In the wild, organisms having ostensibly nothing in common rely on each other for survival in what is termed a symbiotic relationship. The same principle extends into the realm of politics. Occupying opposite ends of the ideological spectrum stand Ralph Nader and President Bush. However, far from being insistent enemies, one cannot exist without the other.
For President Bush it is a match made in heaven. His ascendancy to the throne was made possible by Nader's campaign. The campaign centered on a message that described Al Gore and George Bush as \Tweedledee and Tweedledum."" This message resonated with those who were disillusioned with the two-party system. As we all know, had only 7,000 fewer of Nader's followers voted for Gore in 2000, George Bush would have forever remained a shrub in the political wilderness.
But with well over 1,000 combat deaths in Iraq, a deficit growing by $1.3 billion per day and free passes for those who see the environment like mushrooms-best when spoiled-the difference between Democrats and Republicans could not be clearer and Nader's comments could not be any more irresponsible. Needless to say, you do not necessarily need much more than a pulse to realize the destruction wrought by Nader's 2000 campaign.
Apparently, the only person who is unwilling to face the fact that Bush constitutes the gravest threat in modern history to the American left is Nader himself. He continues not to take any responsibility for his erroneous statements in 2000, despite the fact that his most important converts in 2000 have joined forces to oppose his current White House bid. Progressive giants such as Jim Hightower, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn and Cornel West have signed a statement in support of Kerry in every swing state. It's fine to vote for Nader, just make sure you are in Utah or Texas.
Feeling betrayed by his high profile supporters, Nader lashed out against what he calls the ""liberal intelligentsia,"" and now he seems to decry them as frequently in his stump speech as he mentions the current president.
Abandoned by his progressive roots at the ripe age of 70, Nader seems to have reached his apex, and apart from impromptu sessions on Al-Jazeera, a graceful exodus from the political scene was nearly at hand. Contributing to his apparent demise was that his campaign was not collecting a sufficient number of signatures to get him on the ballot in many states. However, the GOP came galloping to his rescue, reciprocating the political life Nader had given Bush.
The Wisconsin State Journal reported that at least 16 GOP officers circulated petitions for Nader, in efforts to get him on the ballot. On campus, College Republican chair Nicole Marklein gathered signatures in support of Nader, despite the fact she ""wholeheartedly supports President Bush."" However, because of a law in Wisconsin that states anyone who signs a petition to place a candidate on the ballot must then support the candidate in the election, the signatures were deemed invalid. But the GOP is not solely targeting Wisconsin.
When Nader and crew were garnering signatures in support of his place on ballots nationwide, it was the Republicans who answered his call and who signed their names. In Oregon and Washington, conservative groups sponsored the first initiative to get him on the ballot in those states. In fact, according to the Detroit Free Press, 45,000 of the 50,500 petition signatures submitted on Nader's behalf in Michigan were done so by Republicans. In Ohio, Nader tried to use 8,000 signatures gathered by Republicans who told people that they were signing a petition against same-sex marriage, before a judge promptly tossed them out.
It gets worse. When the legitimacy of these signatures is challenged in court, Nader delegates his case to the GOP leadership, which promptly brings in teams of lawyers. Of course they are simply there, as they describe it, to protect ""the most fundamental right of democracy-running for office."" So why is the Republican leadership bankrolling Nader's candidacy? It's simple: The Bushies are returning a favor, hoping Nader will bring them a hearty helping of four more years.
I respect those who refuse to compromise their political ideals for a more watered down version; I respect the decision to vote for Nader rather than voting against Bush. But friends, please reconsider. Bare logic holds that no matter how you justify your vote you are helping Bush, and in turn you are voting against your own interests.
The aftermath of the 2000 election shows what you can expect with another vote for Nader. Has a vote cast for Nader done anything to change the reality of our two party system? No. Did a vote for Nader lessen the evil and the power of corporate America? No. Did it make the world more peaceful? Not by a long shot.
A vote for Nader in 2004 will achieve the same thing it did in 2000: Electing George Bush. Bush may need votes for Nader, but we don't. Let's not make the same mistake twice.
Jake Herrera is a junior majoring in Middle Eastern studies. He can be reached at opinion@dailycardinal.com. His column runs every other Monday in The Daily Cardinal.
