Con by Adele R

I have been a fan of Ralph Nader’s ever since he wrote a book called Unsafe at Any Speed in 1965 which took on, among others, General Motors and the Chevrolet Corvair, a car my mother drove devotedly even though the family felt it dangerous. Nader’s book finally convinced her to sell it, possibly saving my mother’s life, as well as my sister’s and mine. My father wouldn’t touch the thing!

Nader is an icon in the efforts to preserve the environment and make life safer and fairer for all Americans. Did you know that even your right to demand that an airline reimburse you and pay for a hotel overnight if you get bumped is due to Nader? His victories against big business and the government are too numerous to mention, but here is a brief list: the Clean Air Act, the Traffic Safety Act (air bags and safety belts), the Freedom of Information Act, the Consumer Protection Agency, and the list goes on. Clearly, we owe this man a great deal, but should he be running for president?

I cannot help but view his bid this year as both frivolous and vain. How can someone who has devoted his life to the pursuit of a cleaner, safer America put his ego in front of the possibility to topple an administration so dedicated to the forces he has fought all his adult life?

The election this year will again be very close. But unlike the Gore-Bush contest, voters are polarized and a large number are disillusioned with the present administration. The Democratic candidate, John Kerry, has a sliver of a chance to win, providing he can carry the vote in the 16 states which are likely to be “swing states” – those where the electorate does not seem as committed to one party or the other. (“The Democrats can probably count on 11, the Republicans have a firm hold on 23,” predicted an OpEd piece in the The New York Times in March). Even though many voters are smarter this time around and realize that casting a protest vote for Nader could damage the Democratic chances, there may be enough voters who are indecisive, or irritated, or hate both Bush and Kerry enough to choose that third name on the list and take away the tiny margin of votes the Democrats would need to win.

A New York Times poll published April 29 said, “If the election were held today, 46 percent of registered voters would vote for Mr. Kerry and 44 percent for Mr. Bush. With Mr. Nader in the race, Mr. Bush would get 43 percent, Mr. Kerry 41 percent and Mr. Nader five percent, suggesting that nearly all of Mr. Nader’s support comes from voters who would other-wise back the Democrat.”

Clearly, at this writing at least, without Nader in the picture, voters – those who go to the polls – will choose between two candidates, and perhaps enough of them will choose Kerry and remove an administration which pursues the antithesis of all Ralph Nader believes.

Pro by Jennifer M

Most of the complaints against Ralph Nader’s running for President in 2004 center on the misconception that he will “steal“ votes from John Kerry, thereby ruining any chance that Kerry might have of defeating Bush. Many have actually accused Nader of costing Gore the 2000 election. The numbers and a few facts indicate that this is simply not true. First of all, Gore won in 2000 – Bush, not Nader, cost Gore the election. However, had Gore done his campaigning job properly, more people would have voted for him in the first place. Secondly, he failed to counter Bush’s Florida recount strategy and let George Bush, Katherine Harris and the U.S. Supreme Court intimidate him into submission. Thirdly, a Democratic exit poll from 2000 shows that Nader’s votes were 25 percent from Republicans and 38 percent from Democrats, and the rest were non-voters who would have only voted for Nader. This means that over 60 percent of Nader’s votes came from people who would not have voted for Gore.

Let us have a look at what the Democrats and Nader have been up to since the 2000 election. The Democrats voted for or failed to stop: the Iraq war resolution, the Patriot Act, John Ashcroft, Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy; and they lost the 2002 midterm elections. Nader, on the other hand, spoke out on: supporting election reforms, including vote-counting machine deficiencies; protesting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; protesting corporate war profiteering; protesting food hazards like genetically engineered products and the effects of poor agricultural policies such as mad cow disease and protesting the ill-suited appointments of the Bush administration.

This brings us to the 2004 election. Ralph Nader is running to give voice to important issues that would other-wise remain behind the scenes and get lost in the fanfare over Bush’s megalomania and Kerry’s obsession with defeating Bush at any cost. Some of these issues include: universal health insurance, a living wage, a multi-faceted foreign policy to wage multilateral peace and promote arms control, the need for renewable energy and less dependence on fossil fuels, relief of highway congestion and promotion of modern public transit, a comprehensive and determined nurturing of the physical and educational needs of children, and an adequately funded crackdown on corporate crimes. Furthermore, there are over 100 million people in the USA who do not vote. There are enough people out there for all candidates to attract without anyone “stealing” votes from anyone else. It is up to each party and candidate to convince the most people to vote for him and not for the others. May the best man win.