Nader's Campaign a Good Thing for the Democratic Party
The Stanford Daily Online Edition
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Let me say without hesitation that I am a Democrat. I want to lay claim to the party that started Social Security and Medicare, got the United States out of the Great Depression and oversaw the largest economic expansion in the history of this country. Of course, there is much more to say on the issues that cause me to believe in the Democratic Party, but that’s not quite the focus of this op-ed piece.
What I want to say with this editorial is this: Ralph Nader is running for president, and Democrats everywhere should be rejoicing. The more voices we have in this campaign, the more ideas and opinions that are added to our national debate, the better off our democracy is.
That sounds good in principal and it gets even better in reality. Now we have had four years of a George W. Bush presidency and it has certainly been an interesting four years. Four years of decline in the jobs market, four years of environmental neglect, four years of infringement on our civil liberties, four years of failed foreign policy, four years of unfunded educational mandates and four years of unparalleled secrecy and manipulation.
When the race for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination began, many Democrats and media pundits were horrified to find that not two, not three, not four, but nine candidates were running. TTo some, the number of candidates was a sign that the Democratic Party was ruptured, that it had lost its message and that Bush was going to win in a landslide. But then Howard Dean came out of nowhere and harnessed the anger that Democrats felt over their loss in the 2000 presidential election and the unilateral war in Iraq. And then John Kerry came out of nowhere and capitalized on the Democrats’ general feeling that they need someone who could beat Bush in November . . . and now John Edwards seems to be coming out of nowhere by building upon Democrats’ incredible optimism and positive outlook for “one health care system, one educational system . . . one America” that is not beholden to special interests. It has been an amazing race, and it has unified Democrats around one thing: beating Bush and putting America back on course.
Those nine voices criticizing Bush at every campaign stop was the best thing that has happened to the Democratic Party in a long time. They were nine different voices, each with a particular take and a particular willingness to denounce Bush’s record. Nine voices, nine insights into what makes the Democratic Party tick, nine people all pulling the Democratic Party in their direction.
Just look at what all this national debate has done for Bush’s poll numbers: A Feb. 18 USA Today / CNN / Gallup numbers showed both Kerry and Edwards with double-digit leads over Bush.
I believe that Nader’s candidacy will do the same thing to the Democratic Party’s chances in November that this strenuous race for the Democratic nomination has done. Nader’s blunt criticism of Bush has already caught the media’s attention: Nader appeared on “Meet the Press” on Feb. 22 and The New York Times reports that Nader has promised Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe that he “would not criticize the Democratic nominee, but rather focus on the failings of the Bush administration.”
As if that weren’t enough assurance, Nader’s own Web site says, “The Democrats need to be shown additional ways — strong, rational, emotive ways to defeat Bush and the Republicans” — apart from what their overly cautious consultants are telling them. These “additional ways” include calling for Bush’s impeachment, apparently. That will be fun to watch.
Nader, of course, faces all kinds of obstacles, the first of which is getting his name on the ballot of every state. He also faces the wrath of liberals all over the country if he contributes in any way to a Democratic defeat. But I think the possible benefits of his campaign are much greater than the possible risks. Nader will be another voice pulling the United States more to the left, and he will be another — perhaps more poignant — voice against Bush’s reelection in November. All of which is good for Democrats.
Let me leave you with a quote from the transcript of the Feb. 22 episode of NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Nader’s response to Russert’s question should help calm even the most fervently dubious.
Russert: If it got down to the final days of the election and you saw that your presence on the ballot could swing the election to George Bush, might you consider stepping out and saying, “I endorse the Democrat”?
Nader: First of all, there are 40 slam-dunk states where either the Republicans or Democrats are going to win handily; that’s number one. Second, I think there’s a very good chance that President Bush is going to start declining in the polls. He’s making a lot of mistakes. People are beginning to realize that he doesn’t care about the American people, although he says he does; that as a conservative president, he’s presiding over and encouraging the shipment of industries and jobs to the despotic Communist regime in China; that he fabricated the basis for the war in Iraq, which is now a quagmire. And if President Bush doesn’t trust the American people with the truth, why should the American people trust George W. Bush with the presidency? Now, you gave me a hypothetical, all right? . . . When that and if that eventuality occurs, in the rare event that it occurs, you can invite me back on the program, and I’ll give you my answer.
Still think Nader’s out to get Democrats?
Galen Panger is an undeclared freshman who is a member of the Stanford Democrats. He can be reached at gpanger@stanford.edu.
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Let me say without hesitation that I am a Democrat. I want to lay claim to the party that started Social Security and Medicare, got the United States out of the Great Depression and oversaw the largest economic expansion in the history of this country. Of course, there is much more to say on the issues that cause me to believe in the Democratic Party, but that’s not quite the focus of this op-ed piece.
What I want to say with this editorial is this: Ralph Nader is running for president, and Democrats everywhere should be rejoicing. The more voices we have in this campaign, the more ideas and opinions that are added to our national debate, the better off our democracy is.
That sounds good in principal and it gets even better in reality. Now we have had four years of a George W. Bush presidency and it has certainly been an interesting four years. Four years of decline in the jobs market, four years of environmental neglect, four years of infringement on our civil liberties, four years of failed foreign policy, four years of unfunded educational mandates and four years of unparalleled secrecy and manipulation.
When the race for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination began, many Democrats and media pundits were horrified to find that not two, not three, not four, but nine candidates were running. TTo some, the number of candidates was a sign that the Democratic Party was ruptured, that it had lost its message and that Bush was going to win in a landslide. But then Howard Dean came out of nowhere and harnessed the anger that Democrats felt over their loss in the 2000 presidential election and the unilateral war in Iraq. And then John Kerry came out of nowhere and capitalized on the Democrats’ general feeling that they need someone who could beat Bush in November . . . and now John Edwards seems to be coming out of nowhere by building upon Democrats’ incredible optimism and positive outlook for “one health care system, one educational system . . . one America” that is not beholden to special interests. It has been an amazing race, and it has unified Democrats around one thing: beating Bush and putting America back on course.
Those nine voices criticizing Bush at every campaign stop was the best thing that has happened to the Democratic Party in a long time. They were nine different voices, each with a particular take and a particular willingness to denounce Bush’s record. Nine voices, nine insights into what makes the Democratic Party tick, nine people all pulling the Democratic Party in their direction.
Just look at what all this national debate has done for Bush’s poll numbers: A Feb. 18 USA Today / CNN / Gallup numbers showed both Kerry and Edwards with double-digit leads over Bush.
I believe that Nader’s candidacy will do the same thing to the Democratic Party’s chances in November that this strenuous race for the Democratic nomination has done. Nader’s blunt criticism of Bush has already caught the media’s attention: Nader appeared on “Meet the Press” on Feb. 22 and The New York Times reports that Nader has promised Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe that he “would not criticize the Democratic nominee, but rather focus on the failings of the Bush administration.”
As if that weren’t enough assurance, Nader’s own Web site says, “The Democrats need to be shown additional ways — strong, rational, emotive ways to defeat Bush and the Republicans” — apart from what their overly cautious consultants are telling them. These “additional ways” include calling for Bush’s impeachment, apparently. That will be fun to watch.
Nader, of course, faces all kinds of obstacles, the first of which is getting his name on the ballot of every state. He also faces the wrath of liberals all over the country if he contributes in any way to a Democratic defeat. But I think the possible benefits of his campaign are much greater than the possible risks. Nader will be another voice pulling the United States more to the left, and he will be another — perhaps more poignant — voice against Bush’s reelection in November. All of which is good for Democrats.
Let me leave you with a quote from the transcript of the Feb. 22 episode of NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Nader’s response to Russert’s question should help calm even the most fervently dubious.
Russert: If it got down to the final days of the election and you saw that your presence on the ballot could swing the election to George Bush, might you consider stepping out and saying, “I endorse the Democrat”?
Nader: First of all, there are 40 slam-dunk states where either the Republicans or Democrats are going to win handily; that’s number one. Second, I think there’s a very good chance that President Bush is going to start declining in the polls. He’s making a lot of mistakes. People are beginning to realize that he doesn’t care about the American people, although he says he does; that as a conservative president, he’s presiding over and encouraging the shipment of industries and jobs to the despotic Communist regime in China; that he fabricated the basis for the war in Iraq, which is now a quagmire. And if President Bush doesn’t trust the American people with the truth, why should the American people trust George W. Bush with the presidency? Now, you gave me a hypothetical, all right? . . . When that and if that eventuality occurs, in the rare event that it occurs, you can invite me back on the program, and I’ll give you my answer.
Still think Nader’s out to get Democrats?
Galen Panger is an undeclared freshman who is a member of the Stanford Democrats. He can be reached at gpanger@stanford.edu.
posted by A. J. Franklin @ 12:43
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home