Will the Real Ralph Nader Please Stand Up?

What a sad decline: from the consumer advocate in the 50's to the man who can't give up his decade-long vanity project -- running for president. Ralph Nader has become irrelevant, declares Jeralyn Merritt.

February 26, 2008 - by Jeralyn Merritt

Ralph Nader has been called everything from a hero to a spoiler. At 74, he’s had a well-documented career as a consumer advocate and champion of the little guy.

On Sunday, Nader announced his decision to run for President on Meet the Press.

This will be his fourth attempt. In 1992, he was a write-in candidate for President. In 1996, he ran as a Green Party candidate, getting 0.8% of the national vote. In 2000, his most successful run, he got 2.74% of the vote, including 97,488 votes in Florida. In the process, he earned the scorn of Democrats, the majority of whom believed he was responsible for Al Gore’s loss in the state by 537 votes to George W. Bush, which in turn led to eight years of Bush/Cheney, the war in Iraq and all that went with it.

Nader disputes he was responsible for Al Gore’s loss. According to CNN, Nader blames the loss on the pernicious Palm Beach butterfly ballots, Bush’s re-count strategy, Florida’s expulsion of thousands of non-ex-felons from the voter rolls, Gore’s poorly run campaign, his failure to win Tennessee and refusal to seek a state-wide recount.

That’s his story and he’s sticking to it.

In 2004, the Green Party wasn’t interested in another Nader run. Among the groups whose backing he then sought was the Alliance Party, whose members were followers of a man named Newman. The results were dismal. A journalist writing in LA Weekly called the alliance, Ralph’s Dark Side.

[Newman's] cult is the antithesis of every value Nader holds dear. A Maoist grouplet in the ’70s, the Newmanites morphed into supporters of Pat Buchanan in the ….commentator’s 2000 takeover of the Reform Party. Newman recruits and controls his followers through a brainwashing scheme baptized “social therapy,” designed to create blind allegiance to Newman. He has frequently dipped his rhetoric in the poisonous blood-libel of anti-Semitism, denouncing Jews as “storm troopers of decadent capitalism.” ….[T]o get on the ballot, Nader has allowed himself to be used as bait to lure the unsuspecting into the Newmanite orbit, where they risk being sucked into the cult. That’s a betrayal of the many young people to whom Nader is still a hero. And an acid commentary on Nader’s judgment.

That’s a far cry from where Nader began.

Born in 1934 to immigrant Lebanese parents in Connecticut where his father owned a grocery store, he went on to graduate Princeton University and in 1958, Harvard Law School. In 1959, he wrote a ground-breaking article for the Nation Magazine, “The Safe Car You Can’t Buy,” blasting the safety practices of the auto industry.

In 1965, he turned his research into a book, Unsafe at Any Speed which became a best-seller. A star was born. In his critique of U.S. auto makers, he particularly singled out General Motors for the danger posed by the Corvair. When GM hired private investigators to spy on his personal life, he sued and got a $425,000 settlement. He put the money into his next advocacy projects.

During the late 60’s and 70’s, he amassed a string of legislative accomplishments, from the Freedom of Information Act and the Clean Air Act to the creation of the Consumer Protection Agency. He lobbied for the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Wholesome Meat Act. He’s the reason we have air bags in cars. We can even thank him for filing a lawsuit that resulted in airlines having to pay a night’s lodging if you’re bumped from your flight.

In 1980, Nader shifted his focus from consumer advocacy to trade and corporate power.

Nader is quite wealthy. In 2000, he listed $1 million of stock in Cisco Systems and a net worth of almost $4 million on his financial disclosure statement. Yet he’s frugal to an extreme. Never married or having fathered children, he’s lived in the same Washington, D.C. apartment for years. He says he uses his money for his philanthropic and advocacy projects, and that since 1967, he’s donated millions to charity.

Nader insists his presidential runs are an outgrowth of his advocacy work. He likes to say there’s no difference between Democrats and Republicans, that both are beholden to corporate power and that neither care about the little guy. In other words, he’s the agent of change.

In 2002, even the Nation had enough of Nader’s presidential ambitions, writing an editorial, Ralph Don’t Run.

He didn’t listen.

Now, Ralph Nader wants to run again. Why? Many claim it’s his outsize ego while his dwindling number of supporters say he’s running on principle. In a year when most young Democrats believe they have found the real agent of change in Barack Obama, his message can’t help but fall on deaf ears.

If the real Ralph Nader were to stand up now, who would he be? Sadly, given the hero he once was and the tangible improvements he made in our lives, all most people see now is a man who has become irrelevant.

Jeralyn Merritt is a criminal defense attorney in Denver, CO. She blogs at TalkLeft: the Politics of Crime.

Bookmark and Share
Email Print Podcasts Digg PJM Home

Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:

1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.

2. Stay on topic.

3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.

4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.

5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.

The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.

These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.

13 Comments

1. steve conn:

If Ralph Nader is irrelevant, why are so many people with money ready to libel him, dredging up crap like association with some ant-Jewish nut case. The reason is that Ralph sticks to his guns and sticks to the issues which concern millions of non-affluent Americans who are also on the outside looking in.Watch and see.

Feb 26, 2008 - 10:31 am 2. james wigderson:

Strangely, he’s more qualified than either of the Democratic contenders.

Feb 26, 2008 - 11:09 am 3. Linda Frank:

Oh, Narcissus, to see thy image in the mirror!

Feb 26, 2008 - 11:53 am 4. Kim Zigfeld:

Anyone who steals votes from Democrats (especially, as James says, unqualified Democrats on the fast track to ruining the country)is A-OK in my book. I’d like to buy him dinner! Not that I’d be in the restaurant at the time, or even in the state, but I’d happily pick up the check.

Run, Ralph, run!

Feb 26, 2008 - 12:01 pm 5. paul a'barge:

Wahhhh…. Ralph is going to make us lose the Presidential election … again!!! Wahhhh!!

Feb 26, 2008 - 1:12 pm 6. Dick:

Ralph Nader is irrelevant, but because of the potential close results in some states the few votes he draws could csuse another 4 years of right wing Republican rule. What an egomaniac.

Feb 26, 2008 - 1:24 pm 7. Lewin Wickes:

Democrats were furious with me for voting for Nader in 2000. “If Nader had not run,” they would say, “Gore would have been elected.” I would reply, “Yes, if no one else runs against your candidate, he will win every time.” It always strikes me as a profoundly undemocratic impulse when people get angry at third party candidates for being “spoilers.” If someone thinks he has a better plan, then he should run for office, and more power to him. If Democrats don’t want Nader running, then they should offer him a job. That’s how it works.

Feb 26, 2008 - 1:56 pm 8. Vail Beach:

I don’t recall the same howls of outrage when Ross Perot ensured the victory of Bill Clinton in 1992 and ensured Dole had no realistic chance to win in ‘96. Some third party candidates are more entitled to run for office than others.

The assumption in Merrit’s piece and others like it is that Nader is insincere or stupid when he says there is no difference between Dems and Reeps. How dare she say that?

I’ll say this. If Gore had been president during 9/11, much of what Bush felt compelled to do to protect the country, including possibly an invasion of Iraq, would have been carried out by Gore. No matter what he says now. Nader might have altered Gore’s career path, but I don’t think he changed history much.

Feb 26, 2008 - 2:58 pm 9. Bob:

He lied about the Corvair under oath to Congress, and he has lied about everything since then.

Feb 26, 2008 - 3:45 pm 10. mcjoyce:

Why is this Dem crying about Ralph? Ralphy brings out voters to the polls, and when they get there they vote for Democrat candidates for Congress and Senate. In order for Ralphy to actually hurt poor poor Hillary or Barack, he has to cause Hill/Barry to run behind McCain in a state and thus lose its electoral votes. Unlikely, so stop your sobbing.

Feb 26, 2008 - 4:57 pm 11. david still:

He looks older than even McCain and I for one want a new gang of crooks in power…out with the old! McCain is a what? check his record and check his speeches. ILf I were inteested in war, he would be my guy–stay the course with your kids but not mine.

Ralph knows what is wrong he just doesn’t realize those that can fix it benefit by the way it is and so won’t fix it.

Feb 26, 2008 - 5:08 pm 12. Bemac:

Nader was irrelevant in 2000. Gore lost the election in his home state of Tennessee, not Florida. (Florida was where Team Gore hoped to turn its loss into a win.)

If Gore had managed to win his home state, he had more than enough electoral votes to claim the White House, Nader or no Nader. But even with Nader’s votes in the Volunteer State, Gore wouldn’t have won Tennessee.

Team Gore came up with a campaign strategy that cost him the electoral votes of his home state. I suspect Gore realizes that Nader had nothing to do with his loss.

Feb 26, 2008 - 7:44 pm 13. CK Canon:

If caucuses are discarded, as well as the states that vote red, Obama would not have a delegate lead. This doesn’t even factor in Florida and Michigan, who Obama supporters want to disenfranchise. Caucuses shouldn’t count anyway since they disenfranchise seniors, people who work, military personnel, and so forth. If done like Washington state, my state, they don’t even check voter registration so there are thousands who aren’t even registered who participate (please prove me wrong). To his faithful, Obama says super delegates should vote the will of the people, and at the same time behind the scenes he is donating far more money to super delegates (as reported by NY Times) than Clinton. If listening to talk radio is any guide, many republicans will vote for Obama (the most liberal in the senate) in the upcoming primaries and elections, because they know he won’t stand a chance in November. Of course I am bitter because Hillary is going to lose, but the best candidates are gone thanks to an outrageously bad nominating system. I’ll probably get over it by November, but why not vote for Nader? Why should I care? Truth be told, for the first time in my life I will consider voting republican for president.

Feb 27, 2008 - 12:52 am

Write a Comment

Name: (required, displayed)
Email: (required, not publicized)
URL: (optional, displayed)
Comments: