Ralph Nader is being treated like the kid in class who made everyone miss recess because he wouldn't stop asking questions about verbs. Again. The man is being lambasted by Democrats for trying to reclaim his "spoiler" status of 2000, when he won 2.5 percent of the popular vote and allegedly handed George W. Bush the election. Editorial boards and talking heads across the country are going after his credibility and sanity for throwing his hat into the 2008 presidential ring.
Is Nader ignorant of political realities? Perhaps. Does he have an insatiable thirst for attention? Clearly. Is he just irritating? Kind of. Say what you will about Nader 2008, but let's not forget two things: One, pluralism should mean more than two choices. And two, the Democrats could use a push in the progressive direction.
First, pluralism. At what point in our Constitution does it specify that the government should be run by two parties alone? And where exactly does it mention that people shouldn't run for president if it is going to be inconvenient for another candidate? Ah, found it! It's right between the part about how personal AK-47s are a basic right and the section outlining how we need our civil liberties only some of the time.
Democracy is about choice. Nader's run for president, while inevitably fruitless and generally frustrating for Democrats, gives Americans a uniquely different choice than is provided by our two-party system.
That choice serves as a reminder that all too often, we see our future as black and white, the Republican option and the Democratic option. And sure, within those camps there are some shades of gray, but not many. It is easy to forget that there are more options out there. There are green, purple and yellow policies. Third-party candidates like Nader may not make the best presidents, but their involvement broadens our choices and therefore strengthens our democratic system.
Like civil liberties, pluralism is an inalienable right. If we give up our core democratic values for short-term benefits, no matter how important they are, then we endanger the long-term fortitude of our democratic system.
But the value of Nader's candidacy is more than just the pluralism it provides; his campaign challenges Democrats to consider progressive policies they often overlook. Take health care. Senators
Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) each favor some form of universal health care, whether by mandate or subsidies or what have you. While this is a stark contrast to the contented position of Republicans, the dialogue within the Democrats on the issue is hardly exhaustive. Very few Democrats challenge the existence of the private medical industry.
Nader says his candidacy will reintroduce the single-payer option, a government-run system, or as he puts it, "Medicare for all." While it is a politically and ideologically inconceivable idea to well-funded and aggressively-lobbied Democrats and Republicans, it's a pretty sensible system by international democratic standards. Single-payer systems are working quite well in many countries in Europe, Asia and Latin America.
Shouldn't this credible system be part of our national debate on health care? Of course. But it won't be if it is left to the mainstream Democrats to voice the liberal position. Ironically enough, the usual response to the single-payer suggestion from both parties is along the lines of "But Americans love choices!" Apparently, that passion does not extend to presidential politics.
And what about the spoiler factor? Democrats shout that if Nader hadn't run in 2000, Al Gore would have won, and Iraq, the Katrina mess and a dangerously conservative Supreme Court would have all been averted. It's possible. But this is a tired and inaccurate argument, and we shouldn't think like that. It's like saying that if we had patted down every Arab getting on an airline on Sept. 11, 2001, we could have avoided the disaster that ensued.
Furthermore, in 2000, 11 percent of Democrats voted for George Bush, and no one seems to be mad at them. Secondly, Al Gore was the only candidate since 1916 who failed to win his home state. And lastly, Gore's advisors told him to spend less time talking about an issue that he (and many Nader voters) are particularly passionate about: the environment. As a result, Nader voters felt that their interests would not be represented by a Gore presidency, and they voted for someone else.
And so, I find the sense of entitlement that Democrats are currently exhibiting to be particularly nauseating. The party thinks that it has an indisputable right to the support of every voter that doesn't agree with the Republicans. It's a drag being the coalition party, but it is what it is, and as such, we should either make room for the Nader voters or shut up. If we wanted to be a homogenous party where everyone looks and thinks alike, then we'd be Republicans.
Personally, I'm not going to vote for Nader, and I don't think too many other people will either. Unlike 2000, the Democrats have two possible nominees that have energized the party base and the youth and reintroduced disenfranchised voters to the party.
I do, however, hope that some of Nader's views - particularly on health care - shape the discourse of the election and steer the Democratic Party in a more progressive direction. Most seemingly-impossible-but eventually-implemented policies originated from candidates who never came close to victory. Eugene Debs' five runs for president in the early 20th century certainly helped strengthen the union movement in our country.
So, everyone should lay off Ralph Nader. You don't have to vote for him, but you do have to tolerate him.
Doug Randall is a senior majoring in political science and economics.
