New School Politics

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

Contrary to his 2004 bid, where he ran independently, “consumer advocate” and Democratic ball-buster Ralph Nader announced his candidacy president today.

Of course, for Democrats with a Nader complex this is an ominous prospect in for the upcoming election. But lest liberals worry too much, the truth is that this news really doesnt matter, and I am quite surprised that the announcement has garnered as much attention as it has this Sunday.

While Nader certainly had an effect in 2000, garnering 2.7% of the vote, after much ado was made of the roll he played, he only managed .3% in 2004–virtually identical to the Libertarian candidate in the same election. Nader has over-stayed his welcome in the mind of liberals, and along with the enthusiasm of Democrats in this election, there should be no reason to think that he will affect the results in November. Don’t believe me? Take Nader at his word:

The consumer champion, who will turn 74 this week, rejected suggestions that he would damage the prospects of the Democratic candidate. “If the Democrats can’t landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form,” he said.

Lastly, while Nader compiles little in the vote column, he never ceases to raise that age old question of whether to vote for the candidate who you are most closely alined with even if they dont have a chance, or vote for the least of evils among those who do have a shot at victory.

My own answer is typically somewhere in between. Not only does it depend on how much publicity the candidate can get–and ultimately how they can affect the discussion and undertone of the American political landscape–but also how close the candidate is to my views. As is, I may be closer on most issues to the Libertarian Party, but not only are they not close enough to my political philosophy but they have a negligible effect on America’s zeitgeist. To the contrary, my many reservations aside, I chose to support Ron Paul for the GOP nomination this year because he had a big enough forum to influence how voters–at least a notable fraction of them–think.

With all the money he raised, he hopefully was able to move the GOP a little further towards a platform of limited government than they were before. It may sound modest, but by focusing on the political discussion rather than number of votes, one can look towards affecting who is elected not just immediately, but also in the long run.

Last 5 posts by Ryan

• Scarcity, Shmarcity - June 26th, 2008
• The Greatness of Southpaws - June 26th, 2008
• Step One: Open mouth... - June 23rd, 2008
• Sobering Statistics and Economic Commentary - June 11th, 2008
• Obama: Humbly setting out to save the world - June 8th, 2008

Popularity: 30% [?]

The Nader to run for president in 2008, who cares? by New School Politics, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.