Author: Mike Cahill
When Ralph Nader announced his candidacy for the presidency, I didn’t quite expect the degree of rancor and criticism that poured out from liberal commentators. I was even more surprised by the reaction of the younger generation of voters, who mostly seem to have bought in to the absurd notion that Nader “stole” the presidency from Al Gore in 2000. The Weekly even ran an article before spring break which described Nader’s candidacy as “tarnishing his own legacy.” That article didn’t do justice to the character of Nader’s respectable legacy or comment on the consistency of his current run for president and the values that Nader has always stood for. Perhaps the current trashing of Nader’s name indicates the degree to which we college students, for as much as we purport to embrace positive “change,” are in fact defending the current political environment by taking cheap shots at third-party candidates.
This out-of-hand rejection of third-party candidates and political outsiders is entirely determined by the influence of the dominant parties and has no basis on the principles behind third-party campaigns. Can we at least argue over their policies? More importantly, why do the two dominant parties need defending? The differences between them are quite literally indistinguishable in terms of spending, taxation, foreign policy, and catering to special interests (both big business and economic interventionists), so it is not unreasonable to think of this country as a one-party state… a pacted democracy. They each in their own way focus on issues that have rallying effects on voters, yet fail to meet those promises once elected to office. The voting public dismisses the disconnect as politics as usual, and our democratic society slips further into an unprincipled fantasy in the polling booth.
But wait, Nader’s ego is the problem? It’s his unwillingness to compromise on principles of good governance that are at fault? Is it not enough that our two-party system is viewed by academics as one of the most undemocratic forms of representation still in existence today, that we must defend it by calling a wise critic a braggart and worse? The notion that Nader’s candidacy could send our electoral system askew says something about the flawed system, not about the flaws of the man.
It is disappointing to think of how partisan our country and our generation has become. Millions of lives have been saved by Ralph Nader due to his efforts to reform the auto-manufacturing industry through sensible legislation. What other candidate has the same credentials? Nader does not have the silver tongue or the inspiring visage of Obama, but try to name any of Obama’s accomplishments or successes as a public servant. Nor does Nader have the entrenched, nepotistic political machine that Hillary commands. Need anyone be reminded of what the first Clinton administration did for the Democratic Party and its supposed principles? Good job, Bill. Time for Hillary? Screw that.
I’m not a Democrat or a Republican, but you don’t need to be in either party to realize that rhetoric doesn’t match action. That is the sad fate of a closed political system-no chance of accountability, no choice but to vote for the same people who continue to lie. Nader is a champion of political reform, and father to a brand of citizenship that refuses to submit to the partisan hackery of American politics today. Maybe you won’t give him your vote, but damn, at least give him some respect.
Mike Cahill is a senior Politics major. He can be reached at mcahill@oxy.edu.
This article has been archived, for more requests please contact us via the support system.
