Nader shouldn't run

FOR FOUR DECADES Ralph Nader has been a political icon, a consistent, unimpeachable advocate for consumers and the environment, a selfless crusader whose popularity crossed traditional political lines. His political star dimmed a bit four years ago, when his Green Party presidential bid alienated a lot of Democrats, but he was, and is still, a progressive star, someone who can consistently fill an auditorium with cheering activists anywhere in the country.

And for good reason: On the issues, Nader is, and almost always has been, on the right side. He still identifies and exposes the abuses of big corporate America on a regular basis. He almost defines the term "progressive populist."

But Nader's latest venture into presidential politics threatens to damage his reputation – and hurt the progressive movement he has devoted his life to. Nader has announced he will not be holding the Green Party standard in 2004 – and instead is talking about mounting an independent bid for the White House. It's a strategy that has almost no visible upside and plenty of potential for dividing Nader's constituents and damaging any credible effort to oust George W. Bush from power.

We don't place the blame for Bush's 2000 election win on Nader or the Green Party. The truth is, Al Gore lost that race. He lost it with a bad campaign, bad political positions, and a profound failure to excite and mobilize the electorate. In fact, we were so disappointed with Gore that we endorsed Nader for president.

But the situation in 2000 was different than it is today. The incumbent president is not only pushing a horrifying domestic agenda, he's also pursuing a strategy of preemptive warfare abroad that's as bad as anything we've seen since the Vietnam era. He must be defeated.

The Greens are talking about mounting another presidential campaign, with the goal of building the party. That's not how we think the Greens can do the most good: the party ought to focus first on local races (like the Matt Gonzalez mayoral campaign in San Francisco) and on selective challenges in state legislative and congressional races (like the pending Green Party effort to take on Rep. Tom Lantos). But at least the party-building strategy has some political rationale.

Nader's solo campaign has none. As an independent with no party base and few resources, he won't be involved in any major, visible debates. He'll in effect be running against the Greens, which will only anger his onetime base. If he gets any significant number of votes, it will come at the expense of both the Greens and the Democratic nominee – and voting for a hopeless campaign with no party base will be a waste.

For the sake of all the causes he supports – and his own political future and legacy – Nader ought to abandon this independent campaign.