Why Is Ralph Nader Unpopular With American Liberals?

Question

Ralph Nader is closer to the "liberal" position on more issues than Barack Obama is.

Nader: Supports single payer health care, opposes the death penalty, supports trade protectionism, and so on.

The Clintons and the Obamas are right-wing in comparison, supporting the death penalty, Clinton signed NAFTA, opposing single payer health care, etc.

Answer 1

Do you really not know the answer to this?  I'll give you a numerical clue:  2000.

Answer 2

That's the whole thing. Ralph Nader is a crack-pot. His ideas are too far out even for the wildest imaginations. Your right about one thing though. He is closer to Obama than anyone else in the forefront.

Answer 3

He comes off as kind of a kook.

Not that he is, but he looks eccentric to the public, and the average person is a little leary of that. It doesn't engender trust.

Answer 4

Because he can't win. Liberals would rather have a candidate of the Democratic party that isn't fully liberal but can win than one who is very liberal and can't win.

Nader just takes votes from the Democratic candidate and sometimes even costs them the election like he did to Al Gore in 2000.

Answer 5

because that means more competition for the jacobins from the jacobin.

Answer 6

Nader is just not very likable.  

Answer 7

I love Ralph Nader for many reasons.  He is a great man.  However, his running for President has failed to bring any fundamental change to our electoral system that would make it easier for third or fourth party candidates to compete against the two entrenched political parties.  I would rather that he focus on that goal than spend his time running for President.  He could make another great and lasting contribution to America if he achieved a more open electoral system.

The problem is that 3rd party candidates do not stand a chance.  In recent history it was only billionaire Ross Perot that got any kind of traction as a third-party candidate.  The reasons that they cannot are: 1) there are huge barriers to getting on the ballots of the states that have been erected by the politicians of the Republican and Democratic parties, 2) the media is beholden to the two major parties and the media automatically marginalizes every third or fourth party candidate as fringe candidates and then proceeds to not cover them, 3) because of the lack of free coverage in the media for third party candidates, huge sums of money become necessary to buy advertising time and they simply do not have the ties to the power structure necessary to raise such sums 4) the rules for being able to attend the Presidential debates (polling at least 15% in national polls) again make getting any kind of coverage and exposure nearly impossible.

The only kind of third party candidate that would stand a chance right now would be a billionaire that can spend his/her own money.  Even then, the media would try to marginalize them.

Ralph should spend his time fighting the structure that makes candidates like himself unable to compete.  He is a brilliant man, maybe he could figure out a way to change the rules so that the game is no longer rigged.

Answer 8

I'm a democrat... and I don't like big business...

but I do think Nader is too extreme and would be bad for business... while I'm not big on how business is done now... we need a healthy economy...

I think he's a bit of a kook who's ideas are too extreme and would do more harm than good...

Answer 9

I don't think he is unpopular. He is very popular. It is just that most don't want him to be President.  

Answer 10

I like Ralph Nader, and I'm a traditional conservative (independent).  I don't like irresponsible corporate imperialism and con artists who call themselves "right" OR "left."

I wish Nader would provide a "consumer report" on the major parties, and those running for national office, right now!

edit:  there are a lot of corporate, global interests (many using idealistic ideology to further their profit) backing Democrats who have issues that Nader would take them to task on, so they are likely to diffuse propaganda against Nader, hoping that nobody will listen to him when he speaks.  Some of the biggest moneymakers on the Left have ensured that the word "Bush" elicits a knee-jerk reaction---so the mantra "Bush is Nader's fault" accomplishes these goals well.  Also totalitarian types are going to work hard to squash what Nader has to say.

edit:  here's an interesting article I just found.  I'm glad you asked this question!

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/20...

http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/ralph-n...

Answer 11

Nader is a kind of corporate terrorist.  He is so far the other direction it is uncomfortable, even for many devote liberals such as myself.  I like him, but I don't see him as electable.

I don't think NAFTA is a bad thing either.  Unlike many right now, I am certain that our economic problems are rooted much deeper than NAFTA.

To answer your add on, yes I almost always am not happy with the resulting 2 on the ballot.  I really was liking Gore in 2000, but we know how that turned out.

Answer 12

Many Democrats (I say Democrats, not liberals) felt he hurt Gore and Kerry's chances of winning in the last elections by running.

I personally don't feel that way though I have never supported Ralph Nader. He has the right to run, just like anyone else.

Answer 13

Nader did just good enough to hand Bush the election in 200, he is therefore as culpable as Bush for all that has happened since.

As far as I'm concerned Nader = Bush.

Answer 14

Because he is gumming up the gears that will allow the Socialists to take power.

Answer 15

I like Ralph Nader and i voted for him in 2000 and 2004 and 1996.  He's correct on all the issues, that's for sure.  However, my problem with Nader isn't that he is critical of the Democrats, its that he isn't critical of the Republicans as much as he is with the Democrats.  I agree that Obama is to the right of him, but I am a realist and I think Obama is a really good candidate who understands the reality of politics and getting things done in D.C.  Whereas Nader is a really good idealist and is like the number one thing you would want on your political Christmas list but know you will never get.

I don't feel sad about not voting for Nader because I won't get what I want in Obama.  I won't get what I want in the white house anyway even if I do vote for Nader.  At least with Obama he brings some progressive ideas with him even though it might not be the full package that one would get with Nader. I agree with Colleen, Nader needs to find a better way of dealing with this system's structure because what he is doing now, although he's making a good point, isn't working.  He's tried 4(?) times and has basically gotten the same percentage points each time.  I think he would be a great attorney general.  But I doubt any candidate in any party is that independent or brave to do such a thing.

Answer 16

'Cause he'll nick 12 of their votes.  

Answer 17

After reading the previous answers have to agree with Count Acumen the most. The main reason I think  there is lingering animosity towards Nader is that he is perceived and I feel correctly for costing the Democratic Party the elections in 2000 and 2004. Nader's entry in to both of those elections took votes away from Gore and Kerry and I feel lost them the election. In my opinion that does not make him responsible for the total catastrophe that has been the Bush years, but who knows what could have happened if he didn't run.