Ralph Nader's War

Today's Huffington Post carries my article, "Ralph Nader's War." In this piece, I lament that Nader, once a hero to millions of Americans and a mentor to many activists, is now better-known for his political blunders, particularly his role in helping elect George W. and the outrageous things that have occurred as a result, including the war in Iraq. Nader is dropping hints that he might run again, suggesting that he learned nothing from the 2000 election debacle. Yes, Bush "stole" the election in Florida, but he wouldn't have been able to steal it if, a week or two before the election, Nader had encouraged his supporters to vote for Gore to avoid a Bush victory.

Nader could have played a positive role by running as a Democrat, rather than the negative role in played by diverting votes from Gore. This isn't intended as a rehash of the 2000 election, but rather as a warning and a bit of strategic advice to those who still argue that the Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same. 

Judging from the 100+ comments posted so far on the HuffingtonPost in response to my article, it seems that quite a few people (though hardly a random sample of progressives) still haven't learned that lesson. Rather than supporting a third party that divert votes from the Democrat and plays a "spoiler" role that helps elect a Republican, it makes more sense to strengthen the progressive wing of the Democratic party, what some call a "party within a party" strategy. This is what the business-friendly DLC did, starting in the 1980s, to move the party to the center.  And this is essentially what netroots groups like MoveOn and grassroots groups like labor unions, enviro groups, community and citizen action groups, women's groups, and others are now doing. 

I support John Edwards for president,  but I'd certainly support Barack Obama or even Hillary Clinton over Thompson, Guiliani, Romney or any of the other GOP candidates. Having any Democrat in the White House, especially with a Democratic majority in Congress, gives progressives room for maneuver. Rather than fight defensive battles to stave off the worst (which we've been doing under Bush), progressives can fight offensive battles to move a progressive agenda. Advocates for single-payer health reform can mobilize around that agenda (even if they don't get everything they want) rather than fight against George W's veto of the child health program. And, of course, advocates of immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq will have more leverage with any Democrat in the White House than with any of the Republicans.

- Peter Dreier