Ralph Nader: Back in the Saddle Again?

The answer, of course, is yes. Mr. Nader announced his candidacy for the President of the U.S. today on NBC's "Meet the Press" with Tim Russert. One could almost hear the collective Democratic national groan which was remarkable because of the simultaneous harmony it formed with that cheering coming from the Republican camp.

Bad news for the Dems and good news for the GOP? Well maybe, but it is good news for American citizens. In this age of ever larger media conglomerates (even William Safire is fearful of this trend), Vanilla presidential candidates, and ever increasing legislative power given to special interest groups, can the emergence of a third party candidate be a bad thing? Perhaps more choices and innovative thinking that exposes naked emperors is desirable.

Ralph Nader is undeniably the gnawing little voice in the American subconscious-- its conscience. To those who say environmental protection is an uneconomical pipe dream, that individual safety and liberty must be sacrificed to obtain a strong economy and a safe American society, and that our foreign policy need not take into account those concerns of other nations, he merely seems to ask them to step back and reconsider. Some might counter "Well isn't that what Howard Dean was all about? Look what happened to him!"

Yes and no. Dean's run seemed almost forced--a shrill, loud, and acute cry against the status quo that both parties have fostered. It seemed a mere ploy to carve out a niche and define his candidacy. But despite those ensconced in Democratic power positions he garnered a following. Some might pooh-pooh this as some inter-net fluke, but what is the internet but another form of communication like letters, telephones, or Fax machines? What is important is what Dean tapped into, not the method.

So, Ralph Nader is just another Dean type trying to use this hidden frustration in the electorate to further his agenda. Right? Well, yes, but that's what elections are all about. However, Mr. Nader's positions show a quality Gov. Dean's lacked-- Legitimacy through consistency. Mr. Nader has held to his beliefs, well, forever. Remember his book "Unsafe at Any Speed" that dealt with safety concerns in autos? That was like in the Stone Age where if you wanted to have seat belts in your car you had to buy them yourself and put them in the vehicle.

There are those that might say Mr. Nader's positions are too liberal or intrusive into the lives of American citizens and that is their right to so say. The vision of our nation directed entirely by Mr. Nader is no more attractive then that directed by President Bush. Mr. Nader's efforts have always been so directed to make Americans not only safer but to keep the system open so that all of us may continue to have not only choices but the ability to exercise those choices.

There are those that would say:" But, James, James, James! Nader can never win the election! Given political realities, a vote for Nader is a vote for George W. Bush!"

But perhaps there are hopeful thoughts which are a bit more nuanced. Can we agree here that a Nader candidacy might force both sides to face issues differently or even different issues? In the process perhaps we might see less spin and more honest dialog and debate seeping through. A desirable side effect manifested as a better picture of each candidate's actual beliefs and a better chance for the voter to clear away the fog of political ambiguity.

I sense the possibility that the Bush camp might start to run into problems when the actual campaign for the White House begins. Just as the Bushies will attack Kerry on his record and lack of presidential experience the Dems will attempt to use Bush's record of presidential performance against him. Bush has become increasing vulnerable.

But returning to the subject at hand, a Nader run at the White house could actually help Americans get a clearer picture of the candidates, force dialogs on a lot of important issues, thereby allowing not only better problem definition but attempts at real world solutions to national issues. Nader could force Kerry and Bush to clearly define themselves.

"But, still, it's a zero sum game! Votes Nader gets are votes Kerry loses!"

But consider Mr. Nader's response to Mr. Russert's question: "If after all your campaigning it is apparent in the polls you cannot possibly win, will you endorse John Kerry?" Mr. Nader quietly said he would consider all options, and wished Mr. Russert would invite him back on the program, given such conditions, so that he could properly respond to the question when it was no longer hypothetical in nature.

So should I go to Mr. Nader's website (votenader.com) and give him a few bucks to start the ball rolling? Would you?

Respectfully,

JM