> But a Nader run for presidency would raise issues in a way guaranteed
> to monkeywrench the current state of the U.S. political system. Ralph
> Nader is NOT a lone nut. He has widespread name recognition, serious
> credibility as somebody who really fights "special interest groups,"
> and a track record of political support. And if Nader is such an
> irrelevant nut, why is so much ink being spilled in the left press
> asking him not to run?
In 2000, Ralph looked to me like a perfect illustration of the Peter Principle. As a consumer advocate, he was excellent, but somehow he just didn't make it as a presidential candidate -- he had risen to his level of incompetence. And in fact I agreed with a lot of his ideas and positions. The problem was that, though he had good ideas and positions, he didn't have the ability to put them across to the public in a believable, compelling way.
I don't quite understand why I had this reaction. Perhaps it was because he gave me the impression of someone who was running in order to lecture the public -- teach us what was what. Nothing is more death to a U.S. presidential candidate than taking the stance of "educating the public on the issues" -- most Americans absolutely hate a candidate who tries to drag them into a classroom.
Lefties, however, like nothing better to lecture each other and be lectured to. Look at what we do on this list, hour after hour, day after day. Most voters, however, would rather play hooky from this kind of school. Someone said of Clinton, "I'm not considering marrying the guy, just voting for him." But for most voters, "marrying" the candidate -- having what they fantasize is a close, personal relationship with her/him -- is basically what voting is all about. Yes, it's a silly fantasy, and we lefties can rail all we want against the stupidity and uneducatability of the American voter, but poor Ralph (the eternal bachelor) was just not a good courter of the voters, however good he was at campaigning against unsafe cars.
The reason so much ink is being spilled in the left press (actually, it would be more accurate to say "so many bytes are being pushed through CPUs") is that lots of people are afraid he might present us with the gift of a second Bush term. Actually, I'm not particularly afraid of that. I belong to the school of thought which argues that Gore's loss was primarily his own fault, not Ralph's. (It wasn't Ralph who made him lose Tennessee.) And with the intense anxiety on the Left about a second Bush term, I think that if he ran this year he would garner even fewer votes than he did in 2000 -- he would be down to his hard-core fans. So I am not a member of the "Please, Ralph, don't!" Club.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ Belinda: Ay, but you know we must return good for evil. Lady Brute: That may be a mistake in the translation.
-- Sir John Vanbrugh: The Provok’d Wife (1697), I.i.