- More than any other single person, Ralph Nader is responsible
for the existence of automobiles that have seat belts, padded dashboards,
air bags, non-impaling steering columns, and gas tanks that don't readily
explode when the car gets rear-ended. He is therefore responsible for the
existence of some millions of drivers and passengers who would otherwise
be dead. Because of Nader, baby foods are no longer spiked with MSG, kids'
pajamas no longer catch fire, tap water is safer to drink than it used
to be, diseased meat can no longer be sold with impunity, and dental patients
getting their teeth x-rayed wear lead aprons to protect their bodies from
dangerous zaps. It is Nader's doing, more than anyone else's, that the
federal bureaucracy includes an Environmental Protection Agency, an Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, and a Consumer Product Safety Commission,
all of which have done valuable work in the past and, with luck, may be
allowed to do such work again someday. He is the man to thank for the fact
that the Freedom of Information Act is a powerful instrument of democratic
transparency and accountability. He is the founder of an amazing array
of agile, sharp-elbowed research and lobbying organizations that have prodded
governments at all levels toward constructive action in areas ranging from
insurance rates to nuclear safety. He had help, of course, from his young
"raiders," from congressional staffers and their bosses, from
citizens, and even from the odd President. But he was the prime mover.
-
- More than any other single person, Ralph Nader is responsible
for the fact that George W. Bush is President of the United States. Nader
is more responsible than Al Gore, who, in 2000, put himself in the clear
by persuading more of his fellow-citizens to vote for him than for anybody
else, which normallyóin thirty-nine of the forty-two previous Presidential
elections, or ninety-three per centóhad been considered adequate
to fulfill the candidate's electoral duty. Nader is more responsible than
George W. Bush, whose alibi complements Gore's: by attracting fewer votes,
both nationally and (according to the preponderance of scientific opinion)
in Florida, Bush absolved himself of guilt for his own elevation. A post-election
rogues' galleryóJeb Bush, James Baker, Katherine Harris, William
Rehnquist and four of his Supreme Court colleaguesóhelped, each
rogue in his or her own way, but no single one of them could have pulled
off the heist without the help of the others. Nader was sufficient unto
himself.
-
- For the past three years, everything Nader accomplished
during his period of unparalleled creativity, which lasted from around
1963 to around 1976, has been systematically undermined by the Administration
that he was instrumental in putting in power. Government efforts on behalf
of clean air and water, fuel efficiency, workplace safety, consumer protection,
and public health have been starved, stymied, or sabotaged in tandem with
the shift of resources from public purposes to high-end private consumption,
the increasing identity of government and corporate interests, and the
growth of a cult of secrecy and arrogance that began well before September
11, 2001. Nader bears a very large share of responsibility for these spectacular
traducements of his proclaimed values. So it is quite a tribute to the
brilliance of his early achievements that an argument can still be made
that the net effect of his career has been positive.
-
- That argument will no longer be plausible if Nader succeeds
in doing in 2004 what he did in 2000. This time, though, he is unlikely
to garner enough strategically placed votes to push the electoral college
past the tipping point. Neither before nor after his announcement last
week that he will try to get on the ballot in all fifty states was there
the slightest sign of enthusiasm for his candidacy. The liberal and leftish
outlets that serve what was once his natural constituency overflowed with
critiques that ranged from mournful disavowal to bitter denunciation, some
of them written by former supporters. The Democratic Party, meanwhile,
is in the final stages of a primary campaign that has been as amicable
as any in living memory. Thanks to President Bush and the passionate wish
of the Democratic rank and file to see the back of him, the Democrats are
more united and energized, and less beguiled by the narcissism of small
differences, than ever.
-
- It's safe to predict that Nader will come nowhere near
matching the 2.9 million votes he got in 2000. He'll be lucky to get half
of the 685,000 he got in 1996. His reasons for running, as he announced
them in an interview with Tim Russert on "Meet the Press," don't
add up. "Do you believe," Russert asked him, "that there
would be a difference between a George Bush Administration and a John Kerry
or a John Edwards Administration on judicial nominations, on tax cuts,
on environmental enforcement?" "Yes," Nader said, but he
went on to say that "corporate government remains in Washington, whether
it's Democrats or Republicans"óas if the Supreme Court, the
tax code, and the environment were bagatelles. "This candidacy is
not going to get many Democratic Party votes," Nader admittedóor
lamented, or promised (it was hard to tell which)óat a press conference
the next day. He noted that he faces "overwhelming opposition by the
liberal intelligentsia," and added, "I think this may be the
only candidacy in our memory that is opposed overwhelmingly by people who
agree with us on the issues." His strategy, therefore, is to get votes
from people who disagree with him on the issuesói.e., Republicans
who, he suggested, will support him because they don't like the Bush deficits.
Also, he argued, he will help Democrats win congressional seats. Also,
his candidacy will constitute "another front" against Bush. A
fifth column is more like it.
-
- Ralph Nader turned seventy last Friday. If a Democrat
is elected President in November, then the old crusader's 2004 campaign
will be merely a happily inconsequential ending to the story of a life
spent mostly in creative service. If Bush is elected to a second term,
then four more years of Bush policies, Bush deficits, and Bush judges will
likely undo what remains of Nader's positive legacy. But if Nader once
again succeeds in making himself the decisive factor in a Bush victory,
then his legacy will be less than zero. His legacy will be George W. Bush.
-
- Copyright © CondÈNet 2004. All rights reserved.
-
- http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?040308ta_talk_hertzberg
|
