Incorrigible Nader

Nine months ago this column had a scoop. It was here that the world first learned that Ralph Nader would run for the presidency. The world turned over and went back to sleep
Special report: the US elections
Nine months ago this column had a scoop. It was here that the world first learned that Ralph Nader would run for the presidency. The world turned over and went back to sleep. To the American press, beginning its lethal infatuation with GW Bush, Nader was an icon of the 60s who had passed his sell-by date. I had always admired the man. Few had done more for the American citizen than Nader and his Raiders in creating a countervailing force to big business and big government. But I can't say I was stunned that he got only the odd paragraph here when he finally announced. Hardly anybody came to his earnest little meetings. It seemed just another Quixotic candidacy.

Now everything is changed. Nader is besieged by the pressmen who found him boring only a few months ago. The New York Times gives up a lead editorial to castigate him for self-indulgence, "ego run amok". It would be piquant if it weren't so painful. Nader dominates the last few days because he threatens to be Teddy Roosevelt to William Howard Taft in 1912, Ross Perot to George Bush in 1992. Teddy split the right-inclined vote to let in Woodrow Wilson, Perot took 19% of the vote to let in Bill Clinton, and Nader is splitting the left-inclined vote to let in GW. Nader won't win a single state but in a neck-and-neck race he threatens to take enough votes from Al Gore to deliver Minnesota and Oregon and maybe also Wisconsin, Michigan and Washington to Bush. In short, to condemn the country to the forces of reaction he has spent his life fighting. I asked him to explain himself.

HE: Why are you what the Times calls the wrecking-ball candidate?

RN: I didn't know that the two party system was enshrined in our constitution.

HE: But you will let in Bush who is against all you stand for.

RN: These guys are both the same. They've given up government to the big corporations.

HE: But surely Gore is closer to your position? You called Bush a big corporation running for president disguised as a person.

RN: Gore is a stumbling person. If he can't beat a bumbling Bush with a horrific record in Texas, what use is he to us? Fact is, these Republicans in Congress are sons of bitches fighters and the Democrats are weak. And we have three things going for us if Bush wins. One, he doesn't like conflict. Two, he's stupid. Three, he's lazy. Actually the Republicans may even be better on corporate welfare.

HE: But Gore has promised to make his first priority getting rid of soft money and Bush hasn't.

RN: I don't believe Gore will do it. He and Clinton had plenty of time to do it in the last eight years.

HE: But why don't you give Gore a break by backing out of the key states where you threaten him?

RN: What would it take? He has not moved one bit to meet us. Not on making cars that do 30 to 40 miles per gallon, not on regulating bio-tech regulation...

HE: You've attacked Gore on the environment but don't tell me his record isn't better than Bush, who incredibly won't move on global warming without more studies.

RN: I agree Gore is better on two things. He'd keep the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge closed to drilling. He's good on the wilderness. But Gore has done some bad things. In the transition he gave the nod for an incinerator in Ohio he should have stopped. OK, he gets a D-plus and Bush gets a D-minus, but they both flunk.

HE: You like quoting Alfred North Whitehead that duty arises out of the power to alter the course of events. Don't you a have duty here?

RN: I'm not a referee, I'm not trying to be a kingmaker. I'm trying to build a progressive political reform movement. Thousands of young people are pouring in. Fifteen thousand people paid $20 each to get into Madison Square Gardens. We've had only 1% of the money, 1% of the media, we've been barred from the television debates and we've had to fight statutory restrictions just to get on the ballot in 45 states.Yet we're going to get millions of votes. But all I get is "You're a spoiler, you're taking Al Gore's vote." Only Al Gore is taking votes from Al Gore.

The gleeful Republicans don't see it that way. They reckon a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. The Republican leadership council is launching pro-Nader TV ads featuring a speech in which he attacked Gore on "eight years of principles betrayed and promises broken". Of course, they have excised the Nader attack on Bush in the same speech. Ralph, meet your new friends.