Years ago, when the Earth was young, a talk show host in Ohio named Phil Donahue managed to get famous consumer advocate Ralph Nader to appear on his show. Mr. Nader liked the young man’s style of interview and audience participation and told Mr. Donahue he would return to the show if invited.
Over the next few years, Mr. Donahue took Mr. Nader up on the offer and because Ralph always put on a good show, the invitations were likely to come in those weeks when ratings were measured. That interview style and scheduling savvy were two reasons Mr. Donahue’s show became the longest-running national program of its type. When he got to the top of the pile, Mr. Donahue returned Mr. Nader’s favor and would air show on topics Ralph thought were important, even if they were not immediately attractive to daytime televiewers.
The savvy was not all on Mr. Donahue’s side of the ledger. I’m sure Mr. Nader realized this Donahue fellow was a facile communicator and he wouldn’t hurt his own cause to make a friend of him.
This was years before Ralph went nuts and started running for president. The madness did not strike all at once. In 1992, he asked voters in New Hampshire to “write in Ralph Nader” in the Democratic primary to protest the corporate sameness of candidates of both major parties. He got about 3,600 people to go along.
In 1996, he allowed himself to be drafted by the Greens. He was on the general election ballot in 22 states and got over a half million votes. I’m pretty sure you remember what happened in subsequent presidential election years.
Ralph’s announced he’s running again, as is his right, as is the right of anyone born here 35 or more years ago. He’s not running to win, he knows he won’t win; he’s running to bring more attention to the issues he thinks are important. Unfortunately, what election news we’ll have of Mr. Nader this year will not be about issues. It’ll be about his struggles to get on the ballot in various states and his fuming at the networks for not allowing him to participate in the debates. Another quadrennial national pout from Ralph.
Although I think all Mr. Nader’s presidential candidacies have long since passed into caricature, I think his positions on the issues are sound – and more in line with the interests and opinions of average Americans than any of the candidates still in the race.
So what’s wrong? If Ralph Nader is so smart, why have his campaigns never caught on? If I think he’s right, why am I not supporting his candidacy? (To be clear, I am not.)
What could Mr. Nader have done differently? Every two years, the entire House of Representatives (435 seats) and one-third of the Senate (33 or 34 seats) is up for election.
What if Mr. Nader had played the Donahue card in 1992 – gone out and found some candidate somewhere running for office who espoused Mr. Nader’s views of the issues? Surely, in 468 contests, one candidate could have been found. Mr. Nader shows up, gives some speeches, stumps a bit and puts his woman or man over the top.
In 1994, other progressive candidates emerge, seeking Ralph’s support, having seen what happened in ’92. In 16 years and eight electoral cycles, there could by now very well have been a “Nader caucus” in the U.S. House of Representatives. Mr. Nader could have engaged American electoral politics at the level of principle, not personality – the place he’s always best operated.
Let’s not go crazy. A Nader caucus, even at this late date, would probably not amount to much more than a handful of votes on the House floor, but how many times would the debate have been shifted? How many more times would we have heard about globalization gone wrong, corporate crime, the rights of consumers, workers and the environment? Even if Ralph, by campaigning for others, had only accomplished a little, it would be a little more than he’s accomplished with his foolish White House obsession.
If he’d taken a different course, I think Ralph Nader could have achieved his objective – influencing the platform of the Democratic Party and shifting the national debate. Instead, he’ll march out there again this year and do less good than before and finally be remembered as a latter-day Harold Stassen, or worse Pat Paulson. (If you count Ralph’s write-in campaign, then he and Mssrs. Stassen and Paulson all ran that year.) (If you don’t know who Harold Stassen and Pat Paulson were, go ask your parents.)
What Might Have Been
Years ago, when the Earth was young, a talk show host in Ohio named Phil Donahue managed to get famous consumer advocate Ralph Nader to appear on his show. Mr. Nader liked the young man’s style of interview and audience participation and told Mr. Donahue he would return to the show if invited.
Over the next few years, Mr. Donahue took Mr. Nader up on the offer and because Ralph always put on a good show, the invitations were likely to come in those weeks when ratings were measured. That interview style and scheduling savvy were two reasons Mr. Donahue’s show became the longest-running national program of its type. When he got to the top of the pile, Mr. Donahue returned Mr. Nader’s favor and would air show on topics Ralph thought were important, even if they were not immediately attractive to daytime televiewers.
The savvy was not all on Mr. Donahue’s side of the ledger. I’m sure Mr. Nader realized this Donahue fellow was a facile communicator and he wouldn’t hurt his own cause to make a friend of him.
This was years before Ralph went nuts and started running for president. The madness did not strike all at once. In 1992, he asked voters in New Hampshire to “write in Ralph Nader” in the Democratic primary to protest the corporate sameness of candidates of both major parties. He got about 3,600 people to go along.
In 1996, he allowed himself to be drafted by the Greens. He was on the general election ballot in 22 states and got over a half million votes. I’m pretty sure you remember what happened in subsequent presidential election years.
Ralph’s announced he’s running again, as is his right, as is the right of anyone born here 35 or more years ago. He’s not running to win, he knows he won’t win; he’s running to bring more attention to the issues he thinks are important. Unfortunately, what election news we’ll have of Mr. Nader this year will not be about issues. It’ll be about his struggles to get on the ballot in various states and his fuming at the networks for not allowing him to participate in the debates. Another quadrennial national pout from Ralph.
Although I think all Mr. Nader’s presidential candidacies have long since passed into caricature, I think his positions on the issues are sound – and more in line with the interests and opinions of average Americans than any of the candidates still in the race.
So what’s wrong? If Ralph Nader is so smart, why have his campaigns never caught on? If I think he’s right, why am I not supporting his candidacy? (To be clear, I am not.)
What could Mr. Nader have done differently? Every two years, the entire House of Representatives (435 seats) and one-third of the Senate (33 or 34 seats) is up for election.
What if Mr. Nader had played the Donahue card in 1992 – gone out and found some candidate somewhere running for office who espoused Mr. Nader’s views of the issues? Surely, in 468 contests, one candidate could have been found. Mr. Nader shows up, gives some speeches, stumps a bit and puts his woman or man over the top.
In 1994, other progressive candidates emerge, seeking Ralph’s support, having seen what happened in ’92. In 16 years and eight electoral cycles, there could by now very well have been a “Nader caucus” in the U.S. House of Representatives. Mr. Nader could have engaged American electoral politics at the level of principle, not personality – the place he’s always best operated.
Let’s not go crazy. A Nader caucus, even at this late date, would probably not amount to much more than a handful of votes on the House floor, but how many times would the debate have been shifted? How many more times would we have heard about globalization gone wrong, corporate crime, the rights of consumers, workers and the environment? Even if Ralph, by campaigning for others, had only accomplished a little, it would be a little more than he’s accomplished with his foolish White House obsession.
If he’d taken a different course, I think Ralph Nader could have achieved his objective – influencing the platform of the Democratic Party and shifting the national debate. Instead, he’ll march out there again this year and do less good than before and finally be remembered as a latter-day Harold Stassen, or worse Pat Paulson. (If you count Ralph’s write-in campaign, then he and Mssrs. Stassen and Paulson all ran that year.) (If you don’t know who Harold Stassen and Pat Paulson were, go ask your parents.)
What a way to go.
© Mark Floegel, 2008