Let Ralph Nader Run in Peace

I don't care much for the team mentality that many Democrats and Republicans adopt. Voting for someone only because she belongs to your party or vilifying someone else only because he is of the other party are the acts of an automaton, especially considering that "Democrat" and "Republican" have become almost useless labels given the different factions that exist in each party and the geographical variations in ideology that seem to be accepted by both parties (for example, pro-life Democrats can be commonly found in conservative areas and pro-choice Republicans are prevalent in liberal areas). I personally think there are a lot of people like me who would vote for different parties if presented with different sets of candidates. We consider the differences among the candidates to be more profound than the differences among the parties, and we don't like the idea of voting for candidates we don't believe in on the assumption that they'll tow the party line once enshrined in office. The party faithful expect us to ultimately pick a side; indeed, sometimes they act as if they feel that their parties have some sort of right to our votes.

This attitude of entitlement is often displayed in Democrats who blame Ralph Nader for Al Gore's loss to George W. Bush in 2000. That intensely close presidential election left a bad taste in many mouths. Allegations of election fraud and government conspiracy still circulate to this day -- it's a pity that a fair and full recount of the vote in Florida was not allowed to take place given the importance of the occasion. Still, it's one thing to protest at what you perceive as a stolen election, a fraudulent result; it's quite another to tear into someone who is exercising his right to seek office and those who are exercising their rights to vote for the candidate of their choice. Nader has been enveloped in a cyclone of bitterness spawned perhaps above all else by sour grapes. Those who argue that Nader votes would have voted for Gore instead of Bush are in all likelihood right, but how can the preference of those voters for Nader over Gore be dismissed and pushed aside? Nader voters could have voted for Gore or Bush or someone else; they chose not to. Gore has no right to any votes that were not cast for him.

Since Nader has recently decided to seek the presidency once again in 2008, his critics have again arisen in protest, some angrily and some derisively. I strongly doubt that Nader will be the next president of the United States, but nonetheless I feel he deserves as much respect as any other candidate. His road as an independent candidate will be more difficult than that traveled by the Republican and Democratic nominees; indeed, it is probably harder for a Nader to win 2% of the vote than it is for a Republican or Democrat to garner enough votes to win the election. He has as much right to voice his ideas wherever he can find listeners as anyone else. I don't deny that someone who officially runs for president three times probably really likes national attention, but I suspect the other candidates like that attention to some extent as well. Nader is surely not the only one feeding an ego on the campaign trail, so I don't think he should be the singled out for ego-related criticism. It is shameful that running for office can be widely considered a shameful act.