Man in the Middle: HPR Interviews Ralph Nader

Ralph Nader has virtually no chance of winning the upcoming election, and is facing harsh criticisms at every turn. Even so, he continues to campaign for the presidency, and people continue to vote for him. Why?

Austin Case, a petitioner for the Nader/Gonzalez Campaign, said “I have the opportunity to campaign for someone that I believe in, which isn’t something that any of the other candidates can offer…”

“It would be really sad to have an election where that whole section of the political kaleidoscope is just excluded and not talked about. That’s one thing that I think Ralph Nader is doing for presidential politics. It’s not really tied to his winning or losing the race.”

Perhaps the most prevalent criticism of Nader is his “spoiling” the elections, detracting from the Democratic vote. In response, Nader said,

“I think the Democrat and Republican Parties have been the big spoilers of our elections, our politics, and our government. We all have an equal right to run for election; nobody’s a spoiler.

“Let’s have a competitive democracy and stop whining, which is what the Democrats do using the Green [Party] as a scapegoat, because they don’t want to look in the mirror and answer the question, ‘Why didn’t you, in 2000, landslide this bumbling governor from Texas with a horrible record?’”

ND’s Executive Director for the Democratic-NPL Party, Jamie Selzler, said this is not the case. He said, “I don’t think we’re spoilers, nor do I think that Ralph Nader’s a spoiler. I just think that everyone has different ideas, and that’s what campaigns and elections are about--talking about ideas and seeing who voters think has the best ones.”

Selzler said that there is a good chance that some Nader voters would otherwise vote Democrat. He also said it is quite possible that those people wouldn’t be voting if not for Ralph Nader.

“Obviously, it’s a free country, and everyone’s welcome to be on the ballot if they follow the rules,” he said, “and in North Dakota, Ralph Nader has done that.”
North Dakota’s Republican Party leader had a different outlook on third party candidates. Executive Director, Michael Bommarito, said

“As people choose on a third party, I don’t think it exactly goes that route. One of the things people need to consider is what issues are really at play, and people can narrow their view down to become one-, two-, three-issue voters. That can be a detriment to the system, but on the same hand, yeah, I think that more people that are involved in the process, to some extent, could benefit the Republican party, if people are voting for Nader as opposed to Obama, or some other candidate.”

Numerous voters say they would vote for Nader if he had a realistic possibility of winning. There is a lingering fear that a vote for Nader only detracts from the greater outcome. In other words, there are plenty voters, who do believe in Nader’s principles, but still do not vote for him. It raises a lot of questions about our voting system when people are afraid to vote for what they believe, and choose the lesser of two evils instead, so to speak.

“It’s a ‘more choices, more voices’ thing,” Nader petitioner Austin Case said. “There’s something to be said for people that are able to go into a ballot box and vote for someone that they believe in. It’s all about how you view voting: voting as political expression versus voting for strategic political interests.”

Nader stated firmly that he would abolish the Electoral College system, if given the chance. His running-mate, Matt Gonzalez helped implement an instant-runoff voting system in San Francisco, that many Nader fans believe could be a model for an improved form of national elections. Run-off voting is essentially a ranking system, where voters would rank a number of candidates on the ballot.

Let’s say you voted for Nader as number one, and Obama as number two in this hypothetical system. If Nader had an insignificant number of votes, your vote would then go to Obama as your second pick, thus eliminating the fear of a wasted vote on a third party. As simple as this system may seem, it is unlikely that such a drastic change will be taking place any time soon.

As of right now, Nader is on 45 out of 50 state ballots, and he qualifies as a write-in vote for four more states. Oklahoma is the only state where one cannot vote for Nader, because they will not count write-in votes for any candidate. The Nader/Gonzalez Campaign is considering a lawsuit to force the state to change its policy.

Assuming we lived in a country where third party candidates had a chance, what would Nader have to offer? For Austin Case, Nader’s Iraq policy is a defining factor.
“…The other candidates do not have acceptable positions on the war,” he said. “I don’t want a war in Afghanistan or a war in Iraq, and I can’t support a candidate that does.”

Nader said the easiest solution to the conflict in Iraq is “6 months negotiated withdrawal of all U.S. soldiers and corporate contractors.”
“The way to knock the bottom out of the insurgency is to give Iraq back to the Iraqis, and give their oil back, and continue humanitarian aid. We owe that to them. We’ve blown the country apart, and a million Iraqis have died. That’s the best way.”

“Why do I say ‘negotiate’? That’s because they work out modest autonomy with the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. Then you give tribal leaders and religious leaders a stake. They know the alternative is chaos, so they will come around. They’ve been around for thousands of years. They know how to work together. U.N.-sponsored elections of course, because these previous elections leave a lot to be desired.”

In light of the recent “corporate bailout bill,” Nader’s thoughts were simply livid. He said,

“The Bailout was the wrong bailout. It bailed out first the crooks and speculators in Wall Street, and it should have basically developed a protective barrier for the prudent savers around the country, and the prudent banks that were exposed to the secondary effects of casino capitalism on Wall Street.

“So, it was a bill garnished with all kinds of freebies and goodies for members of congress’ special interests back home. It was a bill that didn’t have any comprehensive regulation, didn’t have any corporate crime enforcement provision, didn’t have any tax payer equity in companies that they bail[ed] out, and if they [the bailed-out companies] turn around and become profitable, the taxpayer can be made whole or better [from the increased value of the companies’ equity].

“And they didn’t have any more authority for the shareholders who don’t have any authority over their bosses, even though they own the company…they would never let their bosses run away with the bank.”

Historically, Nader is most famous for his impact on automobile safety regulations. Prior to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, which is widely considered a result of Nader’s advocacy, cars did not have seatbelts, airbags, head restraints, collapsible steering columns, or a number of safety features that are now required of car manufacturers.

“Losing a lot of my friends on the highway, I looked into it, and the cars were very unsafe,” Nader said. “So, I wrote a paper at law school on it, and then turned it into the book “Unsafe at Any Speed,” which GM tripped over and hired private detectives to follow me all around.

“They got caught in the Capitol of the United States Congress, and a huge congressional hearing propelled the motor-vehicle and highway safety laws of 1966.”

Asked whether the threat of terrorism on American soil is real, Nader said,

“All we know is that Bush said after 9/11 that there were Al Qaeda cells all over the United States that were well funded, suicidal, hate us, and no one has struck yet. So, we don’t know. I think that the threat of viral and bacterial terrorism in terms of human epidemics is far greater.”

If You Go

What: Ralph Nader Rally
Where: Century Theater, NDSU Memorial Union
When: Oct 11, 7:30pm
Info: http://www.votenader.org