Prominent Lebanese Emigrants | Ralph Nader, US activist, presidential candidate

nader_ralph.gif (14374 bytes) Ralph Nader (born February 27, 1934) is an activist who targets large American corporations on environmental and consumer rights issues. He was the U.S. presidential candidate of the Green Party in 1996 and 2000. In both runs Winona LaDuke was his vice-presidential running mate.

He is an independent candidate in the 2004 U.S. presidential election. He also received the Reform Party endorsement. His running mate is Peter Camejo. The Green Party, however, has nominated David Cobb.

Early career

Ralph Nader was born in Winsted, Connecticut to Lebanese immigrant parents, Nathra and Rose Nader. He graduated from Princeton in 1955 and Harvard Law School in 1958. In 1963, then 29, Nader hitchhiked to Washington, DC and got a job working for then Assistant Secretary of Labor Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He did freelance writing for The Nation and the Christian Science Monitor and advised a Senate subcommittee on automobile safety.

Clash with the automobile industry

In 1965 he released Unsafe at Any Speed, a study claiming many American automobiles, especially those of General Motors, to be structurally flawed. GM tried to discredit Nader, hiring private detectives to investigate his past and attempt to trap him in a compromising situation, but the effort failed. Upon learning of this harassment, Nader then successfully sued the company for invasion of privacy, forced it to publicly apologize, and used the winnings to expand his consumer rights efforts.

Activist movement

Hundreds of young activists, inspired by Nader's work, came to DC to help him with other projects. They came to be known as "Nader's Raiders" and, led by Nader, they investigated corruption throughout government, publishing dozens of books with their results:

Nader's Raiders (Federal Trade Commission)
Vanishing Air (National Air Pollution Control Administration)
The Chemical Feast (Food and Drug Administration)
The Interstate Commerce Omission (Interstate Commerce Commission)
Old Age (nursing homes)
The Water Lords (water pollution)
Who Runs Congress? (congress)
Whistle Blowing (punishment of whistle blowers)
The Big Boys (corporate executives)
Collision Course (Federal Aviation Administration)
No Contest (corporate lawyers)

In 1971, Nader founded the NGO Public Citizen as an umbrella organization for these projects. Today, Public Citizen has over 150,000 members and numerous researchers investigating Congress, health, environmental, economic, and other issues. Their work is credited with helping to pass the Safe Drinking Water Act and Freedom of Information Act and prompting the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Consumer Product Safety Administration. Their various divisions include:

Buyers Up
Citizen Action Group
Congress Watch
Critical Mass Energy Project
Global Trade Watch
Health Research Group
Litigation Group
Tax Reform Research Group
The Visitor's Center

Non-profit organizations

In 1980 Nader resigned as director of Public Citizen to work on other projects, especially campaigning against the believed dangers of large multinational corporations. He went on to start a variety of non-profit organizations:

Capitol Hill News Service
Corporate Accountability Research Project
Disability Rights Center
Equal Justice Foundation
Georgia Legal Watch
National Citizens' Coalition for Nursing Home Reform
National Coalition for Universities in the Public Interest
PROD (truck safety)
Retired Professionals Action Group
The Shafeek Nader Trust for the Community Interest
Congress Accountability Project
Citizen Advocacy Center
Pension Rights Center
Foundation for Taxpayers and Consumer Rights
Center for Auto Safety
1955: Princeton Project 55
1969: Center for the Study of Responsive Law
1970s: Public Interest Research Groups
1970: Connecticut Citizen Action Group
1971: Center for Science in the Public Interest
1971: Aviation Consumer Action Project
1972: Clean Water Action Project
1972: Center for Women's Policy Studies
1980: Multinational Monitor (magazine covering multinational corporations)
1982: Trial Lawyers for Public Justice
1982: Essential Information (encourage citizen activism and do investigative journalism)
1983: Telecommunications Research and Action Center
1993: Appleseed Foundation (local change)
1994: Resource Consumption Alliance (conserve trees)
1995: Center for Insurance Research
1995: Consumer Project on Technology
1997?: Government Purchasing Project (encourage the government to purchase safe and healthy products)
1998: Center for Justice and Democracy
1998: Organization for Competitive Markets
1998: American Antitrust Institute (ensure fair competition)
1999?: Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest
1999?: Commercial Alert (protect family, community, and democracy from corporations)
2000: Congressional Accountability Project (fight corruption in Congress)
2001?: League of Fans (sports industry watchdog)
2001: Citizen Works (promote NGO cooperation, build grassroots support, and start new groups)
2001: Democracy Rising (hold rallies to educate and empower citizens)

Presidential aspirations

1990

Nader considered launching a third party around issues of citizen empowerment and consumer rights. He stated that the Democratic Party had become "so bankrupt, it doesn't matter if it wins any elections." He suggested a serious third party could address needs such as campaign-finance reform, worker and whistle-blower rights, government-sanctioned watchdog groups to oversee banks and insurance agencies, and class-action lawsuit reforms.

1996

Nader ran for President on the Green Party ticket in the U.S. presidential election, 1996. He qualified for ballot status in relatively few states, garnering less than 1% of the vote, though the effort did make significant organizational gains for the party. He refused to raise or spend more than $5,000 on his campaign.

2000

He ran again in 2000. This time he received almost 3% of the popular vote, missing the 5% needed to qualify the Green Party for federal matching funds in the next election.

The exclusion of Nader and conservative Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan from events staged by the bi-partisan controlled Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) contributed to the marginalization of both candidates and helped minimize their support on election day. This issue led to an effort to build an independent Citizens' Debate Commission.

Nader campaigned against the pervasiveness of corporate power, and spoke on the need for campaign finance reform, environmental justice, universal healthcare, affordable housing, free education through college, workers' rights, legalization of commercial hemp, and a shift in taxes to place the burden more heavily on corporations than on the middle and lower classes. He opposed pollution credits that make it more profitable to pollute than conserve, and giveaways of publicly-owned assets.

The extremely close race between the two major presidential candidates, Gore and Bush, helped to create some additional controversy around the Nader campaign. Before the election, a number of those who supported Gore claimed that since Nader had no realistic chance of winning, those who supported the Nader platform should nevertheless vote for Gore, the theory being that a victory for Gore was preferable to a victory for a more conservative candidate, even if an individual voter might, in a perfect world, prefer Nader. Late in the campaign, the Gore campaign actually dispatched prominent liberal celebrities to present this argument to Nader voters in swing states. Nader, and many of his supporters, however, claimed that while Gore was preferable to Bush, the differences between the two were not great enough to merit support of Gore.

When challenged with complaints that he was taking away votes from Al Gore, Nader argued at times that he was trying to save the Democratic Party, and at other times, that he wanted to destroy it. When Nader argued that he was trying to hold the Democrats' "feet to the fire," he was suggesting that he only wished the Democrats were more progressive. However, at other moments Nader said he wanted the Democrats to go the way of the Whigs, and that he would support Green candidates who ran against the most progressive Democrats, such as Paul Wellstone and Russell Feingold.

As it turned out, the number of Nader votes were more than the margin of Bush over Gore in Florida and New Hampshire, meaning that Gore would have won the election if even a small fraction (as little as 1%) of Nader's supporters in Florida had instead voted for Gore. Nader supporters claimed that many of them would not vote at all if Nader wasn't on the ballot. Regardless, many analysts believed that Nader supporters would more likely choose Gore over Bush. (Nader has stated on his website: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all." Most political analysts and experts believe that Nader's presence caused Bush to win the election. For their part, Nader supporters countered that the Democrats could handily have won the election with a better and more competent candidate than Gore, who made a series of blunders in his debates against George W. Bush. And, of course, the U.S. presidential election, 2000 was hounded by the Florida situation.

Some voters had attempted to minimize this problem by engaging in Nader trading, in which Nader-inclined voters in swing states agreed to vote for Gore in exchange for Gore-inclined voters in safe Bush states to vote for Nader. Even though Nader trading had the potential to win Al Gore the election AND earn the Green Party its 5% and matching funds, Nader himself rejected the idea. He and his campaign explained that they were running in every state.

The "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush!" phenomenon is the so-called spoiler effect where candidates split the vote, and it is common to most third-party or independent candidacies, whenever such candidates draw most of their support from constituencies who would otherwise support one or the other candidate. The problem is endemic to the First Past the Post electoral system; according to Duverger's Law, such a voting method naturally results in a two-party system. Some, such as Democrat Dennis Kucinich, advocate approval voting or instant runoff voting to address the spoiler-effect. Nader has made strong statements in favor of election reforms and it is listed in the number two position on Nader's list of 2004 campaign issues (below health reform).

But since, in the long run, both the Democratic and Republican parties appear to be net beneficiaries of this state of affairs, many commentators conclude that electoral reform addressing the matter is improbable - unless of course one party consistently loses because of it. Many Greens hope to force the reforms by causing Democrats to lose until the situation becomes intolerable. Nader has not stated such a goal publicly, nor is he a member of the Party. Other progressives believe strongly that this strategy is doomed, and that candidates sharing Nader's views should run in Democratic primaries.

2004

Nader announced on December 24, 2003 that he would not run for president in 2004 on the Green Party ticket; however, he did not rule out running as an independent. On February 22, 2004, Nader announced on NBC's Meet the Press that he would indeed run for president as an independent, saying, "There's too much power and wealth in too few hands." Because of the controversies over vote-splitting in 2000, many Democrats have urged Nader to abandon his candidacy. The Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Terry McAuliffe argued that Nader had a "distinguished career, fighting for working families" and McAuliffe "would hate to see part of his legacy being that he got us eight years of George Bush."

On April 5, 2004, Nader failed in an attempt to get on the Oregon ballot. Oregon has perhaps the country's most liberal election laws for qualifying candidates, requiring the support of 1000 registered voters convened at a nominating event. He is now trying to get a petition signed by 15,000 voters in a three-month period. Only 741 showed up to a petition signing event, a tenth of the support he had gotten only a couple of years earlier. This was unexpected, since Nader had received 5% of the vote in the 2000 election. Nader blamed the low turnout on the rally's poor timing; it was scheduled opposite the NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship game. He vowed to gather the necessary signatures in a petition drive.

On May 19, 2004, Nader met with John Kerry in Washington D.C for a private session, concerning Nader's factor in the 2004 election. Nader seems to prefer Kerry, but refuses to withdraw from the race, citing specifically the importance of the removal of troops from Iraq. The meeting itself ended in disagreement. On the same day, two Democratic leaning groups, the National Progress Fund and the Democracy Action Team, were formed. They both seek to reduce the effect of Nader upon Democratic voters that might be persuaded to vote for him. The following day The Democracy Action Team's Stop Nader campaign announced they would air TVcommercials in key battle ground states.

On June 21, 2004, in a move designed to court Green Party voters, Nader announced that Peter Miguel Camejo would be his vice presidential running mate, and shortly thereafter announce that he would accept (although he was not actively seeking) the endorsement of the Greens as their presidential candidate. The following week, at the Green Party's national convention, however, Nader was rejected as a potential candidate in favor of David Cobb, an attorney and Green Party activist. Nader's failure to take the Green Party's nomination meant that he could not take advantage of the Green Party's ballot access in 22 states, and that he would have to achieve ballot access there independently.

Guardian Profile: Ralph Nader
By Julian Borger in Washington, Friday October 22, 2004

Former Nader's raiders are determined to stop the man they believe lost the 2000 election for the Democrats doing so once again. He says that if the US constitution means anything, it is his right to put his name on the ballot paper

Four years on, the US presidential election is again a dead heat betweense a radical conservative and a mainstream liberal. And once more, Ralph Nader's oddball candidacy threatens to tip the delicate balance to the right. This time the consumer activist is a much reduced force. The overwhelming majority of his closest aides and supporters have defected, including Michael Moore. The film-maker went down on his knees on cable television to beg Mr Nader to withdraw. Even his former running mate, Winona LaDuke, has come out for John Kerry.

Four years ago, Mr Nader was the Green party candidate, backed by its modest but enthusiastic machine.

This time, he is on his own. All he has is patchy backing, in some states, of the Reform party, a conservative, libertarian group a long, long way from his progressive roots.

Mr Nader took 2.7% in 2000. In recent weeks, his rating has been closer to 1%. But that support is up to 4%, in some of the swing states. In any case, 1% can easily be the difference between victory and defeat for President George Bush and Senator Kerry.

In 2000 Mr Nader took almost 100,000 votes in Florida. Al Gore lost (after supreme court intervention) by 537 votes. That is why the Democratic party, abetted by many former "Nader's Raiders", shock troops of the civic activism Mr Nader pioneered, have spent six months desperately trying to keep him off the ballot papers.

Like all civil wars, it has been nasty. "It's beyond bitter," said Toby Moffett, formerly one of Mr Nader's oldest friends and now leader of the legal campaign to stop him. "He likes to say whoever used to be in his movement and is now against him is corrupt and a sellout. We think he has totally lost his bearings."

Advertiser links Internaxx, International Investing Internaxx offshore broker. Real-time access to major stock...

internaxx.lu

Trade Your Own Foreign Currency Account Invest in the global foreign exchange markets with Gci. Try...

gcitrading.com

Artemis International Investment Service Artemis is a dedicated active investment house specialising...

artemisonline.co.uk The Nader campaign has been helped by rightwingers well aware of its potential to split the progressive vote. Naderites have also resorted to dubious means to obtain signatures on state petitions to get his name on the ballot. Homeless people were paid for every signature they collected; thousands were found to have been forged in the battleground states of Ohio and Pennsylvania, scrawled alongside names and addresses copied out of a phone directory.

Anti-Nader forces, meanwhile, have fought a legal war of attrition, bringing one case after another with the intention of driving him out of the race.

They have not succeeded. The 70-year-old is an independent in every sense. Political isolation only deepens his martyr's sense of righteousness. "I always thought that running for elective office is the consummate expression of the right to free speech, assembly, and petition under our first amendment. It shouldn't be that difficult in a democracy to get on the ballot," he told University of Minnesota students.

He has fought his way on to the ballot in nearly 40 states. But legal objections to the dodgy signatures in Ohio and Pennsylvania have kept him out of two of the tightest and biggest battlegrounds, and the legal struggle has drained his resources. The anti-Nader campaign, combined with Senator Kerry's powerful performance in the debates and outspoken opposition to the Iraq war, have helped erode Mr Nader's backing in the polls from 5% in the spring to the current 1% rump.

Anna Greenberg, a pollster with Democratic party ties, said the Nader vote was now very different from four years ago. Its profile now more closely resembles the voters who backed Ross Perot, a maverick conservative Texan who ran in 1992 and 1996.

"In 2000 you had younger collegeeducated males who were progressive and interested in environmentalist issues," she said. "This time it's more like the Perot vote in the 90s: economically populist, anti-corporate, blue collar. They are much more conservative than Nader 2000."

According to recent Gallup figures, when Nader supporters were asked who they would vote for if he were not on the ballot, 52 % opted for Mr Bush. Ms Greenberg disagrees. Her polling tells her Mr Nader still hurts Mr Kerry more than Mr Bush, although by a much smaller degree than a few months ago.

In swing states where Mr Nader has slightly more backing, Iowa, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Florida, most pollsters believe he still poses a greater threat to the Democrat. The Democrats certainly think so. More than 75 former Nader's Raiders published an open letter: "As the recipient of financial and political support from rightwing campaign donors, Ralph is party to a disingenuous effort to split the progressive vote in key states. With the major party candidates in a dead heat, Nader is poised to tip the election to Bush - again."

The ex-raiders will be using phones and chatrooms to convince likeminded Americans to switch their votes.

Yet Mr Nader soldiers on, yesterday kicking off a tour of a dozen states with a trip to Florida. His sheer determination is a testament to his single-mindedness. He has never married, and has few interests other than political reform.

It was bred in the bone. His father, Nathra, a Lebanese immigrant, ran a restaurant in Winsted, Connecticut, where his forthright political views were served up along with the food.

Around the dinner table, the young Ralph was called on to explain and defend his beliefs. "I spent countless nights around that table eating wonderful Arabic food, and talking to his father and mother," Mr Moffett, a fellow Lebanese-American recalls. "They were very principled people, very idealistic people, but they were also out there. They were not interested in marginal victories, only the absolute will do."

The young Ralph hated working in a small Connecticut law firm. Restless, he spent his summers hitchhiking across the country talking to truckers and travelling salesmen. What struck him was how dangerous their work was. Their vehicles were death-traps. Getting a job as a congressional aide in the early 1960s, he researched the car industry and in 1965, produced Unsafe at Any Speed, an indictment of modern cars, particularly the Chevrolet Corsair.

For years it was Ralph Nader against General Motors, who went so far as to hire private detectives to discredit him. They sent a prostitute to try to seduce him at a food counter at Safeway's but he turned her away. So the gumshoes tried to prove he was homosexual but were caught as they tried to follow him into Congress. The scandal made Mr Nader into a hero overnight. The car makers were forced to introduce seat belts, and ultimately air bags.

In the 1970s, Mr Nader toured the country again, this time urging students to set up public interest research groups for consumer and environmental reform. Ken Ward was a Massachusetts student in 1976. "He was talking to people afterwards, and there was a professor talking about this method of turning cow manure into methane, and using it for energy," Mr Ward said. "And we got into a car and drove out in the middle of nowhere to go look at cow manure, at 1.30 in the morning. Most college speakers and politicians don't do that." Mr Ward became a follower and has spent his career as a consumer activist. Like so many other Raiders, he has joined the stop-Ralph effort.

"In his own mind, he thinks the risk of four more years of George W Bush is worth it to him. But how does that work, if by every single indicator it's done nothing?"

Some critics put his perseverance down to sheer ego. But an egoist would be unnerved by the rising chorus of denigration. Mr Nader's certainty is so strong that defeat only reinforces it.

"We lose to win, eventually," he told the New York Times. "That's the story of social justice. You have to be willing to lose and fight, and lose and fight, and lose and fight. Until the agenda is won."

However, former supporters see only a stubborn old man running on pride.

"It's the whole St Ralph syndrome. He's pure, and we're all corrupt.

"He's just out there somewhere where it can't be reached," Mr Moffett said. "He's afraid something might be won in a marginal way. He's only for overwhelming victory."

Born
February 27 1934, in Winsted, Connecticut, to Lebanese immigrants, Nathra and Rose Nader

Education
Graduated from Princeton in 1955 and Harvard law school in 1958. In 1963 he hitchhiked to Washington and got a job working for then assistant secretary of labour Daniel Moynihan

· In 1965 he released a study claiming that American cars were structurally flawed. General Motors hired private detectives to try to discredit him, but Nader successfully sued for invasion of privacy and used the money to become a champion of consumer rights

· In 1971 he founded the Public Citizen non-profit organisation, credited with helping to pass the Safe Drinking Water Act and Freedom of Information Act

· He was the Greens' presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000. This year he is running as an independent

Contact Information: info@nader.org