This week Democrat John Edwards announced that he would abandon his second bid for the presidency. Rudy Giuliani exited the race on the Republican side. That leaves Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Mike Gravel competing for the Democratic nomination. Among the Republicans only John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney remain standing with Huckabee and Paul lagging far behind in the delegate count. But as the Democratic and Republican fields grew smaller, the field of potential third party presidential candidates appeared to be growing larger. On the same day that John Edwards exited the race Ralph Nader announced the formation of a exploratory committee designed to "test the waters" for a possible fourth run for the presidency.
A Nader candidacy is by no means a sure thing. Nader identified a number of goals that the exploratory committee would need to accomplish before he would commit to a fourth run for president.
1. Organize volunteers in all 50 states.
2. Organize a network of bro bono lawyers who could help the campaign get on the ballot in every state.
3. Raise suffient funding.
4. Build a staff capable of organizing 1,000 volunteers in each of the nation's congressional districts.
The official website of the exploratory committee - naderexplore08.org - provides a concise summary of the motive behind Nader's decision to explore another bid for the presidency:
"Maybe the Democrats and Republicans will nominate Presidential candidates this year who will stand up against the war profiteers, the nuclear industry, the credit card industry, the corporate criminals, big oil, and the drug and health insurance industries.
We doubt it."
Judging by his performance in previous elections, Nader stands little chance of winning in November. So why run? Nader understands his chances, but hopes to make another symbolic stand against a two party system he views as corrupt. Inevitable defeat will not deter Nader from running. He knows will be locked out of debates. He knows his name may not appear on the ballot in numerous states. But he will use these obstacles to make his point, that the system is rigged in favor of the two major parties and their corporate sponsors.
His critics will point to the 2000 election as evidence that Nader's candidacy won't help anybody in the long run. Many Democrats have blamed Nader for the election of George W. Bush. They say that Nader stole votes from Al Gore in key states that ended up going red by a small margin. For example, if Nader voters had gone for Gore in New Hampshire, the former vice president would have won that state and had enough delegates to win the election. George W. Bush would have never been president. Of course it is entirely plausible that many of these voters would have stayed home on election day had Nader's name not appeared on the ballot.
This time around Nader waited until the Democrat's "progressive" candidates - John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich - had exited the race to make his announcement. He has said that his candidacy is in part a critique of the Democrat's remaining presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Nader remains deaf to the Democratic criticism in part because he sees little difference between the two major parties. For him, both parties are beholden to special (i.e. corporate) interests - not the public interest.
Ralph Nader might not be alone in his quest to challenge the two party duo-opoly. New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg may enter the race as an independent. Unlike Nader, Bloomberg has the financial resources and the insider connections to mount a serious challenge to the major party candidates. A Bloomberg candidacy might even open some doors for Nader. For example, the networks may find it hard to justify locking Nader out debates while leaving the doors open for Bloomberg.
What do you think about Nader's announcement? Should he run?
How could Nader's candidacy impact the election in November?
Is the two party system a problem?
Is there a difference between the two major parties?
Do you want to see third party and independent candidates afforded the same opportunities granted to Democratic and Republican candidates?
David Anderson is a political correspondent for Gather.com. You can read all of his correspondent articles by clicking here
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 32
and even industry owes more to him than any other single
public individual.
The problem with Ralph Nader is that he is a anti-Israel
and apparently has no understanding of the Middle East
except as a person of Lebanese descent.
I would love to see him as secretary of the interior, or
something domestic, but his foreign policy ideas are
as retrograde as his social and domestic agendas are
progressive.
It becomes a little more difficult to grasp why Nader ran in 2004. Certainly it is hard to argue that his candidacy hurt John Kerry's chances - who was himself just a bad candidate. Then Nader ran as an independent, hoping to gain the support of numerous third parties rather than just the Greens. But it backfired - the Green Party took offense and instead nominated its own candidate.
My point here is not to say that Nader was right about Gore and Bush. There is a big difference between the two - one that is even more obvious now than it was then. Instead, I simply aim to point out that Nader was seeking to create a viable third party at a time when the differences between the two major parties were less obvious than they are today.
Nader is anti-Israel. I could not believe it when I saw him
foaming at the mouth talking about the "Israeli puppet
masters" pulling strings in the US. Maybe he ought to
read a bit about the Saudis, if he gives a you know what.
I am totally thankful and respectful of the man's
accomplishments, he is a very great American, but not
every great American is suitable to be President.
Even if he ran his is 74 and too old and too irrelevent.
I wanted to mention his anti-Israel attitude because it
absolutely floored me, and he is adamant about it.
elections and spreading disinformation with the CIA
there is no right number of parties.
Nice guy though, but not presidential.
Those countries with more than two parties, as you noted, are parliamentary systems. Our founders rejected the idea of a parliamentary form of government. There is no reason we have only two parties. It seems that the American people have chosen that y their voting patterns over the years. So I would hesitate to call ours a "strict" two party system. The green party and several others are out there but cannot attract a sufficient number of voters to be meaningful.
Good article! I'll pass on Ralph Nader. He is most definitely yesterday's news. He can only play the role of spoiler and as far as his running to "send a message" he's out of luck as his runs have failed to send any messages.
How could Nader's candidacy impact the election in November? By enabling a McCain win.
Is the two party system a problem? Yes, but a clear choice between two alternatives is easier for non-involved Americans to tolerate. Multiple candidates might actually require us to be informed before voting!
Is there a difference between the two major parties? GOP is the party of privelege -- government ON BEHALF of the people. Democrats are the party of inclusion -- government BY the people.
Do you want to see third party and independent candidates afforded the same opportunities granted to Democratic and Republican candidates? I think all candidates should have the right to be heard. And, nowadays, "being heard" takes money. If the Dems and GOPs get cash, so should everyone else.
> Bruce, if you think Israeli policies toward the Palestinians
> and other Arabs is anything but criminal, you're the
> puppet of the Israel Lobby and some other things I
> won't type here.
I thought so Lyndon.
You do not understand the first thing about the Middle
East. You have had plenty of time and information so
that is your own choice, but don't ever try to pass that
crap over on me or call me a criminal, a puppet or anything
else for preferring to support civilization over terror.
The Peter principle suggests that too many people are promoted beyond their capabilities. I suggest that it also implies the corollary concept that too many people are CONSIDERED for positions for which they are not well suited.
This is America and anyone who wants to can run for President or any other office. Nader is the "anti-candidate" in that he has absolutely no ulterior motives. He speaks the truth and has never been behold'n to anyone.
That said he has a huge ego and might be more effective in accomplishing his goals if he would pick a "compromise" candidate who most closely represents his posiiton and worked to get that person elected.
A candidacy by Nader that had any hope of winning would be a great and exciting development in American politics. Of course, there is no chance of a candidacy that has any hope of winning.
Nader's point about the two-party system is, sadly, quite right. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are beholden to the same corporate masters who provide the hundreds of millions of dollars it takes to run for high public office, especially that of president. If a failed Nader candidacy could offer any hope of breaking this stranglehold which prevents true democracy from occuring in the American republic, then it would be a wonderful development in American politics. There is little chance of this happening, but there is a chance.
Ultimately, wresting true power away from the corporatists and putting it in the hands of the people (basically the same fight as the American Revolution which wanted to wrest power away from the King and his aristocracy whose equivalent in today's world is the corporate power structure) is a more important goal than any other, including such immediate concerns as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
However, having said all of that, one must weigh probable benefits against improbable benefits.
Getting rid of the Republicans and their Bush Doctrine lunacy, not to mention their deranged melding of church and state, is vital and do-able.
Fomenting real democracy is paramount in importance but almost impossible in the short term.
Should Americans opt for a concrete improvement that can help their lives and their country right now or roll the dice on a remote possibility of a far greater prize?
It would seem logical to fight the battle there is a chance of winning.
Still, disempowering corporations will have to be done someday and will never happen in one swift go round, it will have to begin somewhere, sometime. There will always be pressing issues of immediate importance that the longer term good can be sacrificed to, and if that is true then when do we start fighting the good fight?
Can you tell I am ambivalent about this?
Thanks for the update.....I used to respect him...
> Zionazi propaganda machine.
> "Rule of the Ruled." Sissies.
etc...
This is what I mean. I think national health
care and the understanding that the country
backs its citizens will help American to not
produce so many sick minds.