Darth Nader
This column from The New Republic was written by Peter Beinart.
"Third parties are like bees," wrote Richard Hofstadter in The Age of Reform, "once they have stung, they die." His point was that third parties champion a viewpoint, or interest, being ignored by the political elite. When they succeed, they inject that perspective into mainstream discussion. One or both of the major parties then co-opts the issue, which robs the third party of its raison d'être. For its agenda to live, the third party must die.
As Sean Wilentz noted in these pages several years ago ("Third Out," November 22, 1999), Hofstadter's dictum has played out repeatedly in U.S. history. In the 1890s, the People's Party championed poor farmers against rising corporate power. But, under William Jennings Bryan, the newly populist Democratic Party stole its message. In 1924, progressive hero Robert La Follette won 17 percent of the presidential vote by denouncing corporate monopolies. Once again, the Democrats, this time under Franklin Roosevelt, co-opted his issues. In 1968, George Wallace's "law and order" message won him six states.
By 1972, Richard Nixon had made Wallace's racial and cultural wedge issues his own. And, in 1992, Ross Perot crusaded against the budget deficit, which he made a symbol of an out-of-control federal government. Bill Clinton promptly made deficit-reduction the centerpiece of his economic plan, and, two years later, the Gingrich revolutionaries incorporated much of Perot's agenda into their Contract for America.
This week, Democrats are livid at Ralph Nader's decision to run, once again, for president. But they need not worry: Nader has already stung. In fact, his 2004 campaign will not only destroy him; it could finish off the Green Party as well.
In Hofstadter's terms, Nader's "sting" in 2000 wasn't the election of George W. Bush; it was the perspective he injected into the political mainstream. That perspective was anti-globalization. In the late '90s, a new movement arose on the U.S. left, opposed to unregulated corporate power and unrestrained international trade and investment. Nader brought its themes into the electoral arena, at various points polling close to 10 percent in bastions of student and environmental activism like Wisconsin, Oregon, and Washington state.
Al Gore responded as major party candidates historically have: He began adopting Nader's themes. Rather than run on the Clinton administration's centrist economic record, Gore bashed powerful corporate interests: big oil companies, big drug companies, big HMOs. And, if "people versus the powerful" was a controversial theme among Democrats in 2000, today it is standard fare. Both John Kerry and John Edwards have made attacks on corporate "special interests" centerpieces of their campaign stump speeches.
On trade, the party has also moved in Nader's direction. In 1994, 40 percent of Democrats in the House and about 50 percent in the Senate voted for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Among New Democrats, NAFTA was an article of faith. But, today, Clinton protégé and New Democrat darling Edwards denounces NAFTA at every turn. And former free-trader Kerry promises to review all of America's trade agreements once in office. Even on campaign finance reform, another Nader obsession, the Democrats have responded to the third-party sting. To the surprise of many pundits, congressional Democrats in 2002 defied history and partisan self-interest and passed McCain-Feingold. One reason was their fear that torpedoing it would send alienated liberals running to Nader and the Greens.
So today -- unlike in the Clinton years -- Nader can't draw a sharp contrast with the Democratic leadership. He may be a more emphatic, single-minded corporate critic than Kerry and Edwards, but they are sounding the same notes. In 2000, Gore moved to co-opt Nader only after the Democratic convention. Kerry and Edwards (not to mention Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt) have been doing so throughout the primaries as well.
But Nader hasn't only been co-opted ideologically; he has also been co-opted stylistically. Successful outsider candidates -- be they John McCain, Dean, Perot, or Pat Buchanan -- don't only need a distinct message; they need a distinct style as well. They must seem authentic, a refreshing contrast to the scripted, homogenized front-runners.
In 2000, the rumpled, unvarnished Nader became the campaign's anti-politician -- the stylistic successor to the straight-talking McCain. But, this year, Nader sounds a lot like the establishment candidates he likes to mock.
In his interview launching his presidential bid last Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," he evaded questions like a pro. When host Tim Russert asked him about his past praise for Edwards, Nader nonresponded: "I think the more organized the citizens are, the better a politician he's going to be."
A few seconds later, he refused to answer a hypothetical question, citing Arnold Schwarzenegger's refusal to do so earlier in the show. And he served up one platitude after another. Nader's signature sound bites -- "Washington is now a corporate-occupied territory," "President Bush ... is really a giant corporation in the White House masquerading as a human being" -- are about as spontaneous as Kerry's. It's hard to imagine that voters in 2004, even those who agree with him on the issues, will find Nader refreshing or even particularly fun.
In all likelihood, then, Nader's 2004 run will be the equivalent of Perot's in 1996 -- a pointless, lifeless sequel that ushers him ignominiously off the political stage. But Nader may earn a special distinction: He could take down the Green Party with him. In 2000, Nader provided the Greens a high-profile nominee and garnered close to 3 percent of the national vote. While well short of the 5 percent required for federal matching funds, he cleared the 2 percent threshold required in many states for automatic placement on the next election's ballot.
This year, however, Nader plans to run as an independent, which will not only thrust the Greens back into obscurity, it will divide the far-left vote. Running against Nader, the Greens will likely fall short of 2 percent almost everywhere, a blow from which the party may not recover. On election night 2000, Nader boasted, "Tomorrow, the Green Party will emerge as the third-largest party in America, the fastest-growing party, and the best party in its democratic spirit." On election night 2004, the Green Party may be essentially defunct, along with the man who once led it. Somewhere, Hofstadter is smiling.
Peter Beinart is the editor of TNR.
©