George,

I don't think Ralph Nader will have much of an impact on the overall vote in November, provided he succeeds in getting on the ballot in a significant number of states. Even when he was "hot" back in 2000 he only managed to garner 2.7% of the national popular vote - that's pathetic when you compare it to the 19% that Ross Perot received as a third party candidate in 1992. In the 2004 Presidential race, Ralph Nader is old news. Now that he’s lost his new-candidate sheen, I’d be surprised if he shows up as anything more than a statistically insignificant blip in the polls.

After the Presidential election of 2000 and the world-changing events which have followed since, it is hard to imagine, even amongst the extreme lefties, anyone who could possibly take a Nader candidacy seriously. The only portion of the electorate that would probably vote for him would be his die-hard fans, and if the die-hard Naderites didn't vote for Nader, the vast majority of them probably wouldn't vote at all. He may even get a few former Deaniacs, but probably very few. What’s more, the majority of those who voted for him in 2000 in protest most likely won't support him this year, because unlike in 2000 when there were only frivolous issues such as how to manage the budget surplus on the table, this year there are more serious issues such as war, terrorism, homeland security, health care, jobs, and the economy that Americans are going to want answers to. Nader will have pitifully little to add to discussions on these topics. He has no new message in a world that's changed drastically since the last time he was a Presidential candidate. The only candidate with a brand new message this fall will be whoever the Democratic nominee turns out to be, and even Bush will have new things to brag about. In an election that will focus on practically nothing from his overused, monotonous, broken-record "consumer advocate" repertoire, Ralph Nader will seem ludicrously out of touch with the realities of the world in 2004, and consequently, he’ll most likely turn out to be the "Bore" in the 2004 election.

For those such as Nader who claim to detest lobbyists and special interests in politics, they need to take the trolley back from the magical Land of Make Believe™. It doesn't matter if you're a Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian or independent. If you hold public office somebody's going to come knocking on your door sooner or later asking for this and that, and if that person has money or influence, or has heavily financed your campaign, you're going to stop and have a listen. I’m not happy about special interests influencing our political candidates just as much as the next guy. But Ralph Nader is no different from any other political candidate. He has lobbyists licking his heels just as much as the next politician and he's a hypocrite if he claims he wouldn't cater to special interests, too. They may not be your conventional lobbyists, but they’re lobbyists just the same. He’s no “purist” in my mind. He's just another politician with a particularly over-inflated ego who'll say anything to get attention.

And for those who complain about not having enough of a choice in Presidential elections, there are events called primaries, which allow the “cream” on the left and the right float to the top. Sure, everyone isn't going to agree 100% with the Republican or Democratic candidate's policies, but as the Rolling Stones once sang, "You Can't Always Get What You Want". It's an immutable reality of life, folks. Republicans have been winning because they're able to compromise their varying viewpoints in order to accomplish objectives - be it passing legislation, nominating a candidate, et cætera, for the overall good of the party and to get things done. Republicans live by the motto, "United we stand, divided we fall." They know that too much infighting leads to failure. The lefties have been too unwilling to compromise amongst themselves in recent years, and that, Virginia, is why Democrats - and I dare say all lefties, including Nader himself – have been impotent and unable to “find their way out of a public restroom" to use a Naderism. Ralph Nader is part of the problem, not the solution.

And for those who detest the two-party "duopoly", Nader’s signature beef with American democracy, they should take a long, hard, look at what happened on April 21st, 2002 in the historic first round of the French Presidential election. French voters had the choice between 16 different Presidential candidates from 16 different parties. The majority of the candidates were from the left; however, since the left was so divided, Lionel Jospin, the center-left Socialist candidate whom everyone on the left assumed would go on to face incumbent center-right candidate Jacques Chirac was beaten by the extreme-right, xenophobic National Front candidate, Jean-Marie Le Pen. It was the center-right against the xenophobic extreme-right in the second round. Two years later, the French are still asking themselves how something like Le Pen could have happened. I don’t think I’d want to see that in a country like the United States. Frankly, I prefer our two-party "duopoly" because it filters out extremists like Jean-Marie Le Pen from national contests. Our political system isn't perfect in America, but considering the alternatives, it's one of the best ones out there.

Personalities such as Ralph Nader contribute arguments and create dialogues that serve to strengthen American democracy; yet I feel Mr. Nader’s ego - and not to mention severe lack of experience outside anything that doesn’t concern consumer affairs - would make him a severely narrow-minded and dare I say incompetent President.

Since 1996, Mr. Nader has whined incessantly, focusing on what’s wrong with America instead of providing concrete, realistic solutions to the problems he outlines. On his website, for example, he offers only vague, unrealistic solutions to “pressing” problems in America (http://www.votenader.com/issues/index.php) if you read through it carefully. There’s a lot of language like, “We need to invest in a diversified energy policy including renewable energy….” But the thing is, he doesn’t explain to you what that policy would include or how it could work. Who’s going to come up with those policies when you’re president, Ralph? Somebody else? I’d prefer to hear about the specifics of your programs before I vote for you. Given that windmills would have to be placed over every square inch of the continental U.S. to provide enough power for all of the people living just in the state of Virginia, I don’t think an energy policy based entirely on renewable sources of energy could be feasible for a long time. I’d like to end poverty, too, but you propose nothing new, Ralph. We’ve already got a more or less progressive tax system, so you really wouldn’t be changing anything. And over-regulating corporations is just going to make them flee to a more business-friendly country like Estonia (where there’s no corporate income tax) or China (where human rights are abominable) and take American jobs with them in the process. Bad idea, there, Ralph. I’d like to find solutions to the problems you mention, buddy, but anyone with half a brain and basic knowledge of economic principles knows that hell will freeze over before most of what you propose could ever work. I couldn't imagine you ever submitting a feasible budget to Congress - much less getting anything you propose passed by Congress.

Perhaps you could get a following of a few idealists who’ve lived in the Land of Make Believe™ all of their lives and have no common sense, but let’s face it, Americans would probably prefer to stop hearing you complain and listen to candidates who propose solutions that can actually work.

For America and the rest for the world, it is a very good thing that Ralph Nader will never be President of the United States.

Joseph Cheek (electronic mail, February 24, 2004)