The Nader Effect

There was considerable controversy surrounding Ralph Nader’s various attempts to become president of the United States. The most controversial election was almost certainly when he ran against George W. Bush and, according to some, ruined Al Gore’s chances of becoming President. In Florida, as we know, Bush defeated Gore by only 537 votes while Ralph Nader was garnering 97,421 votes as an Independent candidate. Many would conclude, despite Nader’s denial, that this cost Gore Florida, a pivotal swing state.

But we are dealing here in what logicians call “counter-to-fact conditionals. We are saying, in effect, what if….? Anyone can play that game and there never really is a winner. Let’s agree that, given all the election “irregularities,” George W. Bush would have won in any event — whether or not Nader had run independently, though I have my doubts.

In the present election there is a very attractive Green Party candidate in Jill Stein. She is very bright and has impressive credentials; she is much more qualified for high office than at least one of the two major candidates currently running. One worries that the votes that go her way might otherwise go to Hillary Clinton and in losing those votes Hillary will lose the presidency to Donald Trump (perish the thought). It is quite possible, given the Nader effect as I would call it. Even if we allow that Bush would have beaten Gore without Nader running, there is always a shadow of a doubt.

In many ways Jill Stein is for me the most attractive alternative in this race. Ideologically speaking, I am closer to her than I am to either of the other two. But I will vote for Clinton because I don’t want to throw away my vote (Stein can no more win than Sanders could get the Democratic nomination. I just won’t happen.) And I don’t want to see Trump elected and spend the next four years (undergoing therapy) worrying that my vote helped put him into office.

Hillary is not perfect. Disturbingly, she is a favorite of the corporations like so many of her political friends. The appealing thing about Sander’s run was that he knew the real battle is with the giant corporations. Sanders understood that if we are to hope to reestablish this democracy as a government of the people, the corporations must be put in their place. Well, we saw how that went. The monied interests on the left (and the right?) took control of the Democratic machine and saw to it that Hillary Clinton was nominated. Not that socialist, Sanders.

But Sanders — who is also ideologically closer to Jill Stein than he is to Hillary Clinton — endorsed Clinton because he is a political realist and he knows she is the only one in the group (and there are more) who can beat Donald Trump. And beating Donald Trump is and must remain the main objective of any voter with a grain of sense who cares about this country and the values (cloudy though they are at times) that this country stands for. Trump is simply not an acceptable candidate for the highest office in this land. Period. Moreover, Hillary is a gifted and intelligent political animal who would do a commendable job as president. She knows where the skeletons are buried and she knows how to play the power game. Despite her flaws, many of which have been created by the opposition, she is the only reasonable alternative.

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “The Nader Effect

  1. Hugh, I agree with your assessment. I like to keep it simple. The Donald is touting his greatest qualification is he will keep us safe. That is his larger point, which supersedes everything, especially since he and his party are taking the time to scare the hell out of us. He is not qualified to be President for a multitude of reasons, but let’s focus on his major thrust of safety.

    If that is the #1 reason, Mr. Trump help me understand why five retired generals and two former CIA directors (one of whom was also Secretary of Defense and both of whom are Republicans) all say Trump is already endangering America and our Western allies with his comments and positions (this was before his recent NATO remarks which have caused great concern among our allies and leaders)? One of the former CIA directors used this phrase to describe both Trump and Ted Cruz in January about the foreign policy remarks – neither one know what the hell they are talking about. This same CIA director said just two weeks ago on CBS Good Morning, in this lane, Trump is not qualified to be President.

    Now, two additional retired generals have advocated against Trump with one saying he lacks the temperament and judgment to be Commander-in-Chief and have advocated for Clinton. Words matter. When a prospective leader uses words to divide people, including our allies, and then adds comments endorsing torture, arming many with nuclear weapons, and showing a lack of understanding of the issues, then how can he make us safer?

    Then, you layer on his party’s stance on ignoring the majority of Americans who want better gun governance. Unless we get this governance right, it makes it very hard for a leader to say he can prevent a mass shooting who is a motivated lone gunman.

    So, my feeling is one of “if this guy gets elected, I will worry about what he might do to endanger America and the planet, especially when an event occurs and he rushes to judgment before all of the facts are in, which is his bent.” We must do everything in our power to make sure this man does not become President of the United States.

    That is more than my two cents. Keith

  2. Hugh – I know I keep reading similar analyses, and I know you are right. I just wish we could really vote our conscience and not have to do what Sanders did – bow out to political realities that only keep the broken machine rolling on. 😦

    • I couldn’t agree more. Sanders truly wanted to take on the corporations. Our only hope is that Clinton will, as promised, initiate a Constitutional Amendment to rid us of “Citizens United.” That would be step in the right direction — a small step, but a step none the less.

    • I thought Sanders and Warren gave great speeches, although it was hard to follow Michelle Obama’s brilliant speech. I love Bernie and he achieved a great deal with his heavy hand in shaping the platform, a platform The Donald will surely not follow.

      Also, what the disappointed Bernie fans don’t realize is if Clinton picked Warren or Booker for VP, their senate roles would be replaced by two Republican governors. So, that would be harmful to the reclaiming Senate majority efforts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s