As one of the more successful third-party presidential candidates in recent U.S. history, I know firsthand the obstacles Sanders might have faced if he had run as an independent. The reality is that Sanders is right, and the backlash against him reflects all too well what two-party tyranny can do to a more-than-nominal third-party challenger. This is especially true of candidates like Sanders, who — despite advancing political views similar to the classic Democratic New Deal platform — now sits well to the left of the party’s corporatist, hawkish establishment.
Amazing that Nader can write this without mentioning his spoiler role in Florida in Bush v. Gore. (Send the hate mail my way….thanks!).
Update: A reader writes:
It is indeed breathtaking – but not at all surprising – to read Nader’s comments today.
As the New York Times editorial board noted in 2000, Nader is a “political narcissist” whose ego has “run amuck.”
Nader’s 2000 assertion that the two candidates were “twiddle-dum-twiddle-dee” has of course been refuted by Al Gore’s (a) opposition to the Iraq war, (b) his opposition to the Bush tax cuts, and (c) his choices for the Supreme Court.
Had Nader worked as hard to defeat Bush as he did to defeat Gore, there would have been no Citizens United, no war in Iraq, and no massive tax cuts for the richest.
Unfortunately, Nader was primarily interested in defeating Gore by campaigning in Florida and Pennsylvania in the final days of the campaign – rather than securing the most votes for the Green Party in Texas, or California or New York.
Nader certainly will go down in history as one of the most destructive forces of progressivism in US politics in the last 100 years.