[img]7|left|||no_popup[/img]There’s an extraordinary piece of film footage in the documentary biography “An Unreasonable Man” in which Ralph Nader, legitimate ticket in hand, attempts to attend a 2000 Presidential debate as an audience member only to be denied access. Despite reasonably asking if it isn’t a misuse of taxpayer money for the Massachusetts State Police to be involved in excluding a Presidential candidate for political reasons from what is a private event – and, of course, it is a misuse – he is threatened with arrest. Nader, with great dignity, leaves on his own terms. But the point is clear.

Of course, Nader doesn’t get any respect – not these days. But in the case of the debates, held by the Commission for Presidential Debates (CPD), that’s not the point. Rather, the issue is that the system deliberately works to exclude third-party candidates. Nader wasn’t the only person to suffer. “An Unreasonable Man” shows the face book sheets that were handed to security. On these sheets were the images of Nader, Pat Buchanan and other candidates without an R or D attached to their names, and the instructions that none of these people, or their running mates, were to be admitted to the debates. Considering that the CPD was founded by the Republican and Democratic parties with close ties to corporations (http://www.opendebates.org/theissue/overview.html), the ultimate point is that Nader was right. While there are superficial differences between Republicans and Democrats, both are committed to the same compromised, corrupted process of “democracy.” And here we see the media for what it truly is; not a liberal construct nor a conservative echo chamber, but a corporate mouthpiece that shapes popular opinion by deciding who does and does not get a voice.

In looking at the issues (http://www.votenader.org/issues/) he campaigns on – single-payer healthcare, electoral reform, foreign policy changes, climate change, green technology, consumer protection, crackdowns on corporate welfare and crime – Nader certainly embodies some common-sense issues with universal appeal as well as the sort of policy that progressives, including the Democratic base, support. He is not, in other words, the deluded fool or lunatic fringe dweller he’s being portrayed as. Interestingly, he hasn’t always been seen as such. Back in the 1960s and ‘70s, he was a hero of the people, taking on corporations whose reckless pursuit of profit directly affected consumers’ quality of life. Things like seat belts, airbags and other automobile safety design features, for example, arose directly as a result of Nader’s challenge to the auto industry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_nader#Automobile-safety_activism). As “An Unreasonable Man” explains, such was Nader’s popular appeal that he received heaps of mail and everything from car parts to a lung as part of a plea to help consumers and citizens who felt powerless in the face of corporate and government influence. Reagan’s ascendancy, which marked the dominance of the capitalist right and the homogenous centricity of the Democratic Party, and came fresh on the heels of President Carter’s unwillingness to support Nader’s plan for a Consumer Protection Agency, resulted in legislation failing to pass Congress, saw the steady erosion of Nader’s advocacy. Not that he stayed silent, of course, but that his advocacy became less effective in the face of an increasingly centralized corporate media that reinforced the two-party system and favoured a business-uber-alles agenda – all within a political climate that shifted the political spectrum by moving the centre to the right. In other words, a democracy defined by realpolitik by its nature marginalized, and continues to isolate, principled idealists.

Nader the Spoiler?

Of course, the large albatross around Nader’s neck is the notorious 2000 election. Common wisdom among Democrats is that Nader spoiled it for Gore. Had Nader not run, Gore would have gotten more votes and won outright. So great is the rage against Nader that ardent supporters who spoke forcefully in favour of his candidacy, like Michael Moore, sold him out in 2004 and denounced him. Where President Carter merely watched as the bus rolled over Nader and the legislation creating a Consumer Protection Agency, Michael Moore and others, supported by the Democratic Party establishment, took over the wheel and pushed down on the accelerator. So much for the people’s hero, now reduced to a joke no one finds funny. The question, did Nader really spoil the election? According to a study (https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/bcburden/web/burden2005.pdf)  by Harvard Professor Barry Burden, the answer is no. “Count models find that Nader’s travel schedule, unlike Gore’s, was unresponsive to the closeness of the major-party race. Nader’s appearances were driven primarily by opportunities for attracting a large number of voters, suggesting that earning 5 percent was indeed a central campaign goal.”

But the question itself misses the point; in a democracy, anyone who wants to run should be able to run, and the blame for a candidate not winning rests in the votes and the candidate himself. The truth is neither Bush nor Gore was strong enough to win decisively – the media’s hostility towards Gore didn’t help – and a voting system that breaks down when more than two parties are involved was shown to be a farce.

So what does all this have to do with Obama? Everything, because voters continue to allow themselves to be manipulated by the establishment powers and media. Although not the Great Liberal Hope (or Nightmare, depending on your perspective) he’d been made out to be, Obama represented a break from 8 years of malevolent, reactionary politics. However, the Democratic Party also lived down to Nader’s low opinion, proving itself incapable of doing anything other than capitulating to Republican fear-mongering. Voting for Obama was justified as part of an example, as someone mentions in “An Unreasonable Man,” that the parties will only listen to voters whose votes can’t be taken as a given. To this end, while it will take a full term of office to properly evaluate Obama’s performance, voters in the next election should be prepared to scorch the political landscape and send Democrats packing along with the Republican who have now twice been slapped, which means giving a long, hard look to the many third parties whose ideas, whether we agree or disagree, should be made available for everyone to hear, consider, and evaluate.

Frédérik Sisa invites you to visit www.inkandashes.net.