Evaluating Ralph Nader's Candidacy

In the year 2000, I supported Ralph Nader's run for president. I didn't like either of the candidates back then - neither Bush nor Gore. Bush, at the time, didn't seem like he was up to the job although some of his ideas which he advocated did resonate with me - no nation building, a humble foreign policy, tax cuts, etc. Gore seemed like a good fellow, but I felt it was time for change. I was also disillusioned with his choice of running mate - Lieberman - a hawk on Middle East policy who still stands by the Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq.

Ralph Nader seemed to represent some semblance of change. He advocated a foreign policy I agreed with. However, at the time I was still in school and did not face the greater realities of our society.

His policies at first glance seem to have a socialist tone - stand up to the corporate interests and represent the working class. The problem with this is that it resonates well with the lower income individuals and certain intellectuals who share this viewpoint. Primarily, the makeup of this group identifies themselves as either a Democrat or Independent. What troubles me is that his candidacy essentially may solidify a McCain presidency as it will siphon votes away from those who don't fully support Barack Obama for whatever reason, but surely wouldn't vote for McCain. Yet those same people would prefer Obama over McCain.

So on Nader's recently launched website, I left him a blog comment asking him to clarify his positions. Not much information regarding where he stands is on there, perhaps because its still nascent and not many people know about it yet. I'm looking forward to his reply to my comment, however, I'm doubtful he'll actually take the time out to respond:

____________________________________________________________________

Mr. Nader,

I need more information regarding your policies to decide whether I would support you or not.

What are your economic policies? Do you solely advocate for the working class? Do your policies encourage the growth of businesses? What do you think the role of the US Government should be in directing the economy? What about the Federal Reserve, what level of control do you think they should exert over the economy? What about monetary policy? Should we continue to use a currency that is not backed by anything, and do you think that is sustainable? What would you do about the value of the US Dollar? As you are likely aware, it has been falling and for the first time in many years it is now weaker than the Canadian dollar.

Do you believe in the Free Market? Or do you believe that the Government should continuously regulate industry? If the role of the Government is to regulate industry, how do we prevent the conflict of interest that has as a result occurred – private and corporate interests lobbying government to steer legislation in a fashion that would help certain companies, and possibly hinder others?

With regards to energy, can you elaborate on why don’t you support Nuclear Power? Understanding that there is an issue with regards to waste storage, wouldn’t it reduce our dependence on oil and reduce greenhouse gases? Rather than count it out, shouldn’t we look for ways to deal with the waste instead?

What about tax policy. Would you look for ways to reduce the overall income tax burden on society? Or are you looking to redistribute wealth through a further tiered income tax system (income tax that gets progressively higher with income)? Would you focus your efforts on paying down, or reducing the national debt? Do you advocate tax increase or decrease? And if this varies by income level, can you define them?

I understand that you support a national health care plan similar to that of the Canadians'. Would this plan eliminate private health insurance? If so, what would be the effect on the quality of health care? Would Doctors’ earnings be regulated by the Government as a result? If not, would the resulting system develop into two tiers of care – Government and Private? What is the estimated cost of such a national health care plan, and can the US taxpayers afford it? Would taxes have to rise as a result?

What do you think the role of Government ought to be in an individual’s life? Is it to take care of people from cradle to grave?

What is your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment? Do you think people need to sacrifice liberty for security? Would you modify any part of the US Constitution? Are you a constitutionalist?

I agree with you 100% on your foreign policy, so I have no questions there. However, I’m not sure about policies regarding the economy, taxes, health care, and energy. I’m looking forward to a substantive response.

Why I joined the Republican Party....

I supported my beloved candidate, Ron Paul, against all the odds that were stacked against him. When others told me I was nuts and that I should support someone more mainstream, I refused. I wanted to support what was right, and what was right was rooted in freedom. True freedom. Furthermore, I wanted to try to affect the Republican Presidential contest – I wanted to help squelch the radicals who dominated the field. The John McCains and Rudy Giulianis who wanted to put forth a policy of perpetual war and a continuation in the current belligerence that the US has exhibited throughout the world.

You can’t fault me for not trying – I did. I did what I can, and it was not enough. And now, I find myself sandwiched between the remaining viable presidential candidacies – one is outright Fascist, and the others which border on Socialist. Despite my deep rooted beliefs in the free markets and economy, the erosion of rights that would take place under a McCain administration has me deeply worried. We’ve lost enough of our constitutional rights as it is, and therefore, I believe I will have to reluctantly tolerate Socialist policies instead.

You can’t have it all after all. I wanted both individual liberties and greater economic freedom – and that was Ron Paul’s message. In my lifetime, I was never inspired by an individual as much as I have been by Ron Paul. I can’t even describe the satisfaction I got when I heard the truth being set forth in front of a room full of delusional people at his debates. When the others succumbed to a policy dictated by fear and lack of understanding, he was advocating a policy of hope and insight. Unfortunately, not many people were able to receive the message – and many others were influenced not to accept it.

I am deeply troubled by the policies advocated by the opposing party, especially the likes of Hillary Clinton. What she seems to propose is that the Government needs to step in and take care of its people from cradle to grave – providing for them every step of the way. I don’t view this as the role of government. I think the people should run their own lives and interact with one another and provide for each other’s mutual needs. I think that that would make for a truly free America, a shining beacon of hope for the rest of the world. Unfortunately, we’ve lost this hope of a truly free society. We’ve confessed that not all people will act like their supposed to and contribute to our grand society. We’ve bowed to the realism which states that people will only act in their self interests when their offered such freedom and society as a whole will degenerate as a result. Today's society has decided that the Government needs to regulate our every affair and provide for our every need.

Well I hoped for something different. It doesn’t look like it will materialize, but I believed and still believe in a different way forward. I think its time for a new movement, and a new vision beyond what is offered to us today – one that maximizes liberty and offers bountiful opportunity to those who seek it and rewards them for doing just that. Won’t you join me?