Pepper
05-03-2004, 12:10 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A59791-2004May1?language=printer
By Jackson Diehl
Sunday, May 2, 2004; Page B07
When Ralph Nader announced his independent candidacy for president in February, he claimed his chief target would be "the giant corporation in the White House . . . George W. Bush." Two months later, a more plausible agenda is beginning to emerge. The adversary is not Bush but John F. Kerry; the main subject is not corporate greed but Iraq. And, contrary to the conventional wisdom of win- ter, Nader may be poised for a hot summer.
In February it looked as if Iraq might not be a central issue in the fall campaign. U.S casualties hit a postwar low that month, Iraqis signed a transitional constitution, and Bush and Kerry seemed to agree on the goal of establishing a democracy. Nader, according even to old friends, seemed to have no reason for his campaign other than vanity.
By two weeks ago, when Nader met Washington political reporters at a breakfast, all that had changed. Twice as many American soldiers had died during the previous week in Iraq as during the entire month of February. Support for the war was dropping quickly in polls, but Kerry and Bush still mostly agreed on staying the course. And Nader had prepared a new pitch: The United States should pull all of its troops, civilian contractors and companies out of Iraq within six months.
Why should voters choose Nader? Because Kerry, Nader told the reporters, "is stuck in the Iraq quagmire the same way Bush is." That leaves the independent as the sole choice for "the peace movement in this country."
Polls show the potential constituency for that movement is growing rapidly. A New York Times/CBS poll last week found that 46 percent of Americans now believe the United States should withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible -- a number equal to those who agree with Kerry and Bush on sticking it out. The percentage who believed the United States should have stayed out of Iraq had risen by 50 percent since December.
Nader's numbers, too, are rising. A Washington Post/ABC News poll showed him at 3 percent in early March, about equal to the 2.8 percent he polled in 2000. Five weeks later he was at 6 percent in the same poll and 5 percent in the New York Times and CNN polls. According to those polls, almost all his support has been drawn from Kerry.
Democrats have been hoping that Nader, like Ross Perot, will fade in a second campaign or fail to get on the ballot in many states.
But there is no sign that's happening. The campaign recently announced that it had raised $600,000 in its first two months, triple the amount Nader had at this time four years ago and enough to organize around the country. A spokesman told the Associated Press: "We're starting to establish ourselves as the only clear antiwar campaign."
Nader's Iraq platform is unashamedly that of a candidate who knows he will never be called upon to implement his words. He imagines U.S. troops being replaced with a U.N.-led "international peacekeeping force from neutral nations . . . and from Islamic countries," ignoring the fact that the U.N. leadership is as unwilling to conduct such an operation as Islamic and neutral countries (Turkey? Sweden?) would be to man it.
As Nader sees it, while those imaginary troops magically restored order in Fallujah and Najaf, "free and fair elections" would be held. But how would Iraqis agree on a governmental and constitutional framework? Nader admits this will be difficult but says Iraq "should be able to sort out these issues more easily" without the United States. Americans should provide humanitarian aid and help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, he adds -- but only if no U.S. company is allowed to profit from such work.
To the extent this policy could be implemented at all, it's pretty clear where it would lead -- to "a disaster and a disgraceful betrayal of principle," to borrow the words of John Kerry. In a speech last December, Kerry stated the obvious: An early and expedient U.S. withdrawal "could risk the hijacking of Iraq by terrorist groups and former Baathists."
But will Kerry stick to this view if Nader continues to gain ground? Challenged by a pull-out-now heckler a couple of weeks ago, Kerry stiffly replied that "it would be unwise beyond belief for the United States of America to leave a failed Iraq in its wake." But he also seemed to change his conditions for departure. "Stability," not democracy, he said, was the "measure" for "getting our troops out."
Kerry's aides say he's still committed to keeping American troops in Iraq until democratic elections are held. If that's his position in November, Nader will indeed offer antiwar Americans a real choice. They may well vote for him, registering their protest in large enough numbers to reelect the president who led the country into Iraq in the first place.
By Jackson Diehl
Sunday, May 2, 2004; Page B07
When Ralph Nader announced his independent candidacy for president in February, he claimed his chief target would be "the giant corporation in the White House . . . George W. Bush." Two months later, a more plausible agenda is beginning to emerge. The adversary is not Bush but John F. Kerry; the main subject is not corporate greed but Iraq. And, contrary to the conventional wisdom of win- ter, Nader may be poised for a hot summer.
In February it looked as if Iraq might not be a central issue in the fall campaign. U.S casualties hit a postwar low that month, Iraqis signed a transitional constitution, and Bush and Kerry seemed to agree on the goal of establishing a democracy. Nader, according even to old friends, seemed to have no reason for his campaign other than vanity.
By two weeks ago, when Nader met Washington political reporters at a breakfast, all that had changed. Twice as many American soldiers had died during the previous week in Iraq as during the entire month of February. Support for the war was dropping quickly in polls, but Kerry and Bush still mostly agreed on staying the course. And Nader had prepared a new pitch: The United States should pull all of its troops, civilian contractors and companies out of Iraq within six months.
Why should voters choose Nader? Because Kerry, Nader told the reporters, "is stuck in the Iraq quagmire the same way Bush is." That leaves the independent as the sole choice for "the peace movement in this country."
Polls show the potential constituency for that movement is growing rapidly. A New York Times/CBS poll last week found that 46 percent of Americans now believe the United States should withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible -- a number equal to those who agree with Kerry and Bush on sticking it out. The percentage who believed the United States should have stayed out of Iraq had risen by 50 percent since December.
Nader's numbers, too, are rising. A Washington Post/ABC News poll showed him at 3 percent in early March, about equal to the 2.8 percent he polled in 2000. Five weeks later he was at 6 percent in the same poll and 5 percent in the New York Times and CNN polls. According to those polls, almost all his support has been drawn from Kerry.
Democrats have been hoping that Nader, like Ross Perot, will fade in a second campaign or fail to get on the ballot in many states.
But there is no sign that's happening. The campaign recently announced that it had raised $600,000 in its first two months, triple the amount Nader had at this time four years ago and enough to organize around the country. A spokesman told the Associated Press: "We're starting to establish ourselves as the only clear antiwar campaign."
Nader's Iraq platform is unashamedly that of a candidate who knows he will never be called upon to implement his words. He imagines U.S. troops being replaced with a U.N.-led "international peacekeeping force from neutral nations . . . and from Islamic countries," ignoring the fact that the U.N. leadership is as unwilling to conduct such an operation as Islamic and neutral countries (Turkey? Sweden?) would be to man it.
As Nader sees it, while those imaginary troops magically restored order in Fallujah and Najaf, "free and fair elections" would be held. But how would Iraqis agree on a governmental and constitutional framework? Nader admits this will be difficult but says Iraq "should be able to sort out these issues more easily" without the United States. Americans should provide humanitarian aid and help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, he adds -- but only if no U.S. company is allowed to profit from such work.
To the extent this policy could be implemented at all, it's pretty clear where it would lead -- to "a disaster and a disgraceful betrayal of principle," to borrow the words of John Kerry. In a speech last December, Kerry stated the obvious: An early and expedient U.S. withdrawal "could risk the hijacking of Iraq by terrorist groups and former Baathists."
But will Kerry stick to this view if Nader continues to gain ground? Challenged by a pull-out-now heckler a couple of weeks ago, Kerry stiffly replied that "it would be unwise beyond belief for the United States of America to leave a failed Iraq in its wake." But he also seemed to change his conditions for departure. "Stability," not democracy, he said, was the "measure" for "getting our troops out."
Kerry's aides say he's still committed to keeping American troops in Iraq until democratic elections are held. If that's his position in November, Nader will indeed offer antiwar Americans a real choice. They may well vote for him, registering their protest in large enough numbers to reelect the president who led the country into Iraq in the first place.