Wall Street Journal - February 24, 2004
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Ralph Rides Again
Ralph Nader is always entertaining, and his just-announced repeat campaign for the Presidency doesn't disappoint. Start with the over-the-top reaction from Democrats.
The Kerry and Edwards campaigns instantly condemned Mr. Nader's entry as an independent. Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe showed rare self-restraint in merely calling it "unfortunate." "Counter-productive" and "vanity" were among the kinder epithets from other liberals, but we'll admit our favorite reaction was Al Sharpton's. Speaking from a deep well of personal authority, the reverend said Mr. Nader was either "an egomaniac" or "a Bush contract."
All of this animosity is rooted in the belief that Mr. Nader is a "spoiler" who cost Democrats the election in 2000 and could do so again. We don't think President Bush was, or is, that lucky. The biggest albatross Al Gore carried in 2000 was Bill Clinton and his impeachment legacy. Two-thirds of the voters who went to the polls that year said the country was moving in the right direction, yet millions of them still voted against the incumbent party. Ralph didn't make them do that.
The Green Party vote collapsed in the last week of the campaign, leaving Mr. Nader with only 2.7% of the final tally. Yes, Mr. Gore would have won Florida if Nader voters had gone for him instead. But the election was so close that Mr. Gore would have won if a million things had happened differently. For one thing, Mr. Gore might have bothered to win his home state of Tennessee.
It isn't clear that Mr. Nader will hurt the Democratic nominee this year either. By holding down the left flank of the national debate on any subject, Mr. Nader could make Senators Kerry or Edwards look more centrist than they are. In any event, we don't recall this level of media angst about "spoilers" when Ross Perot was damaging GOP candidates in 1992 and 1996.
It's also amusing to see liberals suddenly appalled by the Nader phenomenon they have done so much to create. On NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday, Mr. Nader railed as ever against "corporate" interests, a line he began 39 years ago when he launched his first media campaign against the Chevrolet Corvair.
Mr. Nader is best understood as the inventor of today's nexus of liberal politics and trial-lawyer opportunism. His network of organizations have long been suspected of taking trial-lawyer cash, but it is impossible to tell because Mr. Nader refuses to disclose their financial backers. Yet just like Senators Kerry and Edwards he denounces the influence of sinister "special interests." It's a little ungrateful for Mr. Edwards to now upbraid the man who did so much to make the Senator's own fortune and political career possible.
We agree with Democrats on at least one point. Mr. Nader will howl about the "two-party duopoly" and demand to be made part of the formal Presidential debates after Labor Day. But such a spectacle would only detract from the voters' ability to size up the two contenders with a genuine chance to win. Only a candidate who has a substantial following in the autumn polls should get a seat at the debate platform. If Democrats are as unified and "energized" as they claim to be this year, they needn't worry about a liberal museum piece like Mr. Nader.