Is there supposed to be a correlation between what I think of Nader and whether it matters who prez is?
Answer to second question: yes
Answer to first question (somewhat different version of post I sent to e-lists several months ago, apparently not to lbo)
Nader is probably only person to ever critique corporate system in *Homes and Gardens* magazine, saying that it "only stimulates one value in society - the acquistive, materialistic, profit value. Hoe about the justice value? the health value? the heritage-for-future-generations value? the accountability-in-government value the enforcement-of-consumer- environmental-worker-laws value?" (August 1991, p. 144)
Of course, it is RN's name recognition that got him into above magazine and it is such recognition that explains Green Party willingness to nominate him a second time despite his 1996 'non-campaign' (which should have been seen as betrayal). Long-term viability of minor parties that have relied upon individual has not been very good.
His anti-corporate theme reminds of not-so-Progressive Era advocacy of using gov't to prevent economy from imposing hardships on individuals unable to help themselves and to promote social reforms that would lead to social progress. While number of such reforms were enacted, middle-strata progressivism had conservative effect of undercutting more substantive democratic demands and reducing pressure for great changes.
RN's rhetoric may sound populist theme but his modus operandi has always been 'reform from above': lobbying, testifying at hearings, influencing rulemaking process, presenting research findings, organizing 'astroturf' (in contrast to grassroots) efforts. He may or may not be "squeaky clean" (and I'll opt out of addressing such stuff), but his phalanx of inter- locked groups are staff/bureaucratic organizations in which professionals conduct most activities and "members" are called upon to pay dues and be "mobilized" for mail/phone campaigns (hence, astroturf politics).
Nader's identification with 'public interest' (term popularized by some folks whose formative political experiences were in so-called New Politics movements of 1960s/1970s that should be viewed with caution) causes notwithstanding, his association with founding (or co-founding) over 50 organizations makes him contributor to interest group 'hyperpluralism' leading to more organizations while simultaneously narrowing their focus.
Lest I be labelled a 'revolutionist' who inherently opposes lobbying/ reform/etc., I think RN deserves both recognition and respect for work he has done. Still, his persistence about the pernicious corporate system has never gone far enough in detailing/explaining consequences of US capitalism. He hasn't asked sufficiently hard questions about ways in which capital shapes daily lives. And, he has been in position to do better job of encouraging involvement that transcends 'public interest' lobby's need to continually attract duespayers (achilles heel of such groups is high turnover rates).
While RN's comments in Homes and Gardens convey broad concerns, the one constant and the principal function of his activity has been consumer protection. Thus, his politics have been both "defensive" and self- limiting. Moreover, his adoption of a consumerist outlook weakens his claim to be a 'public interest' advocate when talk is in terms of limiting deception to which consumers are subjected (rather than, for example,speaking about eliminating poverty).
Nader, in keeping with tendency of "leftish" types in US to cite 'home grown' examples of 'good' politics, speaks of Jeffersonian democracy. But Jefferson was part of US 'duopoly' that Nader opposes, a duopoly that has existed throughout country's history. In any event, invoking even the radical TJ (there were several of him) is call to go 'back to future' that only partially was. Michael Hoover (who will return to '2 screens and I'm out' rule of thumb after this post)