BallotVox

He’s Baa-aaaack

So Nader’s running again.

Johnny Camacho, a teenaged Virginia Democrat, defends Nader’s bid against the tidal wave of Democratic vitriol that followed yesterday’s announcement. He argues that Nader didn’t cost Al Gore any votes in 2000 and believes Nader may actually have handed the Democrats extra votes that year. As to 2008, Camacho says:

I suppose that I’m just too much of a populist to believe that any candidate for any office who raises legitimate issues and makes fair points is anything but an asset to a democratic nation at the end of the day. Therefore, it should come as no surprise to anyone that I also don’t believe that a vote for such a candidate (regardless of their chances of winning) is a wasted one, as long as whomever is casting that vote does so on the grounds that they genuinely believe they are voting for the best candidate.

Camacho goes on to say that he feels independents have an important role in the two-party dynamic:

That role, of course, is changing the direction of the overall discussion; pressing major party candidates to talk about controversial “third rail” issues, and presenting ideas, some of which might create so much excitement and support that the two major parties have no choice but to react to them, either by adopting the idea as their own or taking a firm stance in opposition to it.

Brandon Whitney, a DC blogger, agrees on the importance of independents, but he feels Nader isn’t using his third-party assets in the right way:

We probably do need a third party in our country. It would give people a real choice between the two that dominate our politics. However, a true third party will not be born during a presidential election. Rather, it will be the result of grassroots movements that spreads from state to state. It is almost impossible for a third party candidate to win the presidency, but third party governors, members of congress, as well as other state and city officials have been elected as independents. These are less glorious victories, but they have the potential to build the type of momentum to build a vibrant third party alternative for the American people.

If Nader were serious about generating a third party alternative in the United States to break up the duopoly of the Democratic and Republican parties, he would do more than run every four years for the office of president. He would aggressively work to elect school board members, mayors, governors, secretaries of state, and many other officials that do not have the same prestige of the presidency.

Whitney would like to see progressives forgo “symbolic action” in favor of “concrete results.” Could he be on to something here?