The Frankfurter School

That rumbling sound you heard this week was the collective sound of thousands of Democrats nationwide rolling their eyes and groaning at the prospect of renowned consumer advocate and three-time Presidential contender Ralph Nader announcing his run for President again in 2008. Many Democrats blame Nader for the George Bush Presidency, arguing that the 2.7% of the national popular vote he accrued rightfully belonged to Gore and cost Democrats the election. Aside from the fact that this is just factually incorrect, it is also a terribly misplaced anger that will only serve to prevent real progressive change from happening in this country.

ABC News’ polling director published a fascinating analysis this week about why Nader’s 2000 candidacy really really didn’t throw the election to Bush. Among the points that he makes is that there were as many (or more) 3rd party candidates on the right “stealing” votes from Bush as Nader may have siphoned from Gore.

But perhaps the most significant reason that we should all be embracing, rather than rejecting Nader’s candidacy, is that the Democratic and Republican parties are both beholden to the same corporations and lobbyists. There is a lot of talk about “change” in this election, but what kind of change is truly possible remains to be seen. Ralph Nader is a persistent critic of corporate power and his candidacy gives him a platform to raise these critical issues that deserve public airing.

There are a fast-growing number of anti-Nader groups on Facebook, including one called “If you Vote for Ralph Nader I’ll Kill You” and while I don’t want to read too much political significance into a Facebook group, I do think it nicely sums up the attitude that moderate to liberal Democrats have towards far-left independents and radicals. Often times liberals believe that they’re making incremental progress on issues until radicals take some drastic action that angers people on the right and allegedly set the whole cause back by years. But the history of change in this country is the story of controversial actions taken by radicals that have given cover and impetus to the moderates who then legislated those changes.

The most common recitation about Nader from otherwise intelligent, left-leaning people is that he’s an “egomaniac” who is more interested in his own fame than the issues that he used to stand for years ago. Leaving aside the fact that everyone who runs for President probably has a powerful ego, there is no support for this idea other than the commonly held and deeply cynical belief that only self-interest or money can influence politics and politicians. Examples of politicians standing on “principle” on an issue that doesn’t benefit them are few and far between.

The major difference between Nader the consumer activist of years ago and Nader the Presidential candidate of today is his success at effecting the changes he advocates. When he led a campaign against the “unsafe at any speed” Chevrolet Corvair, it resulted in General Motors fixing the lethal design flaws of one of its cars. But his Presidential bids have been campaigns against corporatism, which have gotten little coverage in the corporate press, and little support from natural allies who believe in the cause but are invested in the power structures he is decrying. Nader barely has detractors on the right, the vociferous hatred of him comes mostly from Democrats. The Democratic party manufactured the whole idea in the first place that a vote for Nader was “thrown away” and would cost Gore the election in the weeks before the 2000 election.

Meanwhile on the right, in that same close election, no Republican was attacking Buchanan voters that year for taking votes away from Bush. As the chorus of ever-more-rightward views expanded on that side of the political spectrum, Democrats were attacking their own. The Republicans understood the function of the most radical voices of intolerance on their fringe: simultaneously rallying a loyal base of voters and making their candidate seem even more mainstream and centrist. The Democrats would do well to take notes: the louder the voices at your more radical edge, the more the entire debate shifts towards your side, and your so-called mainstream candidates don’t have to shift away from you to find the center ground.

Ralph Nader has chosen as his 2008 running mate a rising star in Matt Gonzalez, a former San Francisco Supervisor who ran on the Green party ticket for Mayor in 2003 and was narrowly defeated by Gavin Newsom. Any rational person should be heartened to have this charismatic young progressive on a national ticket, gaining prominence and attention.

Ralph Nader is once again highly unlikely to win the Presidency this year but hopefully he will raise critical issues in this campaign and force a reckoning of his issues by the other candidates. Perhaps his presence and voice will help put brakes on the media’s lazy habit of falsely referring to John McCain as a moderate. Whomever the Democratic nominee ends up being, he or she will surely need help keeping new voters excited and winning the battle of ideas. Ralph Nader can only help this discussion and he deserves respect and attention rather than scorn and mockery.