David Michael Miller
If we were to assign blame for everything that’s gone wrong in the world in the last decade and a half to one person, it would be hard to find a more deserving choice than Ralph Nader.
Nader ran for president yet again in 2000 for no particular reason except to feed his own ego, which would have been fine if he had run for the Democratic Party nomination. But, understanding that he had no chance there, he decided to pursue his pointless ego trip as an independent, and in so doing delivered the presidency to George W. Bush over Al Gore. Nader gave the deciding state of Florida to Bush that year, taking 100,000 votes there while Bush beat Gore by only 537. It’s inconceivable that the lion’s share of those 100,000 Nader votes would not have gone to Gore — and history would have been changed.
Imagine how different the world would be today if Nader had stayed out of it and Gore had won. We would have done something about global climate change instead of wasting eight years while things grew progressively worse. The floods and severe weather we’re experiencing today could be an indirect result of that election. We would not have invaded Iraq with all of the horrors that followed. It’s not inconceivable that ISIS would not exist or not exist at least in its current virulent form. And while 911 probably still would have happened it’s possible that a President Gore would have harnessed the goodwill that attack created for America around the world instead of squandering it as “W” did.
Which is why I like Bernie Sanders. The independent Vermont senator could easily have followed in Nader’s footsteps, but instead he chose to challenge Hillary Clinton and now Martin O’Malley for the Democratic nomination. Sanders is raising issues that should be raised, especially about income inequality and the environment. He will push the discussion into uncomfortable territory for more cautious centrists like Clinton, and this is a good thing. I have no concern at all that his candidacy will force Clinton or even the long-shot candidate O’Malley into positions that will hurt them in the general election (as a rule, my view is that the Democrats should be more outspoken and bold about liberal policies).
Instead what we have on the Democratic side is shaping up to be a good debate among four interesting and intelligent candidates — Clinton, O’Malley and Sanders have all announced, and former Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chaffee will get in soon. In contrast to the harebrained circus that is the crowded Republican field, these four will discuss what to do about global climate change, not whether it’s happening; how to address income inequality, not how we can make it even worse; what’s the best way to deal fairly and humanely with undocumented immigrants, not how they might be rounded up and sent away; how to improve on the Affordable Care Act, not how to repeal it. And I’m pretty sure we won’t hear anything from this group about how cool ultrasounds are or what God’s position might or might not be on gay marriage.
Moreover, I’m confident that whoever comes out of the Democrats’ nominating process — I’ll put my money on a Clinton-O’Malley ticket — will win the White House. I would be less confident of that if there were a third party candidate on the left, which Bernie Sanders has decided he won’t be.
There’s a lot to like about Sanders, but his choice to sacrifice his own ego (he’s not likely to be in the mix come next November) for the good of the country is the thing I like most about the man. If only Nader had loved his country as much.
