The Nader Factor

How cool would it be to have Al Pacino replace Bill Schneider or Bob Novak as a CNN political commentator for just one day? In my modest opinion, that would be a sure way to increase ratings. Every time Pacino was asked for his opinion regarding the Democratic primaries or the contentious issue of same-sex marriage, he would start out by uttering his trademark "HA" shout. He would then proceed to deliver a witty analysis of the situation at hand, embellishing it with unprintable profanities and famous quotes from "Scarface" or "The Godfather". When asked for a comment on Nader's candidacy, Mr. Pacino he would sketch a facetious smirk and simply say: "Vanity, definitely my favorite sin."

I know, I know. My Pacino fantasy is a stretch, but if he actually said that, his polished remark would be right on target. By deciding to run -- yet again -- for the presidency of the United States, Ralph Nader has reminded us that it is more important for him to see his face on TV than to fight constructively for the values he claims to embrace. Therefore, if there is a "Narcissistic Man of the Year" award, I would like to nominate Ralph Nader as a deserving candidate. His announcement earlier this week that he would launch a third run for the White House considerably raised the bar for all aspiring egotists.

At this point, you may be asking yourself "why is this guy rambling about Al Pacino, Nader and narcissists? What is the big deal anyway? Aren't there more important topics to be discussed, such as Carrie Bradshaw's sex life?" Well, maybe. But there are some things to be said about the so-called "Nader Factor" in this year's presidential election.

OK. Let's stop. Rewind back to November 2000. The American nation is bitterly split into two camps. One camp thinks Gore is a bore, but they love Clinton so much that they are willing to vote for him. The other camp hates Clinton so much that they are willing to vote for an inarticulate and dim-witted Texas governor. The Clinton-lovers actually outnumber the Clinton-haters, albeit by a slim margin.

But then good old Ralph comes along and diverts support for Gore by presenting himself as a more liberal alternative to Gore. He says that the Republican and Democratic parties essentially have a duopoly on American politics. Some liberal voters find his message appealing and they want to make a statement. However, their brave political stance -- I would say suicidal -- backfired big time.

Turns out, the 2000 election was one of the closest elections in history. It all came down to Florida, which Gore lost to Bush by only 537 votes. Nader got 97, 488 votes in that state. You do the math. I am not a big fan of "what if" questions, but if only a small fraction of Nader voters -- say, 538 of them -- had decided to vote with their heads rather than their hearts, Al Gore would be president of the United States. Suffice it to say, there were plenty of cases of voter's regret in Florida the next morning.

Fast-forward to February 2004. Green Party sympathizers realized they had wasted precious votes. They wanted to make a statement and what they got instead was the least environmentally-friendly administration ever and an ultra-conservative president (whatever happened to compassionate conservatism?).

The nation remains bitterly divided, and all signs point to an exceptionally close presidential race in November. The Democrats are aware that this one is an uphill battle for them, but just when they were beginning to think that liberals throughout the country were united behind the Democrats' cause, Ralph Nader crashed the party and resurrected old ghosts from the 2000 election fiasco. Will he do it again? Will he be responsible for another ruinous loss for the Democrats this coming election? His bid for the White House has certainly sent shivers down the spines of prominent Democrats. And Karl Rove could not be happier right now. D‚j... vu all over again.

But wait a minute. Can history repeat itself? How serious is this "Nader Factor?" My instinct tells me it will not matter much this time around. Nader voters in the 2000 election may be stubborn, but they are not idiots. They have learned their lesson the hard way. They must have heard the phrase "see, I told you" a million times by now. Most of them will not make the same mistake twice, unless they are masochists. Apparently one man did not learn any lessons -- Nader himself. But who cares? I suspect he will not even get a third of the votes he got last time. I kind of feel sorry for the guy. He really looks pathetic, and in the eyes of many voters, he has lost all credibility.

Fighting to end the duopoly of the Democratic-Republican establishment is a worthy cause, and Nader should be commended for his activism in that regard. But sometimes you need to assess the reality of the situation and be pragmatic. It is not about giving up your principles; it is about being smart.

Rodrigo De Haro is a senior majoring in International Relations. He can be reached at deharo@tuftsdaily.com.