WHILE Barack Obama has earned his party’s nomination, most Americans do not know Ralph Nader is running for president. In his stubborn way, Nader continues to dissent — even to a mass media that refuses to listen. But despite his lack of press and popularity, Nader can have a profound effect on the election — that is, if Obama takes his arguments seriously.
After an absurdly close 2000 election, Nader approached Sen. Kerry, D-Mass., with an election plan. In 2004, Nader met with Kerry to discuss three issues that he and Kerry would publicly debate. Given Bush’s corporate supporters, Nader knew that Bush would not come out against corporate welfare, corporate crime, and stifling labor laws. By debating these issues in front of the public, Nader believed Kerry would emerge a stronger candidate — more authentic and persuasively distinct against the incumbent Bush. But instead of leading the debate against government waste, corporate criminals and worker disempowerment, Kerry was framed as an appeasing, liberal weakling. Like Gore, Kerry did not take Nader — or his issues — seriously.
And still, today, Democrats view Nader as an unreasonable, dissenting pest. They fear Nader will steal their leftist support; they see him as diluting the party. But rather than trying to destroy Obama’s chance for victory, Nader wants to compete with him, so that the Senator may sharpen his platform.
Nader told me in a phone interview that since March 2007, he has been trying to reach out to the Obama campaign — only to be greeted with excuses and un-returned phone calls. Nader’s reason for calling was compelling: By working with Obama, Nader would allow us to hear a debate with a brand new voice, with arguments that do not resemble donkeys or elephants. Where Obama would argue that the war in Iraq has been mismanaged, Nader would say that our foreign policy has been hijacked. And where the Democrat claims that our military budget is necessary, the independent would say that our spending is tragic. But what about splitting the vote and “the spoiler” effect?
In a debate that allows for more voices, the Democratic Party and the public will be better served. Where Nader calls for a “systemic program of workers’ rights,” Obama advocates the right to organize a minimum wage indexed to inflation. And where Nader demands that we “diminish occupational disease and trauma,” Obama endorses the Protecting America’s Workers Act and supports more funding for job inspections and health training. The more Nader and Obama argue over issues Americans care about, the weaker McCain’s policies appear — since they fail to speak to these concerns. If Nader and Obama make a lot of noise arguing corporate exploitation and the abuse of the middle-class, McCain will be put in an awkward place; he too will have to say something about these things or risk appearing “out-of-touch.”
But Obama and the Democratic Party have shunned Nader. And to their discredit, he is expected to be on the ballot in 45 states and in places like New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Nevada,he is polling at eight, seven and six percent according to the latest Time/CNN poll..
What Democrats have failed to realize is this: Nader is most dangerous when he is ignored. As a politician on the fringe, he does not seek the broadest coalition but makes new ones. If his platform is not integrated into the Democratic party’s, then he will relentlessly go after the disaffected and carve out his own demographic. What loyal Democrats call “spoiling,” Nader calls a systemic and deliberate boycott.
But with limited media coverage and blocked access to the official debates, Nader’s campaign is functioning as a boycott with too few supporters. In this market of the political, Nader’s campaign will not make the Democratic product stronger but simply offer an advantage to the competing firm: Nader will earn McCain votes.
And since Nader will never stop, Obama must react. Because if the Democratic nominee engages Nader, he can gobble up additional support, absorbing Nader’s rhetorical strength. Just as Clinton and Obama’s healthcare plan highlights McCain’s inattention to the sick, Nader will encourage Obama to draw deep contrasts on labor reform and taxes. Here, McCain will become inattentive to the poor.
If Obama picks up some of Nader’s language, if he begins to speak the way McCain is forbidden, then the 2008 election will not be like Gore’s or Kerry’s. It will not be decided by butterfly ballots in Palm Beach County, the Supreme Court or Katherine Harris, not by swift boat veterans or the 20 delegates from the state of Ohio. If Obama listens to Nader he can become a more distinctive, authentic candidate. If the Democrat engages the independent he can embody a rhetoric of pragmatism. If Obama takes Nader seriously he can become the change we are hungry for, the one who wrests power from the few to the many.
Hamza Shaban’s column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at h.shaban@cavalierdaily.com.
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.
