From the WSJ Opinion Archives
CAMPAIGN 2004
Get Out, Mr. Nader
You're only fueling defeatism--and you defeated my father.
Watching Ralph Nader declare his candidacy was like having a terrible flashback. Oh no--not this again! I'm not saying we should muzzle independent voices or rule out third parties. Mr. Nader has a right to run for president. And I have a right to say, What an awful idea.
In 2000, Mr. Nader's shrill mantra was "Republicrat," that there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the two nominees. That claim was dead wrong in 2000 and is ludicrous in 2004. Since George W. Bush took office, a budget surplus of $230 billion has become a deficit of $521 billion, 2.7 million jobs have been lost, clean air standards have been weakened, civil liberties have been trampled, long-time allies have come to mistrust us, and we've spent $150 billion and almost 600 lives in a war to protect us from weapons that didn't exist. Given the extremism of Mr. Bush's first term, imagine what a lame duck Bush would do.
In his Monday press conference, Mr. Nader said he expected to draw the majority of his voters from defecting Bush supporters. That's certainly not what happened last time--and it defies reason that it would be the case this year. According to the New York Times, exit polling showed that without Mr. Nader on the ballot, 45% of his voters would have gone for Al Gore, 27% for Mr. Bush, and the rest would have stayed home. In both Florida and New Hampshire, Mr. Nader's vote total significantly exceeded the margin by which Mr. Bush secured the electoral votes.
There is another reason Mr. Nader should get out, one that even Republicans could agree with: He feeds the cynicism that is so corrosive to our body politic. As head of youth outreach in the Gore 2000 campaign (a position I got through connections), I found that the main obstacle to getting young people involved in the political process was their sense that it didn't matter who won. Mr. Nader fueled this defeatist idea.
Amazingly, he told Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" that a Gore presidency would not have been any different in terms of foreign policy. This shows how little he is paying attention, as well as how little he has learned. Mr. Nader's self-serving message encourages people to believe nothing that politicians say--even when they are clearly stating their differences. He does as much harm by causing people not to vote at all as he does causing them to vote Nader.
Mr. Nader has claimed that he is "carrying the ancient, but unfulfilled pretensions and aspirations of the Democratic Party." So why didn't he run in the Democratic primaries? Surely a tent that holds both Joseph Lieberman and Dennis Kucinich is big enough. He claims that he wants to build a viable third party. Surely there is a more effective way to recruit people on the left than by throwing elections to the right.
Ralph Nader's main message is a cynical one, more about tearing down than building up. So for those who believe in a progressive agenda, let's not allow the imperfect be the enemy of the good. For those who don't, let's work toward a clear and honest debate about our differences. And in the end, let's recognize the plain truth: A vote for Ralph Nader is not a vote for some Utopian principle. It is a vote for George W. Bush.
Ms. Gore Schiff is director of community affairs for the Association to Benefit Children.
