In October of 2000, I watched in awe as Ralph Nader spoke at a rally in Boston during his bid for the presidency. I listened intently as he explained about corporations and their involvement in politics, he spoke of the urgent need to protect the environment, he described the economic polarization of our country and, finally, he asserted that a vote for Gore was no better than a vote for Bush. I swallowed every word of his speech and claimed that any principled liberal should vote for Nader over Gore.

Today, I ask how I ever could have been so naïve (it’s a good thing they didn’t let 17-year-olds vote). With Ralph Nader’s entry into the presidential race as an Independent last Sunday, I am committed to seeing that Americans do not make the mistake of again falling for an alternative candidate.

In the 2000 election, Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the election—a fact I refused to admit a few years ago. To the ardent Nader supporters, this didn’t seem to matter at the time, as Gore was just the “lesser of two evils.” But today, as the country is witness to one of the most conservative administrations in its history, backed by a Republican House and Senate, there is no question that Al Gore would have done far more to uphold Nader’s values than George W. Bush has.

Now that he is running again, we are able to see that he is nothing but an egotist who cares far less about his values than he does about media attention. Thus, it is no surprise that a great number of Nader’s friends, former supporters and even the Green Party have discouraged his candidacy. If, in fact, he did care about the values that he preaches, he would not steal votes from the party that embodies most all of his stump ideals: cleaning up “special interests,” funding the environment, etc. In running, he does nothing but minimize the effect of the Democratic Party and add a grungy connotation to the word “liberal” (pot-smoking, dread-headed, etc).

All of this has truly soiled the once-distinguished career of the man known as the “Consumer Crusader” who uncovered corporate scandals and fought for the little guy. If he still wishes to do any good for progressive citizens and America at large, he has two options.

He can run a national campaign—touting his radical agenda—and then drop out two or three weeks before the election (previously unannounced, of course). This would enable him to preach his ideals across the country, bringing thousands of non-voters into politics. Then, once this effect has been made, he can drop out and let his supporters back their true cause: voting for the Democratic candidate.

The reasonable alternative is to only run in non-swing states. This means he can go nowhere near Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. Even states such as Minnesota and California should not be taken for granted by the Democrats, so Nader would be left to states such as Massachusetts, Connecticut, Mississippi, etc.

If he chooses neither of the above options and elects to run a full campaign through November, he will only do his values harm. In the meantime, it is important that Ralph Nader receive very little support, so his campaign has no chance of repeating the devastating effects of 2000.

Should those on the far left be inclined to promote their values, choose far more effective mediums such as www.moveon.org or Dennis Kucinich, who chose to run on the Democratic ticket, where he has received more press and far more nationally televised debates than Ralph ever will. While Nader’s ideals may be valid, his methods are a far cry from effective.