Friday, May 9, 2008 9:25am EST
Make this your Home Page | RSS 
How Nader Has Made Himself Irrelevant
Lenora Fulani | Posted March 6, 2008 7:41 AM
Ralph Nader seems to equate himself with the independent political movement and to define it relative to his positions, his aspirations and his critiques of the two-party system. In this way Nader has fallen out of step with the independent movement.
Dr. Fulani is America's leading Black political independent, a developmental psychologist and innovator in the field of supplemental education.
Ralph Nader's announcement that he plans to run again for president as an independent has provoked the expected rounds of condemnation (He is a spoiler!) and pathos (He did so much for American consumers!) My own feelings about Nader's proposed run amount to this: he's completely out of step with the development of the independent movement.
Nader ran in 2000 as the presidential candidate of the Green Party hoping to get 5% of the vote to establish the Greens as a national party eligible for federal funding. At the time of the 2000 campaign, I was active in the Reform Party which was undergoing many internal divisions and betrayals. Nader was invited by several of my associates to enter the Reform Party presidential primary to help counter the top-down takeover underway inside the party and as a platform from which Nader could coalesce diverse forces in the independent movement. He turned down the offer. On Election Day, Nader fell short of his goal, gaining 2.7% of the vote, while internal battles over the results rocked the Greens.
After 2000, the organized independent movement came to something of a crossroads. The Reform Party was, for all intents and purposes, destroyed, nothing but a shell of its former self. The Greens agonized over their relationship to the Democrats. The Libertarian Party continued on its course, largely unaffected by events outside of itself. But at the base, the independent movement was growing. The number of Americans either registering as or self-identifying as independents was reaching new plateaus - climbing to 35% of the electorate and beyond. This mushrooming base of independents was not searching for a new third party. But they were searching for a new politic.
My circle of advisors, colleagues and activists refocused our energies on building and developing a new kind of independent movement that supported what was happening on the ground. That new movement was locally based, up-from-the-bottom democratic, and oriented toward gaining recognition for independent voters. We were not building a third party. We built a base of independents to catalyze new coalitions and new directions in American politics. These networks developed rapidly under the umbrella of CUIP (Committee for a Unified Independent Party), also known as IndependentVoting.org.
In 2003, Nader began to consider another run for the presidency. Taking the advice of my longtime colleague Jim Mangia, with whom Nader had grown close, Nader planned a coalitional presidential run in 2004 to bring together as many players in the independent movement as possible. Mangia arranged for Nader to speak at a national CUIP conference in New Hampshire in January 2004, just days before the Democratic primary where John Kerry, the pro-war eventual nominee beat down the Howard Dean insurgency. Nader made his pitch to the 400+ assembled independents from 35 states at our conference, and soon thereafter independents in those networks decided to back his run - myself included.
While the CUIP networks came on board strongly for Nader, the Greens refused to nominate him, forcing individual Greens to choose between Nader and their party. The Reform Party, decimated though it was, awarded its six ballot lines to Nader. I brokered an endorsement by the South Carolina Independence Party, a ballot status party led by a longtime colleague, African American independent Wayne Griffin.
Meanwhile, Nader's ballot access drives were being blocked by the Democratic Party and the Kerry campaign in a hysterical attempt to drive Nader's campaign off the road. My lawyer, Harry Kresky, one of the country's most experienced and respected election law attorneys, represented Nader in two of the key cases that arose in this conflict in West Virginia and New Mexico.
Still, the "plum" endorsement for Nader was the Independence Party of New York, whose prestige as the country's largest and most influential state independent party was matched by its vote-getting capacity. The Independence Party's endorsement, and its coveted Column C on the ballot, was pivotal for the Nader effort. Kresky, who was counsel to the state party at the time (there has since been a schism between the New York City Independence Party where we are based and the upstate leadership) and I brokered the IP line for Nader. Once he was the IP nominee, I organized a spirited 500-person campaign rally for him in Harlem. It was the largest gathering of black independents Nader had ever spoken to and he was deeply moved by the event. Developing the independent movement in the black community is central to my vision for independent politics.
After the 2004 campaign, Nader vanished from the independent scene. He returned to Washington where he became fixated on the ballot access controversies that had hampered the campaign. But if Nader was stalled, the independent movement was not.
In 2005, Mike Bloomberg, who'd been elected mayor of New York City in 2001 with independents providing his margin of victory, was re-elected by a startling new electoral coalition of black and independent voters led by the New York City Independence Party. Forty-seven percent of black voters bucked the Democratic Party and went independent for Bloomberg.
In 2006, independents swung the mid-term congressional elections to the Democrats, demonstrating that a movement which had begun with Ross Perot on the center-right had evolved into a progressive force vocally opposed to the war and to U.S. interventionism as a mainstay of foreign policy. Those of us who have worked to shape the political character of the independent movement in a progressive direction are gratified by these developments. Independents can take large credit for Barack Obama's anti-partisan message and his extraordinary success in the primaries so far - where independent voters have made him competitive with the Clinton old guard.
Ralph Nader is impervious to these up-from-the-bottom developmental changes. He seems to equate himself with the independent political movement and to define it relative to his positions, his aspirations and his critiques of the two-party system. In this way Ralph has fallen out of step with an independent movement that is finding tactically sophisticated ways to intervene on, interact with, and influence larger political forces. The independent movement is thereby increasingly coming to define itself. That's the process I support. Nader has refused to participate in that. In doing so, he's unfortunately made himself irrelevant.
-
TODAY'S NEWS
- Suddenly, a close race in NC
- GOP tests anti-Obama strategy
- Wright controversy affects polls
- Indiana polls show Clinton lead
- Hillary's radical past
- Anti-Clinton 'Kantor video' a fake
- NY Gov. Paterson feared exposure by police
- 70 percent in US think things are bad
- Michael Strahan and Nicole Murphy
- Rev. Wright diagnosed with Jealous Negro Syndrome (35 comments)
- An obituary for the Clinton campaign (32 comments)
- Are the media overplaying the Wright story? (30 comments)
- Obama says he's "outraged" by Jeremiah Wright (28 comments)
- Maya Angelou stars in Hillary Clinton ad (25 comments)
-
Joe Thomas commented on How Nader Has Made Himself Irrelevant:
I think your comments are ridiculous and stupid Lenora Fulani. When he said no to you in 2000 you w... -
LIK ROPER commented on How Nader Has Made Himself Irrelevant:
CORRECTION: katherine harris and the floridian vast right wing republican conspiracy is what stole t... -
SEb commented on How Nader Has Made Himself Irrelevant:
Ralph, More power to your ideas. Maybe Michael Bloomberg will help you out. Keep working to end this... -
George T commented on How Nader Has Made Himself Irrelevant:
Dear Dr. Fulani, It's interesting to read your thoughts on relevance of Ralph Nader's 2008 preside... -
George T commented on How Nader Has Made Himself Irrelevant:
Dear Dr. Fulani, It's interesting to read your thoughts on relevance of Ralph Nader's 2008 preside...
March 6, 2008 6:32 PM
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.
March 6, 2008 7:11 PM
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.
March 6, 2008 7:44 PM
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.
March 7, 2008 3:00 PM
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.
March 7, 2008 5:34 PM
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
March 7, 2008 5:35 PM
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
March 9, 2008 12:17 AM
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! ....
March 10, 2008 11:48 AM
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
April 4, 2008 5:15 PM
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?