Nader's showing not that impressive

Thanks, Ralph!\nAs I look across this campus, I see a lot of support for the Green Party, and its candidate, Ralph Nader. Well, here is something for you all to think about:\nWin or lose, Al Gore got nearly 49 million votes in this past election, coming close to a majority of the American people. Ralph Nader got 2.6 million, which means only one out of every 38 Americans preferred him. Nader, who made it clear Gore was the real target of his campaign, portrayed his own showing as a victory for a "long-term, progressive, reform movement."\nGreen Party disciples might say it's unfair to compare his total with that of a majority party nominee, and they're right. Nader said the Democratic and Republican parties really aren't separate and distinct rivals, but partners in an evil political monopoly. "The two parties have morphed into a corporate party representing the same business interests at the same dinners, at the same hotels, day after day," he insists.\nSo the real comparison should not be Nader vs. Gore, but Nader vs. Gore-Bush, because Gore and Bush represent the same "interests." On Super Tuesday, the "Republicrats" got 97 million votes, or 36 times more than the Greens. Nader thinks the two major parties offer no "meaningful differences" to the electorate. But turnout this year was up by 5 million over 1996. It might come as news to Nader that all of those people who got out to the polls this year didn't do so because they found no "meaningful differences" between the two major parties.\nIt's a mystery why Nader imagines he has founded a powerful political movement that will force the major parties to alter their strategy. Even by the standards of third parties, his showing was by no means impressive.\nRoss Perot, who lacked Nader's saintly aura and well-defined outlook, received 8 million votes in 1996 -- and that was a large drop from the 20 million he received in 1992. Does anyone remember Illinois congressman John Anderson? Didn't think so. He received 5.7 million votes in 1980. And George Wallace got 10 million in 1968. Nader's achievement was by no means a triumph, and might go to show how sparse the hardcore left has become.\nIn a few years, we will all have forgotten about Nader, unless he foolishly decides to run again for the advancement of a "long-term, progressive, reform movement." Being a Republican, though, and as conservative as Attila the Hun, I don't really mind Nader's little power trips.\nThanks, Ralph, for the little boost for George W. Bush in this election. If Bush does come away with the victory, as I'm expecting, he will have at least four years to repair the damage of the Clinton-Gore administration. Thank God for that!\nBut then again, why should I even care who wins? The Republicans and Democrats really aren't that different, are they, Mr. Nader?