Nader didn't take Gore's
votes
Shaun Salnave
Normally, once I've stated my opinion in
a column, I let it alone after that, and don't respond to those of my colleagues
who have disagreed with me (this is a huge accomplishment for me; just
ask my friends how much I like to argue).
However, recent discussions of how much
Ralph Nader hurt Al Gore's chances of winning the presidency and "gave"
George W. Bush the election have gotten me more than a little annoyed,
and I'm going to break my promise to myself and write about the election.
First, I'd like to clear up some things
about my own views. Recently, I was called a "Naderite." I can only assume
this means I am a great supporter of Ralph Nader. I am not.
Yes, I voted for Ralph Nader; my reasons
for this will become clear in a moment. However, I have never been extremely
vocal in my support of his candidacy.
Still, let me argue a number of points
in regards to Nader's "splitting the liberal vote:"
As one of my colleagues at this fine newspaper
pointed out, Nader could not have split the liberal vote. He was the only
liberal candidate on the ballot in many states.
Gore may once have been a liberal; his
record on the environment when he was a senator is, granted, better than
that of most major political figures. The problem is, he hasn't done much
of anything liberal recently.
People argue that economic boosters like
the Noerth American Free Trade Agreement, the World Trade Organization,
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade -- really bonuses to businessmen
at the expense of the rest of humanity -- will "trickle down" to help everyone
else. Free trade is the best economic system for everyone.
Wrong. My personal belief is that
the trickle-down theory is some economist's idea of a joke. Anyone with
a sense of history will show you that free trade is good for only two segments
of the country: corporations ... and corporations.
Free trade has been tried a number of times.
In England, through the 19th century, there was a free trade system. There
were also more poor, uneducated, malnourished, miserable people there then
than at almost any other time. Eventually, even the conservatives had to
admit that free trade wasn't really solving the problem of poverty. We
all know how difficult it is to get a conservative politician to pay any
attention to facts. But I digress; back to Nader.
Even supposing, in a fit of extreme hypothesis,
that Gore was vaguely liberal, Nader did not take any votes from
him.
First, for the most part, Nader brought
to the polls a group of younger people who likely would not have voted
at all had it not been for Nader.
Second, any liberal who voted for Nader
did so because they liked him and not Gore. This seems like an obvious
point, but I think a lot of people are missing it. Had Gore actually appealed
to liberal sensibilities at all, he might have gotten some of those votes
that went to Nader. As it is, if they didn't vote for him, he obviously
didn't deserve it.
Yes, if for some reason Nader's percentages
had gone to Gore, he might have won the election. As it is, he couldn't
do so without them, so maybe next time the Democrats will offer us a real
liberal candidate.
