The Nader Factor by Matias Bulnes, NYC

The heated race for the Democratic nomination between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has overshadowed Ralph Nader’s announcement that he will be a presidential candidate in this year’s election. The announcement has already been received with much criticism and scorn by Democrats who saw Nader’s candidacy as the main cause of Al Gore’s defeat in 2000. No doubt this rhetoric will intensify as we approach the election on November 4. But by all lights these accusations are absurd. In fact, under the same logic one might as well accuse Al Gore and George W. Bush of having obstructed Nader’s way to the White House in 2000. Nader supporters are no more accountable to Democrats for their vote than Democrats are to them. In a democracy abundance of candidates offers better chances of finer representation of ideas which in a country of the dimensions of the US is badly needed. Those who think otherwise should aim their darts at the Constitution and specifically at the multiparty system rather than at those who don’t want to settle for the least evil and lawfully seek to offer the same chance to their fellow citizens.

But granting that Nader’s candidacy is perfectly legitimate and even desirable the question remains whether it’s reasonable for Nader supporters to vote for the Democratic candidate, be it Obama or Clinton.

Before trying to sketch an anlysis, two preliminary points are in place. First, oftentimes voters are less than fully identified with one ideology or candidate which may limit the scope of this question. However, this shall not harm our inquiry since my main concern is whether somebody should vote for the Democratic candidate given that he or she already identifies with Nader’s views and hence has a well-defined political ideology. Secondly, as so usually happens in political analysis we will have to fall back on the general Consequentialist framework. By this I mean the old strategy of assessing political questions by weighing the likely consequences of making different decisions of action. In this situation the strategy seems especially appropriate for non-ideological voters almost invariably offer Consequentialist justifications for their vote. Moreover, it is hard to see what else could justify them in betraying their own battle flag.

In general, the most obvious consequence of voting for a candidate is increasing his or her chances of winning the election. Thus when voting for the candidate that represents my ideology I’m at the same time increasing the chances that the policies I deem correct will be implemented. However, if my candidate’s chances of winning the election are low enough and there is another candidate sufficiently close to my ideology whose victory my vote can decide, it may be reasonable for me to support him or her. For in that case I may be sacrificing precision in the kind of society I want in favor of likelihood of getting something “similar” to that implemented.

This tradeoff can be emphasized if a candidate whom I deem intolerable has good chances of winning. This was arguably the case of the 2002 election in France when the extreme right-winger Le Pen unexpectedly came second and forced a second round against the more moderate Chirac, turning a good deal of left-wingers to the latter. On the other hand, the tradeoff is less appealing the closer the two frontrunners are perceived by the minority voter. Unless I perceive my vote as making a significant difference to the view of society that will be implemented one way or another, it remains reasonable for me to vote for my ideological candidate no matter how low his or her chances of winning.

This is important weakness in the argument against Nader. For it is unclear from the point of view of Nader supporters that Democrats and Republicans differ significantly in their proposals. In point of domestic policy the differences are far from overwhelming—as many have observed. A better case could probably be made with regard to foreign policy. For even though the differences in this area are not overwhelming either, it is important to bear in mind that unlike less powerful countries, small variations in US foreign policy can make a huge moral difference to world peace and the suffering of the peoples of countries such as Iraq.

But either way, this analysis is too simplistic. For it relies on the assumption that increasing the chance of one’s candidate to win the election is the only positive consequence of voting for him or her. In fact, this is a very short-term view of voters which does not fully capture our normal political concerns. In addition, voters seek to build political structures that will serve as ground for future political scenarios. This is clearly an important part of Nader’s endeavor. For Nader knows better than anybody that he has no chance of winning the election but even so he thinks it good for the US to develop an alternative to the two-party system. By giving their vote to Nader, citizens see themselves as contributing to breaking out of the Democrat/Republican dualism and furthering the chances of having a competitive third alternative in the future. As a result, now it is less attractive to give my vote to the Democratic nominee because by doing so I also forfeit the chance of building political structures that will change future political scenarios in ways furthering of my ideology.

Finally, we have been assuming the system of candidates and voters to be more static than it really is. Candidates and voters do not define their political positions in isolation and then proceed to revise who best matches one another. Another consequence that candidates and voters pursue is to influence other candidates in their political stances. Again, no doubt this is another important goal of Nader’s campaign. By resolutely supporting Nader one is also letting Democratic candidates know that they will have to be more sensitive to one’s ideology if they want to earn one’s vote. Hadn’t Nader been a candidate we would have probably seen the Democratic nominee hovering closer to Republican ideas than we’ll get to see him or her now. And this is not something Nader supporters should regret.

Having said this, I have to acknowledge a couple of particularities about this ongoing presidential election that play in favor of the Democratic nominee. First, unlike previous elections the Democratic nominee is going to belong to a minority group in the US. Should he or she be elected president, this will doubtlessly be a significant historical vindication quite aside from his or her actual performance in office. Secondly, we are facing a very important environmental danger which does make for a significant difference between Democrats and Republicans. Given the environmental risk for humanity as whole it may prove imperative that we elect anyone, whomever he or she is, who can get the US on board with the international community in facing up to this danger. Considering how irresponsible Republicans have been on this issue, this might be a powerful reason to support the Democratic nominee.

I doubt that what I have said here will give anyone identified with Nader a decisive reason to either stick to him or vote for the Democratic candidate. But this was not my intention from the outset. On the contrary, I’ve just hoped to offer some clarification on the kind of considerations that seem relevant at the moment of making a decision of this kind. However, I do hope to have shown that it is not obviously unreasonable or immoral to support Nader pace some Democrats. I find it perfectly understandable and even laudable that someone decides to support Nader out of identification with his political views. I myself find him an incredibly interesting political figure and have no doubt in my mind that he has been an enormous contribution to US politics.