Nader Not Ideal Candidate For U.S. Progressive Voters

Last Friday, an article in The Daily Tar Heel reported the alarming fact that Ralph Nader might draw enough votes from Al Gore to elect George W. Bush as our next president.

Nader's press secretary claimed that "the notion that Nader votes could cost Gore the election was a campaign trick put out by Gore's campaign." If this is true, why is the Republican Leadership Council running pro-Nader TV ads in battleground states? Why are pro-choice groups running ads against Nader?

The right wing is cheering Nader's success and progressives are fighting it, because Ralph Nader's most enduring legacy could become the election of George W. Bush. Unfortunately, Nader's appeal to many citizens is based on distorted facts and unsound logic.

Nader has gained much of his support by asserting that there is no difference between the Democratic and Republican parties. He even has said that if forced to choose, he would vote for Bush. The claim that there is no difference between Gore and Bush would be laughable if it were not so dangerous.

Al Gore supports a woman's right to choose, an increase in the minimum wage, hate crimes legislation, universal health care, meaningful campaign finance reform and a $10,000 tax credit for college tuition.

A Bush presidency would look much differently, with Supreme Court nominees who would overturn Roe v. Wade and civil rights legislation, private school vouchers, a tax cut for the wealthiest 1 percent, National Rifle Association-sponsored gun bills, discrimination against gays and lesbians and "voluntary" environmental regulations.

Nader either is uninformed about the facts or deliberately misleading voters.

Even one of Ralph Nader's own chief lieutenants who later served with Al Gore in Congress admitted: "Sitting next to Al Gore on that House committee, I was constantly struck by not only his intellect but also his passionate advocacy as he took on powerful interests over toxic waste, air pollution, consumer rip-offs and other important issues. That's one of the things that is so stunning about the Nader candidacy - that he chooses to ignore the many positions he and Gore have shared over the years, the many fights they have waged together."

On the issues where Nader has simply spoken, Al Gore has crafted concrete solutions.

To remove corporate influence from government, Gore has supported public financing of campaigns since entering Congress in 1974.

To protect the environment, Gore fought global warming before it was fashionable and negotiated the Kyoto Protocol.

To protect average working people, Gore has supported organized labor, earning an 88 percent lifetime rating from the AFL-CIO.

Many upper-class white liberals have invested their hopes and dreams in Ralph Nader without examining his positions, blindly endorsing him as the "alternative" candidate. In 1996, when Nader was asked to take a stand on issues important to women, gays and lesbians, he said he was not interested in "gonadal politics." For this reason, Gloria Steinem and the National Organization for Women have urged women not to support Nader. Leading minority groups have attacked Nader for being "oblivious" to issues of race.

While railing against corporate unaccountability, Nader amassed a personal fortune playing the stock market with tens of millions of dollars. His secretive organizations have repeatedly hidden the sources of their funding by breaking laws and using the same sneaky tricks as the corporations he attacks. While proclaiming the rights of labor, he allegedly busted a union in his own company by firing workers that attempted to organize against the cruel working conditions he imposed.

Ralph Nader, while admirable for his previous work on behalf of consumers, is not the perfect champion of ordinary citizens that he pretends to be.

In a letter to Ralph Nader, many of "Nader's Raiders," idealistic young people who worked with him in the 1960s and '70s, urged him to drop out of the race for the sake of our country. They write, "It would be a cruel irony indeed if your major legacy were to erase the victory from the candidate who most embodies your philosophy, Al Gore, and to give the executive branch to the party which has consistently resisted your progressive ideals."

While the irony might be cruel, only crueler is the effect that Nader could have on the lives of those he heralds in his speeches.

For children without health insurance, seniors who rely on Social Security, minorities who depend on enforcement of civil rights laws, women who treasure their right to choose and families fighting HMOs for decent health care, this is no time to make a meaningless statement.

Ralph Nader acknowledged as much, saying in August he would not campaign in states where he would jeopardize Gore's victory. It now appears that he has broken that promise, threatening a progressive victory and the lives of millions of Americans in the process. Nader's former colleagues close their letter to Ralph Nader with the same appeal I make of you, "to honor your ideas and to vote for the man who is most likely to put them into action - Al Gore."

Matt Jones is a senior political science and African-American studies major from Greenville and the president of the N.C. Federation of College Democrats. Reach him at matjones@email.unc.edu.