Nader: Crusader, Spoiler, Icon, by Justin Martin: on Principles & Values
Suffers from Bell's Palsy
In 1986, Nader developed a condition called Bell's Palsy. It affects the nerves in a person's face. Common symptoms include various ticks and twitches, and even partial paralysis of facial muscles.
The condition is often unilateral, affecting only one side of a person's face. The cause is still unknown, although it is suspected to be a virus. Nader was sure he contracted the condition from recirculated air while traveling on a plane.
In Nader's case, Bell's Palsy initially froze the left side of his face, although that gradually abated. But he had continued difficulty controlling the muscles on that side. His left eyelid also began to droop.
For some, Bell's Palsy lasts only a few weeks, but in Nader's case it would linger. He took to wearing dark sunglasses and began to joke with audiences that he could no longer be accused of talking out of both sides of his mouth.
Source: Nader: Crusader, Spoiler, Icon, by Justin Martin, p. 214
Sep 1, 2002
Ran because unable to get hearing with president or Congress
What made Ralph run? For the first time in his experience, Nader found himself ignored thoroughly by a Democratic administration. Nader and Clinton did not meet a single time in the course of eight years. Al Gore also turned a cold shoulder.
As for the Clinton-era Congress, Nader found that he was a pariah, even among the most liberal members. In 1997 Nader was invited to speak before the House Progressive Caucus, but only 5 of the 50 caucus members even bothered to show up.
From Nader's standpoint. the icy reception in Washington was proof of a serious drift among Democrats. They had pilfered the Republican agenda and called it their own--a process he termed "protective imitation."
The doors were shut, tighter than ever.
As he did during the Reagan years, Nader went to the grassroots, but there were limits to what could be accomplished. Nader wanted to have a say on weighty national issues. But more than ever before, he found it hard to get any political traction.
Source: Nader: Crusader, Spoiler, Icon, by Justin Martin, p.226-7
Sep 1, 2002
Gore beat Gore -- look at TN, AR, and WV, not FL
Since the election Nader has gone on record with a number of different--often contradictory--statements. His most frequent assertion has been a simple but elegant Gore beat Gore.
Sure, Nader took votes from Gore in Florida, but had the vice president made a better showing the outcome would have been different. "Let's put it this way,"
Nader says, "Al Gore slipped on 15 banana peel, and they're picking one." Nader has frequently pointed out that Gore lost his home state (Tennessee),
Bill Clinton's home state (Arkansas), and a long-time Democratic stronghold (West Virginia). Florida, he points out, is simply the crowning bumble in Gore's poorly-run campaign.
Source: Nader: Crusader, Spoiler, Icon, by Justin Martin, p.270
Sep 1, 2002
Political systems benefit from outside competition
Nader points out that competition is a venerated business principle. No one would expect a high-tech startup to back down, he argues, simply because it is taking profits from a larger established corporation. So why are presidential candidates held to a
different standard? "No political system can regenerate without outside competition," he said. "Agendas throughout history have been pushed by third parties. Yet somehow the two political parties have expected to reform themselves without external jolts.
Source: Nader: Crusader, Spoiler, Icon, by Justin Martin, p.270-1
Sep 1, 2002
Wants credit for a Democratic Senate in 2000 election
When wearying of the spoiler issue, Nader takes another tack: If you are going to blame me for a Republican White House, you have to give me credit for the Democratic Senate. It requires a few somersaults to explain this one, but here goes:
Nader received 103,000 votes in Washington state from registered Greens. Election Day also featured a senatorial race in Washington between Democrat Maria Cantwell and Republican Slade Gorton. Cantwell won by 1,900 votes.
Because there was no Green Party challenger in the race, one can safely assume that many of the Greens who turned out to vote Nader for president also voted for Cantwell in the Senate. This helped produce
a Senate 50-50 split between Democrats and Republicans. The switch of Vermont's Jim Jeffords from Republican to Independent tipped the balance, giving the Democrats the majority. "I haven't gotten one letter of thank-you," quipped Nader.
Source: Nader: Crusader, Spoiler, Icon, by Justin Martin, p.271
Sep 1, 2002
Bush intensifies contradictions and galvanizes progressives
Nader indicates that he relishes the fact that Bush is now in office. His reason: a so-called intensify-the-contradictions theory.
Remember, Nader had some of his most conspicuous successes with Nixon in office, and by contrast he felt stymied under Carter and Clinton. Often he has benefited from the stark relief provided by Republican politics.
Unquestionably, a Bush presidency threatens Nader's agenda on everything from antitrust to torts. But Nader has actually suggested that the threat might help galvanize progressives. "
Both parties do the same thing, one covertly, one overtly," he said in 2001. "Which one is going to get more people mad? Which one is going to get more people organized?"
Source: Nader: Crusader, Spoiler, Icon, by Justin Martin, p.271
Sep 1, 2002
Dems will lose until they become more progressive
Nader says he has no problem with Greens picking off a Democrat here or there. In fact, he appears to savor the prospect of Dems facing the wrath of the "Green hammer," as he terms it. "You can't pick and choose. Once you do, you perform
like a fusion party. And whenever there's a good Democrat you find yourself saying, 'We're not going to grow our party in this district for this office, because he's okay.' Certainly they would never show us that kind of solicitude."
Source: Nader: Crusader, Spoiler, Icon, by Justin Martin, p.281
Sep 1, 2002
Nader "stood" for president in 1996 (didn't "run")
Ever the lawyer, Nader attempted in 1996 to run and not run at the same time. He approached this latest political flirtation with a whole set of hesitations, qualifications, and disclaimers. He did not register as a Green, nor did he adopt the party's
platform. His campaign purchased no ads and took no contributions. He promised not to spend more than $5,000 of his own money, thereby avoiding federal regulations regarding disclosure of his personal finances. And he traveled virtually nowhere.
In Nader's parlance, he "stood for president" in 1996 as opposed to actually running.Nader received 580,627 votes in 1996, good for 0.6% of the electorate. He came in fourth behind Reform Party candidate Ross Perot (8.5%) and just ahead of Harry
Browne of the Libertarian Party (0.5%). Considering that Nader had merely "stood" for president, it was an impressive outcome. He began to wonder what would happen if he ever ran in earnest. So, too, did the Green Party. The stage was set for 2000.
Source: Nader: Crusader, Spoiler, Icon, by Justin Martin, p. 229-230
Oct 1, 2002
Green nominee, but declined rival Green Party USA
A philosophical schism developed between Greens who wanted to stick to local activism and those who wanted to delve into presidential politics. By 2000 these two schools had formally split.The Denver convention [which nominated Nader] was held by the
group that coveted national elective office, known as the Association of State Green Parties. The rival faction-known as Green Party USA-remained focused on grassroots activism. To confuse matters, it held a convention anyway, in Chicago, where it
endorsed Nader. The issues on its platform included abolition of the US Senate and 100% taxation of income above $100,000. Nader refused to accept the rival Green party's endorsement. But throughout his campaign, many voters and journalists were
justifiably confused.
To clarify the record: Nader ran in 2000 as the candidate for the Association of State Green Parties. He did not support abolition of the Senate, nor did he adopt a number of other positions advocated by Green Party USA.
Source: Nader: Crusader, Spoiler, Icon, by Justin Martin, p. 236
Oct 1, 2002
Dislikes "spoiler" label and "strategic voting"
On June 30, 2000, the New York Times labeled Nader a potential "spoiler" and sounded an alarm that he might tilt the balance in key states such as California. The piece urged him to step aside, deeming his campaign a "self-indulgent exercise that
will distract voters from the clear-cut choice represented by the major-party candidates."Syndicated columnist Molly Ivins suggested that residents of safe states-where either Bush or Gore held a commanding lead-could afford to vote their "hearts."
But in swing states, she urged people to vote their "brains." This came to be known as the "Ivins Rule." The Times editorial and Ivins Rule set the standard for the way the media would cover Nader's campaign.
Personally, Nader did not appreciate
either approach. Certainly he did not relish being slapped with the "spoiler" tag. Neither did he approve of the Ivins Rule, with its suggestion that people vote strategically instead of "voting their conscience" as he frequently termed it.
Source: Nader: Crusader, Spoiler, Icon, by Justin Martin, p. 240
Oct 1, 2002
"Priceless" ad caused lawsuit but got priceless attention
Nader's "priceless" ad starts off with assorted photos of Bush & Gore, accompanied by the song "Hail to the Chief." This is followed by a montage of images of Nader over the years. A voice-over intones: "Grilled tenderloin for fund-raiser: $1,000 a
plate. Campaign ads filled with half-truths: $10 million. Promises to special interest groups: over $10 billion. Finding out the truth: priceless. Without Ralph Nader in the presidential debates, the truth will come in last."The 30-second spot caught
the attention of MasterCard CEO Robert Selander, who called Nader directly while vacationing in the tropics. Back came MasterCard with a lawsuit, claiming trademark and copyright infringement. The company demanded $15 million in damages. The Nader
campaign pulled the ad, pending the outcome of the lawsuit. But it was remarkable how much mileage Nader got out of a single ad. Countless articles about the debacle appeared. Nader campaign headquarters received hundreds of cut-up MasterCards.
Source: Nader: Crusader, Spoiler, Icon, by Justin Martin, p. 244
Oct 1, 2002
"Nader's Raiders for Gore" Nader said Gore would win by 20%
At an August 2000 fundraiser, Gary Sellers, one of Nader's closest associates during the 1970s, challenged his former boss: "You cannot claim there's no difference between the parties," he said. "Why is it that 95% of the time, we used to work with
Democrats? We used to celebrate if a Republican signed on to one of your crusades. It's likely to be very destructive.[to Gore's election chances]"Nader assured Sellers that the election was unlikely to be the nail-biter pundits were predicting. He
said. "George Bush is so dumb, Gore will beat him by twenty points."
Sellers then registered a web site under the name "Nader's Raiders for Gore." The group pointed out that Nader's central claim-that the two parties were virtually identical-
would not have withstood his own truth tests. Nader in response issued a simple statement: "There are always a few who lose their zest and will to fight for progressive ideas and settle for moderate conservatives like Al Gore."
Source: Nader: Crusader, Spoiler, Icon, by Justin Martin, p. 245-246
Oct 1, 2002
Florida included some (less than 537) disenfranchised voters
Florida got 96,915 votes in Florida; Gore needed 538. Even here, Nader introduces a wrinkle. He brought legions of new, disenfranchised voters into the political process. This is not a matter of mere addition and subtraction, then. Often Nader argues
that much of his Florida base would not have voted at all, and thus he cannot be held responsible for actually taking votes from Gore.Exit polls in Florida showed that about one-third of those who voted for Nader were in fact disenfranchised;
otherwise he took votes from both Gore and Bush, by a margin of two to one. That means he siphoned off roughly forty thousand votes from Gore. Libertarian candidate Harry Browne, Howard Phillips of the Constitution Party, and John Hagelin of the
Natural Law Party garnered 18,856, 4,280, and 2,287 votes respectively. Some of their voters were most certainly disenfranchised, but no doubt they each snatched a minimum of 538 votes from Gore. So why aren't they considered spoilers?
Source: Nader: Crusader, Spoiler, Icon, by Justin Martin, p. 272.
Oct 1, 2002
In 2004, would do "just about everything" differently
As for his own presidential aspirations in 2004, he is noncommittal. In this one way at least, he has become a typical politician. It is worth noting that most everyone who has ever known him predicts that he will run again.
It is also worth noting that Nader is quick to warm to hypothetical questions regarding things he would do differently, in the event that he runs. "Just about everything," he says.
Source: Nader: Crusader, Spoiler, Icon, by Justin Martin, p. 281
Oct 1, 2002