why i hate ralph nader.

Why I Hate Ralph Nader

As soon as I found out that Ralph Nader was running for President, I immediately got myself on his mailing list. I was so excited! Granted, most of Ralph’s big accomplishments were before I was born, and I only had a vague sense of who he was – a crusader against corporate interests, a champion of consumer rights and the environment. Also, in Still Life with Woodpecker, a Tom Robbins novel, the main character had a big crush on him. He must be wonderful, I thought.

I sent donations in to local Ralph activists, I purchased CD’s of Ralph and Winona giving speeches, I gathered copies of this and green bumper stickers with the intention of distributing these on campus here. After attending a big music festival at Blockbuster Pavilion this summer, I went around saying, “If Ralph Nader were President, we’d be allowed to go to our cars and come back in. We wouldn’t be forced to buy everything we needed inside the arena for 8 times what it’s worth.” What a magnificent world it would be if Ralph Nader could be President.

But everybody knew that was impossible. The biggest Ralph fans, the two major parties, even Ralph himself openly admitted that he knew he’d never win. No, the actual goal of the Green Party campaign was to get just 5% of the total American vote, thereby gaining matching funds for the next election and possibly, down the line, challenging our two-party political system. This goal is noble, it is healthy, and I supported it. Since I live in South Carolina, which would by all accounts go to Bush no matter what, I was going to vote for Nader. Contribute to that 5% he needed. Save some salmon and redwoods.

So what happened? Why did I instead vote for Gore? Did I chicken out? No. A few days before the election, I read some comments that Ralph had made concerning the possibility that he might spoil the election for Gore. The gist of his response was, “Good! I hope I do ruin the election for Gore! There’s no difference between him and Bush anyway. Plus, things have got to get much worse before they can get better. A Bush presidency will motivate this country into action.” This statement sickened me, and it destroyed the image I had of the compassionate, softspoken but powerful, level-headed defender of all that is green or downtrodden. I voted for Gore, and despite the fact that South Carolina went to Bush, my vote and my parents’ votes did count: they are included in that 300,000+ lead that Gore has in the popular vote, which will be remembered for a very long time and may lead to some changes in the way this country physically casts its votes and then tallies the score.

Perhaps you see the contradiction in what Ralph said. If Gore and Bush are evil twins, then how is giving the election to Bush going to accomplish the “things-need-to-get-worse-before-they-can-get-better” goal? Things will get worse, indeed. People will die because Bush weaseled his way into the White House. And these people, members of the very same groups Ralph says he wants to fight for, won’t live to see the getting better part four years from now.

Who’s going to die as a result of this “election”? First and most obviously, if Bush manages to overturn Roe v. Wade, women and girls will immediately be lost, as a result of illegal abortions, suicides, or self-inflicted injuries. And if you think Bush doesn’t have that much power within the Supreme Court, just look at how they appointed him to be President.

The second group in trouble are those convicted of crimes and sentenced to the death penalty, whether they are guilty or innocent. Have we ever had a President with such a deep affection for executions? Human rights groups all over have been struggling lately to get moratoriums on executions, both at the state and federal level. Ralph Nader claims to want to abolish the death penalty. That movement certainly will not have much power for the next four years now.

The third group in danger are the uninsured, like myself. Nothing short of a socialist approach to national health care is going to ever accomplish the goal of taking care of the basic medical needs of all working Americans. I’m not talking about welfare here. I’m not talking about handouts. I’m talking about hard-working citizens who do not get insurance through their employers and cannot obtain and/or afford coverage on their own. Conditions that are very treatable if tended to early can and do kill people who do not seek medical attention soon enough. And the mindset of those of us with no health coverage is, “I can’t go to the doctor or the hospital unless it’s clearly a critical condition.” Does anybody think George W. Bush is going to come within 10 miles of any action that could possibly be labeled “socialist”?

The fourth, but certainly not the final, group that will lose their lives because of who is in the White House are going to be the people who are victims of violent crime, the numbers of which will turn back up after years of declining. Crime rates are directly correlated to the strength of the economy and the level of unemployment. Our economy is already slowing; it will be hurt more by the lack of an increase in the federal minimum wage. The Republicans are far more opposed to an increase in the minimum wage than they are to abortion. George is going to do everything he can to suck from the poor and middle class and give it to the rich. And the more it dries up down at the bottom, the more marginalized people are going to turn to crime.

All the groups that are in some kind of trouble now that Bush has been appointed have one thing in common – they are not in the Wealthy group. This is the one and only group Bush truly has any interest in. And they will profit tremendously in the next four years.

Ralph Nader – your fight seemed like the good fight, and your stated goals were admirable. But can you come out and say that what you accomplished on November 7 (namely, nothing) was worth the lives of innocent people? Innocent women and minorities, for the most part? And how do you cope with the fact that Pat Buchanan of all people showed more grace and composure in the wake of the bungled election than you did? He did not gloat over the fact that he received votes that could have gone to Gore. What were you doing in Florida anyway? You had less business down there than a hot-natured polar bear. Speaking of polar bears, how many of them are going to die when George W.’s best friends, the oil companies, get even more leeway to rape the environment that you claim to hold so dear? Political trends may be reversible; most damage to the environment is not.

Although we all knew you wouldn’t get to be President this time around, Ralph, there’s hope for you to get there yet. Why not Bush/Nader 2004? I’m sure George would be glad to have you on board – he owes you a big one.

Laura Atkinson - December 2000

So when I wrote this, I didn't know about another group - the men, women and children, both American and Iraqi, who are going to die if Bush gets his war. Of course, Bush himself is ultimately responsible for this, but I don't believe that Ralph Nader's hands are blood-free.

- January 14, 2003

With the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I've been thinking a lot about the G.O.P. and the anti-choice movement. I think perhaps the best argument to support my resentment of Ralph Nader with regards to the bungled 2000 election arises out of this issue.

What if:

In the 2004 election, Pat Robertson or some other conservative Christian idealogue declares that the Republican party has not done enough to restrict or outlaw abortion. Robertson begins a grassroots campaign aimed at those who oppose abortion. Suppose that the American public is pretty evenly split between the Republican and Democratic candidates. Now, a small but critical chunk of voters who would vote Republican because of the abortion issue instead give their votes to Robertson. In an excruciatingly close election, the loss of the pro-lifers' Republican votes gives the win to the Democrats.

Would I not write a thank-you letter to Robertson? You're damn right I would. The honor or lack thereof in how my party won wouldn't worry me too much, since for the next four years I would enjoy having a Democrat for President. I would feel gratitude for a man and a movement that flies in the face of all that I hold dear. And the top 1% (in terms of wealth) in this country ought to feel thankful for Nader, a man who purports to be an advocate for the bottom 99%. Those who profit from polluting and destroying the environment ought to write a thank-you letter to the man with the gall to call himself the leader of the "Green" party.