Hunting The Muse

Nader And Me

In the summer of 2000, I was flipping past C-SPAN and came across a televised speech by Ralph Nader. I was thunderstruck. He was actually saying stuff that had been gone unsaid for so long, I had forgotten they existed. Do you know that feeling when someone finally says something that is so right that it's like when a muscle unclenches that you didn't know was clenched? It was an emotional experience.

As the summer went on, I watched the polls and saw how close the election was. I felt like I was desperately trying to rationalize a way to vote for Nader. (I now know that I was experiencing cognitive dissonance, see below. ;-) ). I learned about how the electoral college worked, I learned about how even if Nader won, it would still be a victory even if he only got 5% support, and I was disgusted at how he was frozen out of the debates.

Our state is a swing state, and the local papers recommended that if you supported Nader, wait until late in the day to see how the election was going, and to vote for Gore if things were in doubt. We're a vote-by-mail state, and I had my ballot with me. I waited until the end, with my ballot filled out with everything except for the presidential selection. Things were in doubt. I voted for Gore, tore down the streets, and turned in my ballot as they were packing up their collection boxes.

Obviously, a lot has happened since then. People that supported Nader hate him now, for reasons fair and unfair. I have my own opinion about 2000 - I think Bush actually had more support than Gore, all things considered. Gore had a strategic advantage, and Bush had a corruption advantage. I also think that if Gore and Nader had a coalition, Gore would have won. And I think the lack of a coalition is a failure on the part of both the Democrats and the Greens.

Nader has recently launched his exploratory bid for the 2004 election. This time around, I am 100% opposed to his running. My reasons are from years of careful thought about the nature of the electoral college, our voting system, and what it means to vote your principles. I even created a petition to ask Nader not to run, before I learned that those petitions are ineffective. Reading the petition will show my reasons why a Nader bid would be ineffective and damaging.

Nader has also been public lately, giving interviews and quotes about how he may run. This is what perked up my ears. This guy has got to know that this announcement, before he makes his case of a positive vision for America, would only elicit howls of dismay rather than cheers. Why would he do this if his aim was to build support? A better strategy would be to give a policy speech, not muse aloud about how he may run. In short, it sounds like a threat. I mean, I think he intends it as a threat.

The outcry is of course all over the net.

But then there are some other clues. Kos has some details that show some doubt. And Dr. Cline over at rhetorica.net has an insight that's interesting as well. He links to a transcript of the interview, check out some of the pro-Dean excerpts.

So, I've come to a conclusion. I believe that Nader is attempting to get concessions, either by aiming for an administrative appointment, or more probably, by influencing policy. I think this just may be the beginning of a Green/Democrat coalition.

Here's hoping.

Posted by Curt at December 20, 2003 12:41 AM