Comment on a comment

Received a comment on yesterday's Nader post that appeared to facetiously suggest that I was suggesting that Nader shouldn't run because I thought only more conservative candidates should be allowed.

No, that's not it.

There are two basic reasons I don't think Nader should run. One is a distinct and pronounced disdain for vainglorious fools ... but hey, that's just me.

More important, to the extent that he (or any other third party candidate) is successful, he will only hurt the chances of the major party nearest him and help the one farther away. That part's obvious, but Naderites excuse it by saying that they'll "teach" the party nearest them to move in their direction, i.e., the Democrats will move left.

Wrong.

In the face of a third party threat, the major party ideologically nearest the third party will move away from it, not towards it. Consider the math. If the Democrats were to move left in order to placate Nader, they would lose more swing voters clustered around the center than they would ever gain from Nader's fringe. Nader's only effect would be to shift American politics away from his position.

Some victory, huh?

If the Naderites really wanted to change the complexion of American politics, they'd take a page from the neocons' book, and work inside the party to move it to the left, just as Gingrich and the movement conservatives bored into the Republican Party, took it over, and sent it lurching off to the right.

Face it, Nader is either a egotistical fool of monumental proportions, or a stalking horse for the far right.

Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks 25 February 2008