Ralph Nader has thrown his hat into the election ring, where, presumably, it will sit like the old, irrelevant, misguided artifact it has become.
But it is the unlikely chance that Nader will once again emerge as a spoiler that has Democrats worried and Republicans pleased. "Well, I think it always would probably pull votes away from the Democrats, not the Republicans. So naturally Republicans would welcome his entry into the race and hope that maybe a few more will join in" Republican candidate and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee told CNN's "Late Edition." Huckabee's positions, like those of his fellow Republican John McCain, are almost universally opposed to the values Nader espouses.
Democratic candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), for her part, had this to say to a New York Times reporter: "Wow, that's really unfortunate. I remember when he did this before. It's not good for anybody, especially our country."
Nader has every right to run for president; his reasoning, and timing, are what we should take issue with. It appears that Nader, once the consummate public advocate, has transformed into his own biggest supporter to the great detriment of people who, at least ideologically, agree with him.
Nader seems unconcerned with his potential effect on the election. "If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form," he said as he announced his candidacy on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Of course, polls show that the Democrats may not "landslide" the Republicans this year. In fact, Nader's candidacy, if it gains any significant support, will present a major obstacle that could stifle any Democratic victory.
Clinton made precisely this point to the New York Times, pointing out that when Nader ran as the Green Party nominee against Al Gore in 2000, he ended up undermining, not advancing, the Green Party's agenda.
"Well, you know his being on the Green Party prevented Al Gore from being the greenest president we've ever had," Clinton said. "And I think that's really unfortunate."
Many voters view Nader as, in the words of radio host Bill Press, a "colossal, misguided, egomaniacal nutcase." But he could be a useful nutcase, if only he would learn how to work within the system.
Ex-Democratic candidate John Edwards did precisely that, and he was successful at advancing his ideas. According to Time Magazine's Paul Krugman, "If 2008 is different, it will be largely thanks to Mr. Edwards. He made a habit of introducing bold policy proposals - and they were met with such enthusiasm among Democrats that his rivals were more or less forced to follow suit."
Edwards' influence, particularly his proposal for universal health care, will survive his own candidacy. The same idea motivates the candidacies of long shots like Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel.
But Nader, in choosing to run as a third-party candidate in the general election, undermines his own arguments and ideologies. Though there were a variety of factors that led to Al Gore's defeat in 2000, few were as obvious - or preventable - as Nader's candidacy. The Bush administration subsequently repealed or undermined many of the environmental and consumer protection policies for which Nader himself had worked.
As a foremost advocate for democracy and for having the true voice of the people heard, Nader could hardly object to concerned citizens going to his campaign's Web site and letting him know how they truly feel about his decision to run.
