COMMENT
RECKLESS DRIVER
Issue of 2004-03-08
Posted 2004-03-01
More than any other single person, Ralph Nader is responsible for the existence of automobiles that have seat belts, padded dashboards, air bags, non-impaling steering columns, and gas tanks that don't readily explode when the car gets rear-ended. He is therefore responsible for the existence of some millions of drivers and passengers who would otherwise be dead. Because of Nader, baby foods are no longer spiked with MSG, kids' pajamas no longer catch fire, tap water is safer to drink than it used to be, diseased meat can no longer be sold with impunity, and dental patients getting their teeth x-rayed wear lead aprons to protect their bodies from dangerous zaps. It is Nader's doing, more than anyone else's, that the federal bureaucracy includes an Environmental Protection Agency, an Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and a Consumer Product Safety Commission, all of which have done valuable work in the past and, with luck, may be allowed to do such work again someday. He is the man to thank for the fact that the Freedom of Information Act is a powerful instrument of democratic transparency and accountability. He is the founder of an amazing array of agile, sharp-elbowed research and lobbying organizations that have prodded governments at all levels toward constructive action in areas ranging from insurance rates to nuclear safety. He had help, of course, from his young "raiders," from congressional staffers and their bosses, from citizens, and even from the odd President. But he was the prime mover.
More than any other single person, Ralph Nader is responsible for the fact that George W. Bush is President of the United States. Nader is more responsible than Al Gore, who, in 2000, put himself in the clear by persuading more of his fellow-citizens to vote for him than for anybody else, which normally?-in thirty-nine of the forty-two previous Presidential elections, or ninety-three per cent?-had been considered adequate to fulfill the candidate's electoral duty. Nader is more responsible than George W. Bush, whose alibi complements Gore's: by attracting fewer votes, both nationally and (according to the preponderance of scientific opinion) in Florida, Bush absolved himself of guilt for his own elevation. A post-election rogues' gallery?-Jeb Bush, James Baker, Katherine Harris, William Rehnquist and four of his Supreme Court colleagues?-helped, each rogue in his or her own way, but no single one of them could have pulled off the heist without the help of the others. Nader was sufficient unto himself.
For the past three years, everything Nader accomplished during his period of unparalleled creativity, which lasted from around 1963 to around 1976, has been systematically undermined by the Administration that he was instrumental in putting in power. Government efforts on behalf of clean air and water, fuel efficiency, workplace safety, consumer protection, and public health have been starved, stymied, or sabotaged in tandem with the shift of resources from public purposes to high-end private consumption, the increasing identity of government and corporate interests, and the growth of a cult of secrecy and arrogance that began well before September 11, 2001. Nader bears a very large share of responsibility for these spectacular traducements of his proclaimed values. So it is quite a tribute to the brilliance of his early achievements that an argument can still be made that the net effect of his career has been positive.
That argument will no longer be plausible if Nader succeeds in doing in 2004 what he did in 2000. This time, though, he is unlikely to garner enough strategically placed votes to push the electoral college past the tipping point. Neither before nor after his announcement last week that he will try to get on the ballot in all fifty states was there the slightest sign of enthusiasm for his candidacy. The liberal and leftish outlets that serve what was once his natural constituency overflowed with critiques that ranged from mournful disavowal to bitter denunciation, some of them written by former supporters. The Democratic Party, meanwhile, is in the final stages of a primary campaign that has been as amicable as any in living memory. Thanks to President Bush and the passionate wish of the Democratic rank and file to see the back of him, the Democrats are more united and energized, and less beguiled by the narcissism of small differences, than ever.
It's safe to predict that Nader will come nowhere near matching the 2.9 million votes he got in 2000. He'll be lucky to get half of the 685,000 he got in 1996. His reasons for running, as he announced them in an interview with Tim Russert on "Meet the Press," don't add up. "Do you believe," Russert asked him, "that there would be a difference between a George Bush Administration and a John Kerry or a John Edwards Administration on judicial nominations, on tax cuts, on environmental enforcement?" "Yes," Nader said, but he went on to say that "corporate government remains in Washington, whether it's Democrats or Republicans"?-as if the Supreme Court, the tax code, and the environment were bagatelles. "This candidacy is not going to get many Democratic Party votes," Nader admitted?-or lamented, or promised (it was hard to tell which)?-at a press conference the next day. He noted that he faces "overwhelming opposition by the liberal intelligentsia," and added, "I think this may be the only candidacy in our memory that is opposed overwhelmingly by people who agree with us on the issues." His strategy, therefore, is to get votes from people who disagree with him on the issues?-i.e., Republicans who, he suggested, will support him because they don't like the Bush deficits. Also, he argued, he will help Democrats win congressional seats. Also, his candidacy will constitute "another front" against Bush. A fifth column is more like it.
Ralph Nader turned seventy last Friday. If a Democrat is elected President in November, then the old crusader's 2004 campaign will be merely a happily inconsequential ending to the story of a life spent mostly in creative service. If Bush is elected to a second term, then four more years of Bush policies, Bush deficits, and Bush judges will likely undo what remains of Nader's positive legacy. But if Nader once again succeeds in making himself the decisive factor in a Bush victory, then his legacy will be less than zero. His legacy will be George W. Bush.
?- Hendrik Hertzberg
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?040308ta_talk_hertzberg
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace