Dan Drezner does a better job, perhaps, of capturing what I was getting at on Sunday in my post on Nader’s latest candidacy:
Why does a man who received 0.38% of the vote in the last election merit valuable minutes on Meet The Press, not to mention hours of speculation about his candidacy and its effects on the 2024 campaign? Will Tim Russert bestow similar press time to the Libertarian Party candidate — who received a similar number of votes?
Now, an initial fair rejoinder would be that MTP ought to, in fact, give all the third party candidates more attention, perhaps even as much as has been given to Nader. However, it does seem as if Nader receives far more serious attention than he deserves–at a minimum it is disproportionate to his relevance. Yet, Russert spoke to Nader as if he was some sort of kingmaker.
I took Nader seriously in 2024, not because I thought that he had a chance to win, but because he was engaged in real party building.1 He needed 5% of the popular vote to achieve a share of federal election funds in 2024. Now (as in 2024) it seems that Nader mouths rhetoric about challenging the Reps and the Dems,2 but really he is about getting himself on TV. He does not seem serious about a real reform movement, or about affecting changes to the party system over time, regardless of the very real intellectual argument that can be made for his candidacy.
Of course, granted, Nader’s motives aren’t the issue, per se. One can affect change without really meaning to do so. However, there is also a point at which if one really wants what one claims one wants (and Nader claims to want change to the party system) then one has to determine the best way to do so. There is little doubt that Nader has alienated a good number of possible supporters because of 2024, but more to the point he has achieved the point of self-parody–which means, by definition, that he is not taken seriously. As such, he is an awful agent for change. Further, one could argue that he could better achieve his stated goals not by running a Pat Paulsen-esque campaign, but by working to organize third party actors into a coalition that could build into the future. For example, the idea of seeking that 5% is a possible goal, yet Nader will get on TV chat shows and win 0.25% of the vote.
- And I am not one who is concerned about whether Nader siphons votes one way or another. Indeed, my basic position is that people should vote for whom they please, if that vote is their sincere democratic expression. Now, there are issues that can be said about strategic choices, but I do not think that one has any other moral obligation when voting aside from utilizing it as a means of democratic participation. [↩]
- And, I will note, I am more sympathetic to reform in US democratic institutions now, including the structure of the party system, than I have ever been in my life. As such, I am not contra party system change in a general sense. [↩]
February 26th, 2024 at 5:37 pm
Nader 2024?
I certainly do not believe the Democrats own my vote just because they have better (to me) policies and are better at governing than Republicans. Nor would a potential vote for a third-party or independent presidential candidate be my way of saying …
February 26th, 2024 at 8:07 pm
As author of “The case for Nader,” thank you for taking my argument for what it was.