Ralph Nader is inventing
his own irrelevance. Leftists have spent the last four years bemoaning
the Green Party candidacy of Ralph Nader in 2000, which presumably “stole”
the election for President Bush. Leftists had convenient amnesia.
The two political parties after the Green Party which drew the most votes
were Pat Buchanan for the Reform Party and the Libertarian Party candidacy
of Harry Browne. If voters for these two parties more conservative
than the Republican Party had voted for Bush, he would have received a substantial
plurality of the vote. The next biggest party, Howard Phillips’ Constitution
Party, would have given Bush an even greater plurality.
These votes would have also swung the election, regardless of what happened
in Florida. Buchanan alone gained enough votes in four close states
-- Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico and Oregon -- so that Bush would have won
the Electoral College outright if those voters had gone to Bush.
Harry Browne, the Libertarian Party candidate, took enough votes from Bush
to swing Wisconsin, New Mexico and Oregon to Bush, which would have left
a tie in the Electoral College, meaning the election of President Bush by
the House of Representatives meeting as state delegations and the election
of Vice President Cheney by the Senate, which Republicans controlled until
These other electoral votes and congressional votes would have been unnecessary,
however, because if President Bush had received either the votes of Buchanan
or Browne, then he would have won Florida without any real difficulty.
Considering that the 2000 election was the only election in the last seventy
years -- with the possible exception of 1948 and, perhaps, 1980 -- in which
third party candidates on the Left cost the Democrat more than third party
candidates on the Right cost Republicans, only almost infinite narcissism
could convince Democrats that Nader “cost” them the 2000 election.
Candidacies to the Right of the Democrat candidate constituted a majority
of the vote in 1996, 1992 and 1960, all of which Democrats won. Only
two Democrats, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, have received a clear
majority of the votes cast for president since the Civil War (Carter got
only a majority of votes cast for candidates on the ballot.) Considering
that Democrats have won fifteen elections during this period, ten of those
with less than half of the vote, squawking about minority presidencies rings
If Democrat whining about Nader 2000 sounds hollow, then Nader 2004 is even
a sillier complaint. This “champion of the people,” who is really controlled
by the institutional wealth of Leftism, openly conspires with the Senator
from Heinz on how best to run roughshod over the spirit of campaign finance
reform. When Ralph Nader says that he wants to meet with John Kerry
to determine how they can work together to beat George Bush, does anyone
-- particularly anyone on the Left -- see any problems with this?
What if Pat Buchanan was running for president and he met with President
Bush for the expressed purpose of seeing how his candidacy could be used
to defeat John Kerry? How long would it be before Leftists began demanding
that campaign expenditures of the Buchanan campaign be considered part of
the Bush campaign?
finance reform, we were would led to believe, would prevent this sort of
collusion and fraud. If Nader is spending campaign funds to help Kerry, then
why are those funds not considered part of the Kerry campaign? The
arrogance and openness of the crime seems to pass as proof that it is not
The Nadir of Nader is evidenced by the ethical bankruptcy of such a sleazy
campaign, but it shows up in other ways as well. Polls which have Nader
included or Nader excluded show an interesting dynamic: Nader pulls about
as many votes from Bush as from Kerry. How could this be?
Nader seems to be nothing more than an old, dry vessel for whatever unhappiness
with real candidates is polling at the moment. The vast majority of
Americans call themselves “conservatives” (sixty percent) or “liberals” (thirty-six
percent), with “moderates” claiming a scant two percent and “no response”
also claiming a puny two percent. These folks seem to be Nader voters.
Unlike Libertarian voters, who stand for something very specific and very
positive (although I wish they voted Republican instead), Nader voters seem
to stand for nothing other than anger, or perhaps more accurately, grumpiness.
Here rest those geriatric Marxists still flummoxed by the revulsion conservatives
and other ordinary people felt for the greatest system for mass murder in
human history. Here rest the pals of Dan Rather and other dinosaurs whose
ego demands that their forty years of missed guesses still be given reverent
attention. Here rest all the other mutations of Leftism which would
have died without the slavish protection of foundations, government offices
and fat, lazy corporations.
Yes, here in the gray, silly and vain groups of Nader supporters sit the
real plutocrats (to the extent America really has plutocrats) of the sort
which Teresa Heinz would instinctively support if her husband were not running
for president. The Nadir of Nader.
Bruce Walker's articles can be found at the Conservative Truth.
Email Bruce Walker
this Article to a Friend