context, I have decided to run for president," he told Tim Russert on Meet the Press a few weeks ago.
While his entry may spark the ire of Democratic voters who fear that Nader will once again take votes away from the Democratic candidate during the 2008 presidential election, his candidacy is nevertheless an attempt to recapture the very American system that so many believe he is spoiling. It is time, as Nader said to Russert, to "respect dissent in America."
I had the opportunity to talk to Ralph Nader after he spoke to a packed house at Old Cabell Hall last April. He was a gracious man, and his interest in students' activities came across in the questions he asked about the political and social climate on Grounds. His last question to me before he walked away was, "Do you consider yourself an activist?" Standing in front of him, aware of his long history as a consumer advocate and adversary of so many corporations and political insiders, I had nothing to say but no.
Nader's speech at Old Cabell Hall was filled with numerous calls to students to fight against big business, to come together in the name of political action. He lectured without notes, which seemed to suggest that he had spoken those words so often and for so long that he had no use for written reminders and cues. Though his message often appeared unchanged since his earliest days as a consumer advocate, it still resonated with a crowd of young college students eager to hear this man speak, respectful of his dedication to the public.
Nader's presidential runs have become predictable by now, but his dedication to working for the public remains -- like his words -- an indelible part of who he is. Though fears that he will take votes away from the Democratic candidate in November abound, Nader is correct in pointing out that Americans need an independent candidate this year. More than that, however, they need an advocate, and they need a choice.
With the party conventions not scheduled until late August and early September, only three viable candidates -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain -- remain in the race for president. Americans who will vote for the next U.S. President have fewer options than they do on a standard multiple choice test. Despite the very real possibility of the election of America's first woman or first black president, nothing has changed in terms of the abundance of wealth necessary to become a viable candidate. Why limit the presidential race to those select few candidates who can afford to run a national campaign and who can tailor their messages to fit the opinions of middle-of-the-road voters? Why not, in the words of Nader, "try to have a diverse, multiple choice, multiple party ballot like they do in Western Europe and Canada"?
According to Politics Prof. Larry Sabato, third parties in America are unsuccessful for many reasons. He noted the absence of a proportional system of representation as a key cause, as well as the fact that the two major parties often "absorb" popular third-party platforms. Finally, the devotion of the media and of major donors to the two parties makes it difficult "for any third party to get taken seriously enough to be a real factor."
Many will argue that it is more important this year to reverse the policies of George W. Bush than to vote for a third-party candidate as a symbolic call for electoral reform. Yet as I concede this point, Nader's question to me last year once again comes to mind: Are you an activist?
Perhaps, then, Nader's run for president is another strategy of his consumer advocacy campaign. He can't possibly believe he will win. Yet maybe he is willing to have another grueling go at the election in order to challenge us, the youth of America, to think about what it means to be politically active. It means questioning the status quo and recognizing that an imperfect system will never give you a perfect candidate. It means dissent. And, as Nader so faithfully demonstrates, it means determination.
Amelia Meyer is a Cavalier Daily Viewpoint writer.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 4 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
