How Nader Has Made Himself Irrelevant

In party-controlled government, no independent voter and no independent candidate is irrelevant. Ralph Nader may be less popular than he once was, but he still represents independence in government as a candidate, which most independent voters are unwilling to do. Independent voters and independent candidates are necessary in elective government to protect the process of election, while major parties are always working to control voter registration, elections, and candidacy, making elections less free and more controlled by party leadership. For instance, the Communist Party under Josef Stalin worked to insure that voters in the Soviet Union could only vote for Communist Party candidates. Here in America, Republicans and Democrats work to insure that people in this country can only vote for Republicans and Democrats, and if one party could gain enough control, it would pass laws to eliminate participation by the other major party the way they have done since 1800 with independent voters. The weakness of the two major parties is voter registration. They provide such incompetent government that they cannot register enough voters to secure control over the electorate. For instance, here in Arizona in 1988 at the time the legislature passed a bill signed into law by Governor Rose Mofford requiring that deputy registrars be recommended by the chairman of a political party, voter registration stood at 48% of those eligible to become voters. The parties certainly could not have justified their dismissal of independent deputy registrars by the ability of political parties to register voters. The dismissal came about for exactly the opposite reason. The few independent deputy registrars who existed in the state were registering voters at such a higher rate than party deputy registrars that this fact had come to the attention of party leaders, and they had decided to do something about it while it still appeared insignificant. However, their action was noticed, and an independent voter in Glendale, Arizona, filed a lawsuit seeking re-instatement of independent deputy registrars. As the court date for that case drew near a few years later, the legislature met again and abolished the position of deputy registrar in the state, effectively nullifying the court case seeking re-instatement of independent deputy registrars. I am convinced that this came about because of concerns expressed by the State Attorney General at that time to his fellow party leaders about the court case and that both parties participated in drafting the legislation that did away with deputy registrars in Arizona. Deputy registrars were people who were appointed and trained by County Recorders and authorized by the state to register voters. I believe that both parties were looking at the 52% of Arizonans who were not registered to vote and seeing them as a threat if they did register since the rate of independent voter registration was so much higher than party voter registration. It therefore became possible for any person to go to a County Recorder, obtain voter registration forms, and register voters. The parties believed that since they could assign people to do this and independent voters had no organization to make such assignments, they had effectively solved the problem of the high rate of independent voter registration. Secondly, independent voters were effectively blocked from becoming candidates for office in Arizona by un-Constitutional nomination petition requirements, which federal courts had consistently upheld as being necessary to show a "modicum of support", so party candidacies would theoretically move voter registration back in the direction of the parties. They were wrong. During the next ten years so many Arizonans registered independent that Arizona became the state with the highest rate of independent voter registration in the nation. By 1998 there were enough independent voters in Arizona to pass an initiative requiring open primaries. What the parties did then was very clever. They moved the Presidential primary from September to super-Tuesday in February, leaving the state primary in September. Then they obtained an opinion from State Attorney General Janet Napolitano that independent voters could not vote in the Presidential Primary because it was not specifically mentioned in the legislation resulting from the open primary law. So independent voters were excluded from voting in the Presidential Primary even though they had passed an initiative for that purpose. Then Republican Party leaders drafted an initiative of their own because they had suddenly discovered that with no deputy registrars in the state, illegal aliens could go to County Recorders, obtain voter registration forms, and register illegal aliens to vote. Illegal aliens registering to vote is a very bad thing, so the voters approved the initiative. A new voter registration form was required. In November of 2005 a Republican Party spokesman now on the state committee of his party spilled the beans about the real reason for the initiative. Its main purpose was to take the option to register independent off from the Arizona voter registration form leaving only a space designated Specify Party Preference. The immediate effect of this change in the voter registration form was to decrease independent voter registration from 80,000 per year to 13,000 per year, but this effect was only temporary as the rate was back up to 40,000 per year by 2007. It is time for independent voters to start to tell political party voters the truth about United States politics. Independent voters exist in this government because originally all voters in the United States government were independent voters. There were no organized political parties until the election of 1800. As President George Washington pointed out, political parties, not independent voters, are the disruption in American politics. The party primary system which is now such an impediment to independent participation in this government was instituted by the two major parties in the early 1900's to stop Populist movements, which had become troublesome to political party leadership during the last part of the 1800's. At that time there were enough farmers in America to disrupt party planning. The last gasp of Populism came in the 1970's when farmers from all over America drove their tractors to Washington, D.C., to force a change in government, but accomplished nothing except pulling a car out of a snowbank, as party politicians ignored them completely and forced them to return home empty-handed and poorer by the amount they had spent on gasoline and diesel for the trip. The party primary system gave the two major parties something they had not enjoyed up until that time, laws which specifically mentioned them in American government, giving them complete control of elections. However, political parties are their own worst enemy. As they crowd their party primaries into the early part of an election year, they leave a space to independent voters in which to register voters. Independents should say to the people in the United States who are not registered to vote, Register independent. Independent voters represent the United States, political party voters represent Europe. People not registered to vote also represent Europe and Mexico and Venezuela. This may seem simplistic, but it is nevertheless true. A single independent voter is a better protection of free elections than any number of U.S. troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, which is why independents should be trying to register as many voters as possible. Since independents are denied ballot access in so many states, they should concentrate on voter registration. They do not need to approach voter registration the way political parties do, compassing sea and land to make one proselyte who agrees, but just registering voters however they choose to register, but identifying themselves as independents trying to change the government and saying that this government will not work properly with the level of voter registration that parties have established. Make voter registration popular. The way to do this would be to go to college campuses for the rest of this election, get permission from college administrators to register voters, and set up voter registration tables identified as sponsored by independent voters. Involve as many college students as possible, even encouraging party members to do the same thing. Having established this ability to register voters, move it to supermarkets, etc. If there were some people willing to register as independent candidates for office the way Ralph Nader has, after people register to vote, ask them if they want to sign the nomination petitions of independent candidates. Independent voters need to stop whining about what political parties do. Of course political parties are evil. George Washington pointed that out more than 200 years ago. Independent voters just need to say, We are going to participate in this government because political party politicians, however popular they may be, are incompetent and need to be opposed. The difference between an independent candidate like Ralph Nader and a political party candidate is that the independent candidate, regardless of his level of support, will have a good effect on American government, and the party candidate will have a generally bad effect of consolidating party power. The party candidates who have the most debilitating effect at this time are those who represent good ideals of government who fail in their candidacies, discouraging voters and increasing the numbers of disaffected Americans. In order to have a good effect on the government, an independent candidate does not have to represent any particular agenda, does not have to solicit campaign contributions, does not have to spend money, does not have to be popular, and does not have to be elected. All an independent candidate has to do to improve government is to exist. Political parties and their candidates will destroy free elections because free elections in this country were founded on independent voters and independent candidates. Party politicians may have taken some ideals of freedom into their parties, but their overall effect for more than 200 years has been to exclude independent voters. Independent voters need to ignore party politicians and start participating in the government on their own initiative.

Dr. Fulani, thank you for your article. Much is correct. Please allow an important correction. In 2004 Ralph Nader did NOT seek the Green Party nomination. Ralph Nader did not ask for the Green Party nomination. In 2004 he did NOT attend the Green Party convention. If he had attended the convention and asked for the Green Party nomination in 2004, he would have gotten the Green Party nomination. Instead, in 2004 the Green Party nominated David Cobb - who put Nader on the ballot in the difficult Texas. Cobb sought the nomination, and campaigned. In 2004 Mr. Nader used the same passive agressive approach to the Green Party he used in 2008. He had Green Party allies launch a Draft Nader movement, then abandoned them. Ask Green Party leader Howie Hawkins. Many Greens hope for an alliance in 2008 between the Independence Party of America and the Green Party. It would increase Independent Green strength. All of us invite and encourage Mr. Nader to work with us still. Regarding 2000: There were many Green Party leaders also urging Mr. Nader to form and Reform/Green Party alliance. The opportunity remains for all of us: Independents and Greens.

Well, for one thing, how can someone call himself and Independent when he gets major funding from the Republican party to mount insurgent campaigns every 4 years? If Ralph Nader was serious about running for president or starting an independent PARTY, as opposed to being an independent candidate every 4 years, he would raise money and participate in a caucus or primary system. But that is not what Ralph Nader is interested in. He works to destroy progressive causes by siphoning off votes from Democratic candidates--while getting paid by conservative contributors. Because of Ralph Nader and all the morons who voted for him, we have George W. Bush, 9-11, perpetual war, regression in our civil rights, a recession, a foreclosure crisis and 3.50/gallon gas. Think about that shit next time some crack pot comes along calling himself a progressive independent who gets his money from the GOP.

Not only is Ralph Nader irrelevant, but Fulani has been exposed for the racist weirdo she is by Christopher Hitchens in Vanity Fair, the Attorney General's office investigations, being removed from the Independent Party of NY, etc. Why do people keep giving her publicity, especially noting she heads up the IP when in fact they disposed of her.

Dear Dr. Fulani, It's interesting to read your thoughts on relevance of Ralph Nader's 2008 presidential campign. While the candidates of both major parties have become very practiced at pandering to independents, I find their pandering (including Obama's) nausiating. To me, not being Hillary Clinton - just isn't good enough of a reason to warrant support. I remember how the Democrats dragged Howard Dean off the campaign trail to come to New York and bash the non-partisan primaries referendum. Afterwards, during the actual presidential primary election of 2004, Dean and his supporters were bashed themselves with the infamous "Howard Dean yell" CNN smear campaign. I am sure you realize, that a written and publicly posted statement of support for Obama, now exposes his campaign to potential "smears-by-association" attacks from Koch, Wolfson, "Pinch" and his exquisite stable of professional shit-smear artists on NY1. You and 'Red Fred' Newman have been officially branded cultists and anti-semites, by New York Times and their cable news monopoly in New York City. One good smear deserves another of course, but it doesn't seem like Barack is nasty enough, sleazy enough, crazy enough or vicious enough to beat "Billary". I'll bet he'll 'denounce' you in a "New York minute", just like Bloomberg - when push comes to shove. The Democrat primary voters seem to be voting against whomever the political tv pundits are praising at the moment, as reactionary as that seems - it just fits neatly into the binary nature of political disfunctionality, we still call 'elections'. I do regret,in a way, that Nader is running. He certainly doesn't deserve this next round of abuse from everyone and their grandma. (Neither did you, for supporting Nader in 2004). We all have to struggle for our own relevence in contemporary politics, I suppose. I continue to believe that US elections are phony and pointless. I plan to participate in the electoral process as a means of political protest and civil disobidience, just as I did in 2000 and 2004... by supporting and campaigning for Ralph Nader. Warmest Regards, George Tatevosyan

Dear Dr. Fulani, It's interesting to read your thoughts on relevance of Ralph Nader's 2008 presidential campign. While the candidates of both major parties have become very practiced at pandering to independents, I find their pandering (including Obama's) nausiating. To me, not being Hillary Clinton - just isn't good enough of a reason to warrant support. I remember how the Democrats dragged Howard Dean off the campaign trail to come to New York and bash the non-partisan primaries referendum. Afterwards, during the actual presidential primary election of 2004, Dean and his supporters were bashed themselves with the infamous "Howard Dean yell" CNN smear campaign. I am sure you realize, that a written and publicly posted statement of support for Obama, now exposes his campaign to potential "smears-by-association" attacks from Koch, Wolfson, "Pinch" and his exquisite stable of professional shit-smear artists on NY1. You and 'Red Fred' Newman have been officially branded cultists and anti-semites, by New York Times and their cable news monopoly in New York City. One good smear deserves another of course, but it doesn't seem like Barack is nasty enough, sleazy enough, crazy enough or vicious enough to beat "Billary". I'll bet he'll 'denounce' you in a "New York minute", just like Bloomberg - when push comes to shove. The Democrat primary voters seem to be voting against whomever the political tv pundits are praising at the moment, as reactionary as that seems - it just fits neatly into the binary nature of political disfunctionality, we still call 'elections'. I do regret,in a way, that Nader is running. He certainly doesn't deserve this next round of abuse from everyone and their grandma. (Neither did you, for supporting Nader in 2004). We all have to struggle for our own relevence in contemporary politics, I suppose. I continue to believe that US elections are phony and pointless. I plan to participate in the electoral process as a means of political protest and civil disobidience, just as I did in 2000 and 2004... by supporting and campaigning for Ralph Nader. Warmest Regards, George Tatevosyan

Ralph, More power to your ideas. Maybe Michael Bloomberg will help you out. Keep working to end this insane war and bring our people home. You've been out there making speeches, doing interviews and writing articles and have written at least three books in the last 6 years. And you've been writing weekly commentary on the things that really matter, at http://www.nader.org .The question is where has the Press been on these important matters you discuss? where have the "Talking Heads" been on corporate crime and the profiteers of this war? The population is too busy being entertained and watching Sporting events to get involved, they take the EASY route and don't bother to think, settling instead for snippets and quick slogans. Knowing what's going on in a Corporate controlled State takes WORK. Thank you Ralph, for all the good things you've done to protect the PEOPLE of this Country. Amazing how quickly they forget, or perhaps they just don't know. Almost everyone's lives, or that of friends and relatives of theirs, have been improved and made safer because of you, Some wouldn't be alive today, if not for Ralph Nader! Their minds have been intentionly bombarded with with Corporate propaganda and the Democrat Party scapegoating machine. Obama and Clinton, and that phoney Terry McAuliffe should be ashamed of their comments regarding you. They continue the DNC scapcoating myth. thank you for your great and continued service to your fellow Countrymen. America will never ever be able to repay you. More power to your ideas. http://www.votenader.org....All the rest of you out there, buckle-up! ....

CORRECTION: katherine harris and the floridian vast right wing republican conspiracy is what stole the year 2000 and election and turned everyone against ralph nader, but this is what many in government have wanted for many, many years - www.likroper.com

I think your comments are ridiculous and stupid Lenora Fulani. When he said no to you in 2000 you wind up supporting Pat Buchanan for President? Just what kind of political program do you have that you could support Buchanan for President? Ralph Nader is the greatest american who ever lived. Who the hell are you to call him irrelevant? I seem to remember that you once ran around with the likes of Lyndon Larouche. I hear a lot of noise and chatter from you and CUIP about Michael Bloomberg for President but you didn't exactly come through now did you? Is Bloomberg such a chickenshit that he lets a few negative columns from your old buddy Larouche knock him off stride? How is your old buddy Frank Mckay doing these days? I guess since neither one of you are good at delivering you can always jump on the Obama bandwagon. Hope you don't scrape your knee too badly if that bandwagon takes a tumble. Can we assume the fix is in if Bloomberg is picked to be Obama's running mate? Do you still plan on supporting Obama if he picks Hillary,and if they reject your support will you be doing a Randi Rhodes imitation for the rest of us?

Dr.Fulani I am discourage for your lack of support of Ralph Nader in 2008. I remember your activities to gain Nader the endorsement of the New York Independence Party as being on the highlights to his campaign. I was hoping that Nader would work with the New York Independence party as well this year but that seems unlikely according to you. Wouldn't Nader's ballot access lawsuits have helpede all independents and third parties? It seems to me that he raised these lawsuits not to fufill his own ego but rather, to help advance the cause so future independents will have an easier time gaining ballot access across the nation. Please, I plead to you if you read this to revaluate your position on Mr.Nader. He still has the ability to draw out many independent voters away from the two major parties. Your position still could influence independent voters to back a candidate not dredged down in the politics of a two party system.

If the Independent movement thinks that a billionaire who can circumvent the voter supported initiative for term limits by back door deals is a sign of progress for the independent movement, than it's the independent movement that's moved away from Ralph Nader, not the other way around.

The CUIP is a joke. I'm an Independent, and I welcome MORE Independence among voters, but there's no "movement." Give me a freaking break! Independents span the spectrum! How in the hell are you gonna get them all unified in some coalition?? You're not! You're just gonna be able to unite one type of Independent or group of Indies on certain ideologies. I looked up Jacqueline Salit and Lenora Fulani, and both of them are almost Socialists or Communists ideologically. They used to work for this party/movement called the National Alliance Party, a leftist party. Lenora and Jacqueline, GTFO. You're not "Independents." You're just very Marxists in Indie clothing. How the hell can you even begin to refer to Obama as an "Independent president"?? WHAT?? And he wasn't the first! That was George Washington! I want no part with the CUIP. It seems obvious to me that it's now just a bastion of liberalism disguised as "being Indepdendent." I can't stand phony Indies like you who are hardly objective or nonpartisan but think just b/c they're not affiliated with one of the 2 major parties, all of a sudden they're "special" in the electoral process. No, no no. TRUE Independents cross the threshold and actually vote for REAL Independent and 3rd-party candidates, not staying in the 2-party trap.

And who the hell did YOU vote for, Ms. Fulani, if you think Nader is "irrelevant"? Lemme guess... OBAMA??? Please... He's the same establishment Democrat that's been leading the party for quite some time now. How's that "change" working out for you 1 year into his term with no real progress made? What a joke. How the hell could you be on the same ticket as Pat Buchanan????