Someone who is both interesting to watch and actually has the potential to shape where the country will go after the 2004 elections has finally stepped into the already riveting presidential race.
Ralph Nader, by no standards a typical politician, brings something unique to the table. While the uniqueness may add spice to things, it also offers the American people he attempts to rally a harsh reminder of the state of American politics.
In a scathing speech before members of the press in Washington on Monday, the candidate who won less than 3 percent of the vote in 2000, and quite probably cost Al Gore that election, made official his independent bid for the White House.
His speeches are something refreshing, different from other candidates' ÷ they are pointed and lack the fluff and undue optimism that typically characterize campaign statements.
Monday's declaration was comprised of ideas ranging from the position of federal departments as "indentured servants" of corporate interests to the virtual impossibility of distinguishing between Democrats and Republicans, parties driven by the same desire to amass wealth. It contained a quote from a philosopher most Americans have never heard of and obligatory lines about democratic idealism. And it referred to the District of Columbia as a colony.
He chastised the Democrats for running a campaign with the goal of removing the Bush administration, saying the strategy would yield a candidate without a mandate. He said that President Bush is a corporation disguised as a person, and wittily defended that position; in the face of a reporter's question of dehumanization, he stabbed at the constitutional definition of a corporation as a person for purposes of free speech.
Ralph Nader is clever, as a rhetorician and in other ways, but unfortunately his candidacy may not reflect it. In fact, it is the best illustration of what happens when intelligence is misused.
Although it's only February, the race seems to be defined as a Bush-Kerry battle. Additionally, in spite of some recent polls, it could end up having a very close result. Nevertheless, Mr. Nader has decided to involve himself in the race, a move that has drawn criticism from many who see his candidacy as a tragedy ÷ the best chance for the Bush administration to maintain its hold on power. When the term "spoiler" is used to describe him as a candidate, it upsets him and he rejects the classification on the grounds that it's not applied to anyone else.
Terry McAuliffe, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, responded last fall to a request for feedback by Nader by urging him to consider the implications of a run this year and the difficulty it would add to the already uphill battle the Democrats have to contend with. Apparently, the thought of another Florida situation did not weigh heavily on his mind ÷ he would much rather pretend that his candidacy, which netted nearly 100,000 votes in Florida, had the support of a significant number of conservatives, and shift the focus to how the president was "picked" in Bush v. Gore.
This man is running without a party because the Green Party is getting started too late and because he refuses, on principle, to run in one of the parties of the American "duopoly." He has made himself, once again, look like a nut, if not a laughingstock. He called out McAuliffe, Howard Dean and the remaining Democratic candidates (except Kucinich) to tell them to "relax" and "rejoice," that his campaign has the same goal and apparently will help them in their efforts to oust the Republicans in November.
It's difficult to relax and rejoice, thereby denying the tragedy that the Nader campaign for the presidency encompasses. The tragedy happens not because he has good ideas that will fall on deaf ears, and surely not because he will help the president's re-election bid, but because he is a stark reminder of what can happen when intelligent people waste their intellectual gifts on pursuits of little value and little effect. Hopefully, Mr. Nader's run will open the eyes of the electorate and make it realize that, although the system may be flawed, to effect change one must accept reality
Aaron Okin is a regional development and political science junior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.