I'm going to contradict what I've always believed.
I'm generally a fan of having many options available to make a decision. I like being at a bar and getting to select if I want Scotch, Irish or Tennessee whiskey. I have enjoyed choosing to take classes I really wanted to take because they have suited my interests.
I like being able to decide what I eat for dinner, which is one reason I don't have a meal plan. I think people should have more, not less, choice.
No, this column is not about media consolidation or the merging of cell phone giants. It's not about the guys who sign Allen Iverson's checks setting a mousetrap for ESPN and Quentin Tarantino's next film.
I'm going to tell you why I don't like having a third option available for the presidential race this year. I love the theory of having this choice, but I don't like the actual situation presented to us.
Since Ralph Nader announced Sunday that he is entering the presidential race, I've had conflicting feelings. Rather than take my words on why he decided to run, let's see how Nader sums up his reason for entering:
"This is a campaign that strives to displace the present corporate regime of the [George W.] Bush administration."
Uh huh. Ralph, if you really wanted to get rid of Bush, you wouldn't be in this election. Your interview on NBC's Meet the Press was full of condemnation of the Democrats and Republicans for being corporate fronts, but you didn't really say how you would try to fix things. Any specifics there, Ralph?
My dilemma is not because I'd ever consider voting for Nader and would therefore worry my vote for him may hurt the Democrats' chances of unseating Bush. Part of my dilemma is, I'm not sure Naderites have learned their lesson from 2000, when they voted for Nader instead of Al Gore in states where Bush barely beat the Democrat.
But what really worries me is that voters, regardless of liberal or conservative or moderate stances, have to learn this lesson in the first place -- that we do need more realistic options than the Republicans and the Democrats.
And Nader isn't a realistic option.
Only having two parties stifles public discourse and prevents new solutions to old problems. But, I hardly see Nader's run as being beneficial to achieving the goal of greater representation of minority political interests. For the Republicans laughing: Remember the effect Pat Buchanan had running against incumbent George H.W. Bush in GOP primaries in 1992?
I'm sure Ross Perot is well loved by the Bush family.
Since those on the left will remember the 2000 Election and Nader's role, they might vote Democrat this year, even if they really wish for a Nader presidency. This winner-take-all and losers-get-nothing system America has only serves to relegate fringe voices to the sidelines. Sometimes, this is a good thing. Other times, it is a bad thing.
If we really want to enact change in our political system, it is not the best idea to run a national "protest candidacy." The best place to start working on ensuring more voices have access to our political system is through campaign finance reform and local politics. It would be easier to succeed as a third-party candidate in smaller races that have greater impact on people's personal lives -- these are the people who make up school boards, set up your police force and collect your trash.
I know that there is a value to the platform that Nader will have on the national stage, but long-term change requires long-term planning of solutions.
I don't know if we should view it as a positive thing that Nader won't have access to public financing for the primary (independents don't run against each other) and general election campaigns (he didn't receive enough votes in 2000 to get this). On the one hand, some could argue that withholding general funding of third-party candidates stifles their democratic ability to get their free speech heard. On the other side, the millions of dollars saved on a misguided campaign will spare us further red ink on the nation's balance sheet.
Because Nader is running as an independent, he will not be able to get party funding for a potential 2008 run. That was supposedly why he ran in 2000 in the Green Party, so he could get that party funding. Where's the practical motive now? I would never want to extinguish Nader's right to campaign as he likes, but it should be done in a more productive setting.
But, what about loving the element of choice? Well, I'm against this idea for the presidential contest of 2004. The problem here isn't that we have too much choice. It's that Americans haven't had the real ability to decide what available options we have to choose. Having Nader on some states ballots is not bad in theory.
But with all of the political roadblocks that exist in this country, it's not at all necessary.
