In his own special way, Ralph Nader is trying to be a team
player. He’s going to meet with John Kerry this weekend “even
though we’re competitors” to discuss their “common goal” of
unseating George W. Bush, who is, according to Nader, “a giant
corporation… masquerading as a human being.”
He’s talking a good game. Still, Nader can’t seem to bring
himself to praise his Democratic brethren. When asked by an
agitated Paul Begala on Crossfire two days ago how running
against Kerry could possibly help the Democrats take back the White
House this November, Nader gave the pundit a glare one imagines he
normally reserves for those wacky “corporate paymasters.”
“I think I know ways to beat Bush that John Kerry and the
Democrats are too cautious or unimaginative to come up with,” he
said. “But they can pick it up when they see it working.”
You could almost see Nader’s mind working after that jab.
Don’t smirk, Ralph. Don’t laugh. Stay serious. He was
obviously proud of himself.
BUT THEN, AFTER taking the beating Nader has over the past five
weeks, it’s probably not easy to play nice. Democratic luminaries
have been laying into him with a gusto that stops short only of
their daily diabolization of George W. Bush.
At the recent Democratic “unity” dinner, the man who could even
find something to love in North Korea’s Kim Jong-il, Jimmy Carter,
delivered the following wilting line to the cheers of Democratic
bigs: “Ralph, go back to umpiring softball games or examining the
rear end of automobiles, and don’t risk costing the Democrats the
White House this year as you did four years ago.”
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson called Nader’s candidacy “an act
of total ego.” Howard Dean, after briefly praising Nader’s career,
said he hoped the activist would withdraw “in the best interests of
the country.” This from the famed “straight talker” who now lets
John Kerry’s staff script his appearances so he can hold on to some
sort of relevance.
It is difficult to understand why the Democrats are giving Nader
so much free exposure. Their critique of him is not based on policy
disagreements but on his ability to receive votes Democrats do not
want to have to earn. At the core of their anger is a fear of
competition.
They are willing to whip their base into a frenzy during the
primaries, but do not want to have to make concrete promises to
those same voters while running to the center in a general election
campaign. What they fear is their own policies in undiluted
form.
Nader’s cool admonishment to his critics, even as he offers to
work with them, is damning. “Democrats should just stop whining and
go to work,” he said. “Their expectations are so low, they’ll go
for anything. I’ve had liberals say to me ‘Genghis Khan rather than
Bush.’ ‘My cocker spaniel rather than Bush.’”
SO WHAT, PRECISELY is Nader’s plan? It’s actually not as crazy as
he often sounds. He plans on making an appeal for votes not only to
his longtime supporters, but also to “Reagan Democrats” and
“disgruntled conservatives” upset over the ever-growing deficit,
the “sovereignty-shredding effect” of the World Trade Organization
and NAFTA, corporate subsidies, and the erosion of civil liberties
under the PATRIOT Act and similar legislation.
In fact, there’s not much in a standard Nader speech that
wouldn’t seem at home in the Reform Party platform that Pat
Buchanan ran under four years ago. Nader is right when he points
out that Kerry’s current Massachusetts liberal campaign strategy is
unlikely to tip the scales in his favor in Midwestern battleground
states.
Is it a winning strategy? Of course not, but then the goal is
not to win the election. Nader wants to build a populist voting
block he hopes will eventually sway the Democratic Party.
Instead of pandering to him like they do with every other
special interest group, the Democratic establishment is going on
the warpath. Ask any FBI negotiator: This is not the way to get
those hostage votes back safely. And prickly Nader is going to be
that much more determined. He’ll also be positioned as the
anti-establishment candidate should any of the so-called Deaniacs
actually decide to vote.
I would love to be a fly on the wall this weekend, watching
Kerry try to schmooze Nader as he rants about corporate power. But
since voting is a zero sum gain (e.g., a vote for Nader cannot be a
vote cast for Kerry, except in Chicago) the idea of an alliance
between the two conferees makes little sense, unless Kerry wants to
put Nader on the ticket.
The best that Kerry can hope for from this meeting Nader’s
agreeing not run an aggressive campaign in states that the Dems
need to carry, but that isn’t looking likely at this juncture. As
Nader insisted the other day on CNN, “We all have an equal right to
run for president in this country. And we should respect that, and
compete, and see who does best by the voters in this country.”
