Nader, Raiding

Four years ago, when Ralph Nader entered the presidential race as the Green Party candidate, he provided a much-needed alternative to a Democratic candidate who concentrated on running away from his record and a Republican candidate who ran mostly on his name and his family connections. Of course, enough Democratic voters who were disgusted with Al Gore's campaign voted for Nader that George W. Bush was able to win Florida (with a little help from the Supreme Court) and hence the election.

Back in 2000, the arguments against a Nader vote were largely theoretical. After all, Bush was mostly an empty suit at that point, with not much to define him except slogans and his record as governor of Texas. (Unlike most states, the governor of Texas has little power, relatively speaking, so Bush's Austin record didn't offer much to run on.) The progressive community watched in horror as Gore turned his back on the Clinton Administration's accomplishments, apparently terrified that people would connect him with Bill Clinton's personal scandals. With no major-party candidate espousing a progressive agenda, it's not surprising that many nominally Democratic voters deserted the Gore ticket in droves.

But after three-plus years of a Bush Administration, we now know what would be in store with a Bush re-election. More wars based on false pretenses, more sky-high budget deficits, more gargantuan tax cuts for those who need them the least, more government spying on citizen and non-citizen alike, more fake economic math, and more obsessive secrecy.

On the other hand, the progressive community is not very enthusiastic about John Kerry. While he is considerably better than Bush, his record in the Senate is hardly as liberal as the Bush campaign likes to make out. He is the chosen candidate of the Democratic Leadership Council, the power structure that was instrumental in moving the party away from its progressive roots and towards the political center in the 1990s. (This is why the DLC and the national party were so horrified by Howard Dean's candidacy; he took on the party in addition to the Administration.)

As it stands now, Kerry has a pretty good chance of defeating Bush in November. (Of course, with seven months until Election Day, anything can happen in the interim.) Until Nader is factored into the equation, that is. Current polls show that while Kerry holds a more-or-less consistent lead over Bush, that lead disappears if Nader becomes a third choice.

Nader is perfectly within his rights to run for President, and is equally within his rights to claim that there is no substantive difference between Bush and Kerry. But it doesn't make him right. While Kerry's positions may not be as different from Bush's for many Democrats' liking, he is by far better than Bush. (He cannot possibly be worse.) Many Democrats this year have adopted the slogan "Anybody But Bush," and are apparently determined to support the party nominee no matter who it is.

Four years ago, the Gore campaign said that "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush." We didn't realize the truth of that slogan at the time. It remains to be seen whether enough Democrats will accept Kerry as is, warts and all, rather than going for a more ideologically pure candidate. The objective this year is to defeat Bush in November. Let's keep our collective eye on the ball.