Abstract

Candidate Nader

The editors explain the history behind their opposition to the presidential candidacy of Ralph Nader. We have already laid out our reasons why we believe [Nader] should not be a candidate again. Stubbornness is one of Ralph's most attractive qualities. If he weren't stubborn (and principled and idealistic), he would have stopped writing about unsafe cars back in the 1950s when General Motors had him tailed by private detectives. But sometimes stubbornness can keep one from seeing changed realities. Given that this Administration has misled the country into an illegal, pre-emptive war; slashed taxes for the wealthy; trampled civil liberties; and assaulted labor, choice, gay rights and affirmative action, the difference between Republicans and Democrats is not a matter of "D minus" and "D plus," as Ralph characterized it on Meet the Press. It is a matter of pass/fail, and the Bush Administration has failed abysmally. "The Nation" has a long history of backing (and not backing) third parties. The magazine, for example, supported the Socialist Party candidate, Norman Thomas, in 1932 rather than the Democrat, Franklin Roosevelt. But in 1936, 1940 and 1944 it backed Roosevelt, because the editors considered him the best candidate to deal with the economic crisis and to prosecute the war effort. The point is that such choices must be made on a case-by-case basis. Given the dangerous alternative of four more years of the most extremist Administration in our lifetime, is this really the year to cast a symbolic vote?