Progressives ought not to let the mainstream corporate media control the terms of this presidential debate. Instead, I hope concerned citizens will pause and consider some historical points that have not heretofore been made on these pages concerning the importance of Ralph Nader’s entry into the presidential race.

First, the media focuses exclusively on the horse-race. Thoughtful readers and journalists should not succumb to that temptation. The entire underpinning of the argument against Nader running is that he will be a “spoiler” in a close race. The assumption that this will be a close race and therefore progressives better line up behind any Democratic is tenuous at best. Polls show that if the election were held today, Kerry would win handily. And history suggests this will not be a close race. Close Presidential races come along once or twice a century and it is unlikely that we will have two in a row based on historical patterns.

If the economy doesn’t start producing more jobs, Kerry will win in a landslide. If the economy recovers and Osama Bin Laden is captured, Bush will win in a landslide. Either of these scenarios is more likely than another photo finish like the 2000 election.

If one accepts that the race might not be close, then progressives might want to rethink their stance on the Nader candidacy and elevate their sense of their own importance in the political history of the country.

Second, progressives are missing the enormous energy – particularly generated by young people and political newcomers – that was poured into the Democratic primaries. The corporate-dominated Democratic party (predictably) did everything possible to snuff out the Dean led insurgency. The same corporate-dominated Party is now asking all progressives to come hat in hand, on their knees, to support the corporate-financed Kerry who simply regurgitated Dean’s message during the primaries but has already signaled his intention to run a middle-of-the-road race.

Progressives should not squander the energy mobilized in the Democratic primary. A Nader candidacy can resurrect this energy and direct it so that Kerry is held to account. Facing a progressive Nader campaign, Kerry will have to think long and hard about running the textbook centrist campaign that has not worked for any Democrat in the last fifty years, with the exception of Bill Clinton. Instead, he might actually have to run on progressive issues like keeping jobs in the United States, cracking down on corporate crime that is plundering retiree savings and opposing the war and unlimited defense spending. Kerry would run a more dynamic campaign and progressives would have a seat at the table rather than a muzzle in the backseat.

Progressives must not underestimate their own political importance in this country. It is progressives who led the fight against slavery, against child labor, against exploitation of women and for union rights. All these gains are being eroded by the complete corporate domination of both parties. The American people sense this and this explains the beginning of a populist surge that progressives – relegated to years of frustration – do not seem to grasp. A Nader candidacy will be an opportunity for progressives and others to reject the parties of Wall Street and build a Main Street movement.

Historically, dating back to Jefferson, one or another of the major parties has advocated for Main Street against Wall Street. That is, until the last thirty years. Without a third party challenge by Nader, corporations will continue to dominate and the two parties will continue to allow corporations to erode America’s standard of living and civic culture.

And historically is has been third parties who have challenged the two major parties to improve and adopt the platforms of the minor parties. If the following description – taken from the Populist Party platform of 1892 – doesn’t describe American politics today, nothing does:

Corruption dominates the ballot-box, the Legislatures, the Congress and touches even the ermine of the bench. The fruits of the toil of millions are boldly stolen to build up colossal fortunes for a few, unprecedented in the history of mankind; and the possessors of these, in turn, despise the Republic and endanger liberty.

Democrats stole the ideas of the Populist Party at the end of the nineteenth and early twentieth century, and the country is better off that they did. Democrats today are badly in need of the redefinition that Nader could give them (and which they flirted with and then abandoned in the primary.) Consider Adam Clymer’s New York Times article of April 26, 2003:

Al From and Bruce Reed of the Democratic Leadership Council, a centrist group that was once the showcase for so-called New Democrats and rising stars like Bill Clinton and Al Gore, recently wrote, ‘No party ever needed definition, or redefinition, more than the Democratic Party today.’… Robert S. Strauss, the former Democratic national chairman who says Democrats seem to win the White House only on Republican mistakes like Watergate or that of the elder Bush in ignoring the faltering economy, calls last fall's performance on issues disgraceful. "We didn't stand for anything," Mr. Strauss said. "We got what we deserved - nothing."

I would therefore urge progressives who have written recently on these pages to think more broadly about what a Nader candidacy can achieve. Nader’s candidacy is based on the urgent need to press for issues that progressives have championed for over a century in this country and that will never get a hearing in the increasingly negative and narrow-gauge campaign being run by Kerry and Bush.

Carl J. Mayer, an attorney, served on the Princeton Township Committee and is the author of the book “Shakedown.” He is the Treasurer of the 2004 Nader for President Campaign.

###