The return of Nader

There are certain songs, like Limp Bizkit’s “Rollin,” that need to stay in the year 2000. Another is the Democrats’ greatest hit from that year, “Ralph Nader Cost Gore the Presidency.” Both songs are annoying, and I’m embarrassed for anyone resurrecting either in the year 2008.

In Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury writes, “If you don’t want to make a man unhappy politically, don’t give him two sides of a question to worry him; give him one.”

In our country, we can’t handle choice. We have the entire political spectrum and every interest reduced to a “D” and an “R.”

We are duped into thinking that somehow all the issues and interests of our nation and the world are represented by just two political parties. We buy into this because being civically aware stresses us out, and putting forth effort toward civic engagement is unappealing.

Ralph Nader isactivating another candidacy for president for the sole purpose of bringing off-the-table issues up for discussion.

Democrats prefer their political party to spoon-feed them the important issues; anything else raised by an outside source must be unimportant because the political party says so.

The ability to run for public office is the ability to exercise free speech. Democrats who don’t want Nader to run want to stifle free speech and are directly un-American.

It’s shameful.

The thought of Nader running for public office arouses vehement hate from Democrats. It’s too bad that rage can’t be directed toward Republicans.

This lividness from Democrats is further puzzling because most Democrats agree with Nader’s policies 100 percent.

I’ve heard Nader trashed by Democrats, but never thanked. In the infamous 2000 election, he brought enough new voters to the polls to elect Maria Cantwell to the U.S. Senate.

Cantwell won by a narrow victory against Republican incumbent Slate Gorton. The Washington voters who chose Nader for president voted Cantwell into the Senate.

Look at Senator Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign platform — it’s identical to Nader’s 2000 platform.

In 2000, Nader was running on:renegotiating NAFTA, expanding Medicare coverage to all Americans, enacting new environmental standards that drastically reduce dangerous environmental toxins, and increasing the minimum wage to keep up with inflation.

If the Obama of 2008 ran against Vice President Gore in 2000, the differences between the two would be vast.

Nader never accepts PAC money, and neither does Obama. Nader is in favor of publicly financed elections; so is Obama.

The Democratic Party has done a very good job of vilifying Nader when most of America would agree with his positions.

This proves his point that the two political parties have too much control over voters. He told Jon Stewart that if the Democratic and Republican parties were corporations, they’d be sued for anti-trust violations.

He told conservative talk-show host Michael Medved that he is running for president to show that participating in government can be done freely by any citizen without party entitlements.

That’s the brilliancy of Nader’s political career: He’s made our air cleaner, our cars safer and protection for consumers stronger — and he’s done it all as a private citizen.

He doesn’t have the same hang-ups to which elected politicians have. Representative Dennis Kucinich looks like a presidential candidate with fortitude, until he’s in danger of losing his house seat. That’s when he folds like a cheap pair of socks.

If Nader were a friend of mine on Facebook, I’d add the “Superlatives” application just so I could nominate him for best citizen from the 20th and 21st centuries — so far.

[Reach columnist Ryan Morden at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.]