04.08.2004

Road to nowhere

Phil Hamilton reviews Ralph Nader's website - and finds it wanting, just like the candidate's politics

When Democrat presidential hopeful John Kerry took the stand at his party’s convention last week, he saluted the assembled faithful and exclaimed he was “reporting for duty”. What then followed was a collection of crowd- and media-pleasing platitudes that were heavy with rhetoric but empty of political content. Still this absurd jamboree at least had the merit of showing the bankruptcy of mainstream party politics in the USA, where the voters choose between an inept but faithful servant of American imperialism (Bush), and an equally loyal agent of big capital, albeit with a smoother PR machine (Kerry). So what of the alternatives to this tweedledum and tweedledee politics?

By far the most prolific of third party candidates in this election is Ralph Nader, a consumer rights champion and something of a left populist maverick. Though by no means a working class candidate with a programme of struggle, Nader’s policy agenda is way to the left of those of Bush and Kerry, and probably explains why a good number of socialists are happy to lend their critical support.The best place to begin is the ‘Frequently asked questions’ section of the website. It begins with the claim that Nader’s anti-corporate ticket is interested in wresting democracy back from the unaccountable hands of big business by mobilising people around an issues-driven agenda he dubs “a fundamental solution revolution”. More background information about Nader is given on his biography page. Unfortunately it immediately strikes the hagiographical note beloved of mainstream politics. For example, “perhaps more than any other person [he] has defined our modern understanding of the American ideals of democracy”. It then goes onto assert his populist credentials by noting the cross-party support his 2000 presidential bid attracted. He quotes figures suggesting that around 25% of his support came from Republican voters, 38% from Democrats, and the remainder from those who could not bring themselves to vote for either. Also noted is how Nader’s activism around corporate responsibility, labour reform, pensions, etc “preserves the safety and quality of life of every single American” (original emphasis).

The next item in the ‘Why Ralph?’ category is a series of open letters to Bush and Kerry on issues “of urgent importance to the American public”. There are literally dozens of them covering practically every subject under the sun, and is quite a good tactic leftists elsewhere should make more use of. The site also commits itself to publishing Bush and Kerry’s responses. Needless to say, none are as yet forthcoming.

One particularly interesting section - and no doubt the most frequently visited - are ‘Materials and writings on the decision to run’. Here we are presented with a series of announcements and letters sent to the Republican and Democrat national committees, and even some correspondence between Nader and DNC chairman Terence R McAuliffe. The latter’s response to Nader’s decision to stand begins with an attempt to place both Nader and the Democrats in the same broad ideological camp. With a straight face, McAuliffe picks snippets out of Bush’s lousy record, such as the erosion of workplace rights and opposition to corporate accountability, to highlight the unique reactionary character of the incumbent administration, while forgetting to mention that Clinton did not exactly display a progressive stance on any of these issues. While not exactly accusing Nader of splitting the anti-Bush vote, this syrupy piece deploys all the familiar tricks fielded by Labour-loyalists of both the right and the left on this side of the Atlantic.

Nader’s open reply takes the Democrats to task on their defence of the political duopoly it enjoys with the Republicans, using free market arguments both parties are happy to throw about in other contexts. However, this is not the withering critique of the Democrat position that you would expect a left challenger to field. Instead, Nader comes over as a loyal oppositionist in a manner that is less radical, but broadly similar to Michael Moore’s position. He lambastes the Democrats for not fielding “challenging candidates”, allowing the most grotesque reactionaries to win office on Republican tickets. Nader goes onto argue that “new energies and bold strategies” are needed to grow inside the party, encouraged by similar progressive developments outside, running parallel and feeding into it. In other words, Nader’s candidacy is a twin-track strategy aimed at rejuvenating the Democrats, and winning it back from the “corporate supremacists”.

It is not hard to see where this will end up. Nader’s campaign could highlight oft-neglected issues and weld together something of a progressive voting bloc, but the stated outcome is to channel this vote back to the Democrats. Socialists should therefore give Nader’s bid a wide berth.