Anti-Nader Democratic Loyalists Represent the Worst in U.S. Politics
by Micah Holmquist
November 14, 2000

A friend told me on election day that she was "truly frightened of GW, and the Supreme Court that will be appointed while that moronic fascist is in office. I think he will win, and we will be able to thank Ralph Nader and his groupies when teenage girls begin dying from their coat hanger abortions, the rich get even richer as the poor get even poorer, etc."

Such thinking was and is hardly unique. In the early morning hours of November 8 when it appeared that Bush had won the presidency, I received a satirical email purporting to be Bush’s message to progressives who supported Nader. "Bush" thanked them and pledged as a gesture of appreciation that "Dick, myself, and the Republican majorities in the House and Senate promise a steady stream of controversial proposals for you to rail against" because "opposing us will give meaning to your lives." On a more serious note, Joe Lockard penned a November 8 editorial for Bad Subjects that chided Nader supporters for their campaign which was at once reformist and "totalistic social demand and moral cleansing." In his view the left could not gain as much through Nader’s run as it risked losing if Bush became president.

Even strong Nader supporters began to fall into such thinking as evidenced by an election night gathering of Greens in Ann Arbor, MI. Numerous people attending the event, including some that have done a great deal to build the Green Party, expressed concern that they had handed the election to Bush or would at least be blamed for doing such.

Concerns about playing the "spoiler" seemed far easier to brush off leading up to the election than they do now. With the difference between Bush and Al Gore in the deciding state of Florida being less than 2000 votes, the outcome would be totally different if just three percent of the 95,000 people who voted for Nader had instead cast a ballot for Gore. If that had happened the vice president would be picking out drapes and countries to bomb as we speak and nobody would think anything of it. Nader, the Greens, and the general course of independent and third party politics wouldn’t have been any worse off either. Nader didn’t come anywhere near his goal of getting five percent of the vote.

And the election of Bush could be a severe setback in a number of areas including affirmative action and reproductive rights. There are a number of issues where the two candidates are nearly identical - sanctions against Iraq, the death penalty, the "war on drugs," and "welfare reform" to name just a few- but the key word there is identical. Other than the possibility of opposition galvanizing more effectively with a GOP president, there is little reason to think that a Bush presidency would be worse than a Gore administration in these many areas.

Such a situation puts somebody like myself in a difficult position. I voted for Nader this year and also casted a ballot for the consumer advocate four years ago. I have a number of problems with Nader’s program but his campaigns have been generally positive steps for the development of leftist politics in the United States and to that extent deserve support. Gore and his politics are every bit as much of an obstacle to a truly just and free world as those of Bush and so I would in no way do take any positive steps towards electing Gore. Still it might have been a mistake for me to have taken every opportunity to attack Gore in the last few months. Gore might be bad but Bush would in all likelihood be worse. Part of me can’t help but think that perhaps I should have stayed silent and let the people who could help elect Gore in good conscience do just that. Given the closeness of the election of the election in Florida –it would be considered a virtual tie if there didn’t have to be a winner- there is no getting around the fact that if Nader had not run that there would be no doubt that Gore would be the next president. Those who say that Nader cost Gore a clear victory –as of this writing the final numbers aren’t in- aren’t exactly wrong.

But then again they aren’t exactly right either. Any number of things could have occurred and given Gore an easy win. He could have carried his home state of Tennessee (like just about every other major party presidential candidate has done in the past) and Clinton’s Arkansas in order to win. Eligible voters generally supportive of Gore could have turned out in higher numbers for the vice president. Most importantly Gore could have done more to win the support of voters who ended up choosing Bush. Not only did most voters who considered Nader end up choosing Gore, the vast majority of voters who considered Gore but ended up voting for somebody else selected Bush. (This really shouldn’t come as any surprise because, if you consider a breadth of issues, Gore and Bush are far more similar than Gore and Nader are.) If Nader stole votes a few votes from Gore then Bush committed grand larceny.

So what explains the attention given to Nader’s impact on the election? (A level of attention that would surely be even greater if the race in Florida was not still contested.) An exact answer is hard to find but it probably has something to do with the fact that third parties, especially left wing third parties, are still considered by the media and large segments of the population to be something less than legitimate. Gore supporters aren’t upset that some people chose Bush over Gore because they seem that as a reasonable, albeit disastrous, choice. They feel that they are supposed to have to compete in elections with Republicans but not with not with anybody else. The Green Party to them is only capable of taking away votes from Gore. It lacks an independent existence or profile.

They deny Nader the same level of legitimacy that they bestow upon Bush. In other words the individual who these Democratic loyalists never cease to ridicule as stupid is a worth opponent in their worldview because the GOP nominated him. They have substituted party affiliations for judging candidates on an individual basis.

So long as such thinking pervades U.S. politics, the best that can be accomplished is maintaining the status quo.

Return to U.S. Politics
Return to The International Home of Micah T. Holmquist