Since announcing his 2004 presidential candidacy on Meet the Press, consumer advocate Ralph Nader has come under heavy fire from the press, the Democrats, the literate —- essentially everyone that opposes George Bush. In fact, many claim that Nader is the reason Dub-Yah is in the White House to begin with, having supposedly "siphoned off" the Democratic votes in 2000.

Granted, Ralph’s presence probably cost Gore the election. Sure, ol’ Ralphie’s 2004 campaign is a ludicrous exercise in futility, succeeding only in hurting the chances for a Democratic candidate. And certainly, his independent status (as of the time of this writing) makes the whole ordeal laughable, as he’s not even contributing to a third party’s growth with his hopeless election bid. And yes, Nader’s ego is the stuff of legends, with this kind of nonsense being the byproduct.

These very valid points aside, doesn’t it seem like the American people should be mad not at Nader, but at the people actually voting for him? If he’s really leeching the Democratic vote —- although only 38% of his 2000 votes were Democrats -- then shouldn’t we direct our anger at those Democratic boobs who support him? Because of the strong sense of anti-Bush unity that exists (my God, he IS a unitor!), it’s difficult to imagine many Democrats supporting what is undeniably a lost cause. However, if Joe Q. Democrat is so blind to the situation at hand that he feels a vote for Ralph Nader is contributing in some amorphous way, he should really pick a different election in which to spread his gospel.

This is also The Year of the Independents. We keep hearing about the importance of NASCAR Dads -- a demographic with which very few of us can relate -- but this is an election that will ultimately be decided by the non-party voters. Why do we assume that Ralph is The Chosen One for those vital independents who aren’t voting for the Democratic candidate? We never hear anyone getting pissy about the Libertarians, the Constitution Party, the American Party, the Natural Law Party, the Peace & Freedom Party, the Prohibition Party, the Reform Party, the Socialist Party, the Socialist Equality Party, or the Socialist Workers Party sucking away votes. In fact, there’s rarely any grumblings about the Green Party either, even when Nader was their candidate. We ultimately blamed him personally, and not the party for whom he was running.

Oh, sure, it’s easy to write off the schmucks from these low-profile (i.e. essentially non-existent) parties. After all, that handful of zealots voting for the Prohibition Party’s candidate clearly needs to be mocked and scorned. Cumulatively, it’s an unfortunately large number of independent votes being consumed by a source other than Ralph Nader. And where would the Socialist Workers Party’s votes go if they failed to produce a candidate? Despite the rampant Anti-Bush Crusade, it’s foolish to think that those stubborn third-partiers would default to the Democratic candidate. The kicker is that they probably wouldn’t vote for Ralph Nader, either.

The truth of the matter is this: Many of the independents that will eventually vote for Nader in November likely wouldn’t be voting otherwise. Just as Howard Dean built an army of loyal followers who became inspired to vote in this election, Ralph Nader evokes a similar cult-like fanaticism. Sure, Ralph will steal a few Republicans and a few Democrats in the process, but the bulk of his following is very strictly from The Nader People. If Ralph can get ‘em to the polls, he can have their votes.

That being the case, we can all agree that The Nader People are too small in number to elect a mayor, let alone a president. So what’s the point? Ralph doesn’t feel like HIS issues are being thoroughly addressed, so he plans on ruining the dance for everyone. He wants a better living wage; all four remaining Democratic candidates (plus the Republican fella) throw that term around often. He wants more than two perspectives in presidential elections, which doesn’t really explain why he’s running as an independent. And, best of all, Ralph Nader wants stronger controls on the influence of money in politics.

Why is that one so grand? For one thing, Ralph has no money, making it deliciously ironic. Howard Dean had the kind of following that can finance a campaign through website donations; Ralph Nader will be lucky to generate enough income to pay for his URL. Conspiracy theorists will soon start to suggest that maybe part of Bush’s exorbitant campaign funds are paying Ralph to run, once again skimming off those all-important independents. Since Bush seems to be the only -- repeat, only -- person to benefit from Nader’s campaign, it seems to be a curiously possible explanation for running in the first place.

Or maybe it’s just the ego thing.

-Alexander Webb
-2/25/2004