Comments on Nader from Jason Huber

April 30, 2004

JUST SAY NO TO NADER IN 2004

I am writing to recommend that the Mountain Party refrain from nominating Ralph Nader to 2004 ballot for the presidential election.

I, like many other people who have taken this position, have worked tremendously hard to achieve Mountain Party ballot status. I represented Denise Giardina in the litigation challenging the primary voter screen out and served as co-counsel in the case which ultimately placed Ralph Nader on the ballot for the 2002 election.

Most of us do this work because we recognize that the current system is, in actuality, a one party system solely representing the interests of corporate America. It is my firm belief that if a progressive institutional change in this country occurs, it will only occur as a result of grass-roots political organizing -- similar to that which created the Mountain Party.

However, this fact does not require third-party loyalists to blindly cast our ballot in favor of any progressive (even one as righteous as Ralph Nader) who courts our support. Rather, we must always consider the context in which the third-party challenge is being waged.

Currently West Virginia, the United States, and the world is faced with one of the most reactionary, dictatorial, classist, racist, sexist, homophobic and xenophobic presidential administrations in modern history. The Bush administration has repeatedly demonstrated contempt for the United States Constitution, defied the rule of law both domestically and internationally, engaged in an imperialist war to gain control of Middle Eastern oil assets, ignored the United Nations, and cultivated through failed foreign policies hatred in the hearts of Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims (not to mention Cubans, North Koreans, Spaniards, French etc).

It is against this backdrop that one must weigh the costs and benefits of supporting Nader. Admittedly, I initially supported the Nader nomination, however, after more thought and reflection (and being called an idiot by some of my closest friends), it is clear that a Nader nomination is a terribly misguided idea.

I have read the comments on the listserv and website and the only argument which has merit is the idea that a Nader campaign will nudge, however slightly, Kerry to the left. Assuming, for the purposes of this debate (which is a huge assumption), that nominating Nader to the ballot in a few states will have this effect the question becomes, "Does the benefit of a marginal, leftward shift in Kerry’s platform outweigh the risks?" I say NO.

The most obvious risk with horrendous consequences is that a Nader nomination will cost Kerry the presidential race. I do not subscribe to the notion that Nader cost Gore the election. Although Gore’s campaign was less than stellar, it was the United States Supreme Court which appointed Bush and the people who elected Gore. To this day, I still believe the 2002 Nader campaign was, from a third-party perspective, a success, but the fact is if Nader had not run Al Gore would be president.

This risk is most apparent in key states like West Virginia. In 2002, West Virginia, the state which elected Kennedy, voted for Bush. In 2004, West Virginians have a chance to play a significant role in ousting Bush. Considering this, we must take every precaution to assure that Kerry wins West Virginia even if it includes keeping Nader off the ballot. Do not mistake my remarks for that of a fan of Kerry, they merely represent the position of someone who genuinely fears four more years of the Bush regime.

It is for these reasons that I ask all those who support a Nader nomination to cast aside your third-party ideals for this one election (like I have done), bring many grains of salt to the ballot box, hold your nose and vote Kerry in 2004.

In Solidarity,

Jason Huber