Recount: A Magazine of Contemporary Politics

Ralph Nader's Tarnished Image

By Brad Tytel | Nov 1, 2004 Print

Last week my father forwarded me an open letter that he had written, calling on consumer advocate Ralph Nader to withdraw from the presidential race. The letter recalled how my father, a retired Vietnam veteran and sometimes crotchety old man, had once considered Nader a personal hero. His activism had placed him on “the right side of issues too numerous to mention.” Now, with his campaign poised to aid in the possible re-election of George W. Bush, my father begged Nader to withdraw. He was losing his hero. “Don’t you desert us.”

There is something deeply sad about this statement—a reluctant spiritual disillusionment that represents the true tragedy of Nader’s divisive campaign. Righteousness and partisanship have blinded most Americans, including Nader, to what his decision to remain in the race really represents. Nader wants his campaign to be an inspiration; instead he is taking away the hopes of like-minded everyman advocates, another blow to the already-ravaged remnants of the political idealism of the American left.

This is Nader’s enduring, existential effect and it will last longer than any campaign. Nader and his supporters insist that the American political system is corrupt, and that his campaign is for more equitable national policies. But Nader’s inadvertent assault on idealism has little to do with his platform. I am not trying to dissuade his remaining supporters—I am more concerned with how the rest of America sees the man and his methods. Nader’s campaign is not being driven by idealism, it is being driven by cynicism. In a world where politics and power are fueled by cash and negativity, this onetime champion of the little guy has become another symptom of the problem. Conscious of Nader’s potential to help their candidate, Bush supporters have assisted his efforts to get on the ballot in swing states. Rather than accept his small but authentic grassroots support, he has paid for petitions riddled with fraud. His acceptance of reform party endorsement has removed him from his progressive roots for political gain. He refuses to acknowledge policy differences between Kerry and Bush. 

Nader could argue that he has merely counteracted the Democratic party’s fight to keep his name off the ballot, hardly an inspirational assault. But the irony is that Nader’s image would be better off in the long term if he hadn’t resorted to the same shady tactics that we expect of the major parties. He could have stayed in the race as an unfairly persecuted underdog. A David vs. Goliath metaphor requires some semblance of moral purity. In 2000 Nader had it, but he has squandered it. In an age of imagery and perception, Nader has handled his image poorly. Things are too polarized, too angry. The more he fights, the more ground he loses among those who have written him off. He has not sold out in the same way that every candidate sells out, but he has sold out. His new image is hypocrisy—he accuses everyone of corruption while fighting a corrupt race in which success means the victory of a man anathema to everything he believes in.

Nader’s defense is that he sees beyond the absurdity of corporate party politics. But his willingness to allow a Bush victory in order to prove his point doesn’t make him an champion of changing the system. Not if he is willing to see it backslide rather than accept incremental change. There is a terrible contradiction here—Nader is willing to compromise his sanctity in order to further his campaign. But he is unwilling to compromise by supporting, or at least not opposing, a candidate who could move things in the right direction. What kind of idealist continues to fight for the defeat of his own ideals?

I am a Kerry supporter, but it is for practical reasons. I wish that politics were pure, but I also believe in voting for a good man who can win over a bad one. I will probably be happy to scapegoat Nader if Bush wins re-election. But I won’t claim that it’s a rational decision. In my mind, Bush is so weak in so many ways that the Democrats should have been able to garner enough support to render a one percent candidate moot. If I believed blaming Nader for running for president was rational, then I would have a hard time justifying my belief in democracy.

If Kerry wins I will still blame Nader for kicking my idealism while it is down, already half-dead from the pessimistic political climate of our age. The generals of the current campaign, both left and right--Democrat and Republican--are trapped in the web of spin, money, spite and insanity that has come to exemplify the waning days of the election. The true tragedy of Ralph Nader is that he used to stand out as an exception. As my father puts it in his letter, “we…revolutionaries are losing our heroes.” Ralph Nader, that revolutionary soldier of bygone years, hasn’t died. But his image has already faded away.

Back to top