A running contention of our bipartisan system of politics has long been the exclusion of those who lean neither right nor left. The Republican and Democratic parties are not - nor have been - tailored to suit every ethos, ideology or belief under the sun. What the major parties accomplish, however, is being inclusive just enough to champion our bipartisan way of life.
Those who identify with neither party, then, are left on the outside looking in on Washington, D.C. They're just as politically active, their voices are as clear and loud as any and their convictions hold true - it's just usually not enough to cause a political paradigm shift.
That said, this particular contention is responsible for political action by the dissatisfied voter or candidate, a wholly productive endeavor. Those who find the bipartisan system flawed work to correct it, they give leadership to the millions just like them and factor in to most major political moves. In the aggregate sense, the independent works for other independents to make America a better place. And that said, we admire independents. Independents not named Ralph Nader, that is.
Most recently in Nader's death rattle campaign for president, he's run across a snag in Michigan. Running as a candidate of the Reform Party, Nader's name stands to be absent from ballots this November. Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land has cited a schism within Michigan Reformers - the formerly unified party is now split - and the validity of endorsement is justifiably questionable. Accordingly, Nader filed a lawsuit last week against the State of Michigan, citing a breach of his First Amendment rights to run for public office.
We get it. We got it in 1996, we certainly got it in 2000 and we get it this year, too. Nader makes himself into the dissident icon every four years. It's his constitutional right to do so, he surely inspires the apolitical and his record of consumer advocacy is nothing short of remarkable. We have to ask, though, when does that stop being virtuous and start to be stodgy? Nader has already proven that the little guy can take on big business and sticky bureaucracy and come out clean. At this point, however, the message is stale and the tone is redundant.
Moreover, the Nader campaign has become something of a national spectacle. In order to be placed on the ballot for president - and effectively take away votes from Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry - some Republicans exploited his image by collecting the required signatures. Ulterior motives aside, Nader's campaign is becoming the benefactor of low-road political scheming. His high visibility is not for his platform, but for the threat he allegedly poses to Kerry's voter base. As long as Nader is running for president, the story is still going to be back in Dade County, Fla., circa 2000. He is known for his image - not his politics. Exploiting that image for the sake of visibility is nothing short of hypocritical for the man who bemoans the frailties of two-party politics.
We get it. We understand Nader's rights and in many cases celebrate them. We admire his challenge to authority and tradition, but we don't admire a run at the Oval Office for borderline-selfish reasons.
We get it, Nader. We just don't agree.
