Ralph Nader has officially announced his candidacy for the President of the United States as an Independent candidate on an NBC talk show “Meet the Press.” This will be the fifth time that Nader has stood for the presidency; he stood once in 1992, then in 1996 and 2000 he stood for the Green Party, and in 2004 he stood as an independent. Nader has expressed his concerns with the current situation in the United States, stating that a “Jeffersonian revolution is needed”, citing Thomas Jefferson in his belief that you should enter the electoral arena when you lose your government. When logging onto Nader’s website at votenader.org, it is simple to see the kind of concerns this candidate is highlighting. One word comes into mind when thinking of the Nader campaign; Corporate. Ralph Nader gives the impression that he is against all things corporate, and the profit orientated nature of America. He highlights the corporation dominant nature of both the leading parties in the US, and in a list of his most important issues he lists an “Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare.”
So who exactly is Ralph Nader? Ralph Nader is a 73 year old Arab-American attorney from Connecticut, who has made his name as a political activist. Nader has ties with the Reform Party, the Green Party and has been known to stand for Consumer Rights, Humanitarianism, Environmentalism, and Democracy all round. If you have never heard of Ralph Nader, you may find it hard to believe that this the man who determined the outcome of the 2000 presidential election, sued the General Motors corporation for privacy infringement and the man who led an entire generation of inspired investigative writers. These writers were known as the “Nader Raiders”; they published a number of successful books inquiring into the government corruption of Washington D.C. Ralph Nader symbolises a number of things in the USA. For one, he is a symbol of rebellion; he is never afraid to speak his mind and stand up against the corruption present in America and the corporate world. A symbol of environmentalism, Nader is an openly anti-nuclear activist and has various Green Party properties in his agenda. However Nader is less concerned with single issues and seems to address the problem with America from the outside, giving him a sense of distance from the world of politics. This poses as an obvious downside for many voters who seek politically experienced candidates and Washington insiders such as John McCain.
In an election as close as the 2000 Presidential Election, it was, and still is so easy to think of endless ways in which the vote could have been swayed. The first year of the new millennium saw the closest election in the history of US politics, with the decision going to the Supreme Court after stopping re-counts across the board. Obviously, George W. Bush was announced as the winner, but what did this mean for Ralph Nader? At the time, Nader was standing as a green party candidate, and many democrats feel bitter towards him, as his left wing policies attracted sections of the electorate away from the Democratic Party and to the green party, resulting in a loss of voters for them, and in 2000, Al Gore. However, this criticism of Ralph Nader’s is but a superficial one. Democrats fail to remember that their candidate still won the popular vote, and are more concerned in speaking negatively about a candidate that could harm their campaign than address the dubious and suspicious irregularities that really lost them the election in 2000.
In 2004 the re-election of George W. Bush was a questionable one. John Kerry looked like a promising candidate for the Democrats, and the controversies surrounding the presidency of Bush’s first term, as well as electoral irregularities made the Election one of the most interesting re-election campaigns in history. Ralph Nader stood, this time as an independent. Nader expressed his concerns with the bureaucratic Washington of the 21st century, claiming that “There's too much power and wealth in too few hands.” His candidacy was met with great hostility after the delicacy of the 2000 election, and Nader’s part in it, but Nader fought strong and maintained his right to stand. The worries of his election “spoiling” in 2004 were soon proved insubstantial as the margins between Bush and Kerry were considerably larger than the percentage of votes given to Nader, which dropped dramatically from his 2.7% in 2000.
Now, in 2008, Ralph Nader faces the same judgement from The Democratic Party. Republicans welcome his candidacy as they think they can “cash in” on his attraction of left wing voters away from the democrats and take advantage of his significance. This was shamelessly expressed by Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee, in which he stated; "[Nader] would probably pull votes away from the Democrats and not the Republicans, so naturally, Republicans would welcome his entry into the race". What is most concerning for the Democratic Party is the thin margin between candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Their contest for nomination is so close, that Nader’s candidacy poses a threat to their nomination as the party is clearly split between the two candidates; resembling the split of the nation in 2000 between Bush and Gore. Both of the democratic candidates have spoken out against Ralph Nader’s bid for the presidency, as they both fear that it could effect their campaigns in a bad way come November. It is disappointing that such inspirational candidates as Barrack Obama have spoken to ruthlessly about Nader’s announcement, with little signs of respect. Credit is to be given to Hillary Clinton in that she has addressed her natural concern for Nader’s candidacy and what it could do for her Party, but also highlighted that “it’s a free country” and he should exercise his right to run.
One of the key attractions to Obama’s campaign is the inspirational and positive atmosphere that has accompanied it. His history as a civil rights lawyer and idealistic compassion combine to create possibly the greatest most motivational speaker that US politics has ever seen. However, over the last week or so, there has been some negative criticism to the methods used in Obama’s campaign when attracting negative criticism to his opponents. In various campaign literatures against Hillary Clintons health care proposals, the Obama campaign have suggested that Clinton will provide health care for all who can afford it, alienating the poorer American. In response the Clinton campaign has angrily back lashed, calling Obama a liar and that his negative campaign against Clinton is completely misleading and untrue. Hillary Clinton herself even compared Obama to former Deputy Chief of Staff to George W. Bush, Karl Rove; who is known for his ruthless strategic campaigning for various Republicans.
Obama has said that Ralph Nader “did not know what he was talking about” in 2000, and that Nader is someone who “thinks you’re not substantive” if you “don’t listen to [him], and adopt all his policies.” A harsh judgement from Obama, who has also expressed that Nader “seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work”. Nader’s announcement to run for President should be met with a welcoming smile by the American People, who need to be provided with a suitable alternative to yet another conservative republican who wants to stay in Iraq, and two democrats who cant seem to stop fighting with each other and squabbling over their differences. The candidates need to stop highlighting their differences, and start unifying America and sorting out the real problems on the inside, as well as addressing the endless list of issues put on the table this election. The democrats in particular have been too critical of Nader’s presidential proposal; they need to stop attacking him for his decision and concentrate on compromise, representation and union. Obama still remains a source of primary inspiration for the American People, and it should be highlighted that he is probably the best chance America has of a righteous government.
Ralph Nader’s presidential candidacy seems to have brought out the worst in all the candidates from both parties, and once again he is seen as a controversial figure in yet another American Election. It will certainly be interesting to see how many Ballots he manages to get his name onto, and indeed how many people will be confident to vote for this man in November. Nader should be seen as a symbol of inspiration to voters and politicians everywhere, as a man who is not afraid to stand up to corporate America, a man who will not sit back and allow corruption to take place in the government, and also a man of active professionalism, who can make informed decisions and judgements on behalf of the people.
However, despite what Nader could and could not do, he is seen as simply too radical and his judgements are slated by conservatives across the board. The issues at the top of his proposals include an impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, to “cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget”, and “work to end corporate personhood.” These issues are understandably controversial and may be a little over the top, and too activist-orientated to be incorporated into the White House. Maybe this is what is at the heart of Nader’s campaign, the fact that Nader’s activism is seen as incompatible with the American government is surely an outrage in itself. The sad truth is, however, that America is not ready for a liberal such as Ralph Nader, for his activism is too radical. He may stand for what human nature tells us is right, but I’m afraid to say that corporate America will not allow such a candidate to be elected, at least not as long as the people demand conservatism.
No comments:
Post a Comment