According to News Max consumer activist Ralph Nader is leaving open the possibility of running for President again in 2008. He will decide whether to run later this year. He is reportedly unhappy with Sen. Hillary Clinton, a (the?) likely Democratic nominee. Per News Max, Nader described Sen. Clinton as a “panderer and a flatterer.” You don’t say?

Major candidates are almost always overly “handled.” Nader’s observation that Hillary is a “panderer and a flatterer” is no doubt true, but the same thing could be said of all the major candidates. As a result you get a centrist, “handled” politics. Former Senator Edwards is a “panderer and a flatterer.” Former Governor Romney is a “panderer and a flatterer.” Pandering and flattering may well be the price of entry to major candidate status. Perhaps Sen. McCain is not your prototypical panderer, but he is definitely attempting to make nice with the base and evangelicals after routinely thumbing his nose at them. If anything his previous contrariness and independence was possibly pandering to moderates and the media.

For rightists of all varieties, conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, paleoconservatives, Constitutionalists, third party advocates, etc., I believe a Nader run would be a positive development and should be encouraged. Cynically it potentially draws votes away from the Democratic candidate. Nader arguably cost Former Vice President Al Gore the election in 2000.

However, there is a potentially more important reason to encourage ideological revolts on the left. American politics, despite frequent allegations of extremism on both sides, is actually totally dominated and paralyzed by the center. American politics is definitely highly partisan, but it is not extremist. It is mind-numbingly centrist. And sadly for rightists, today’s center is yesterday’s far left. According to center-leftist Michael Lind, partisanship has almost totally replaced ideology as a motivating force or end goal. He writes, “Ideological liberals who deviate from the Democratic party line of a given moment are ignored or vilified, as are ideological conservatives who deviate from the Republican party line.” (The objection of Kirkean conservatives to the term ideology is noted, but it is Lind’s word.) Partisanship is not about an ideological end goal like downsizing government, for example. It is about simple head-counting. That our guy wins instead of their guy. This has encouraged a rank, almost value free, political pragmatism. Ideas, to the extent they are vaguely argued (cut taxes, limited government, etc.) instead of downplayed, are red meat for Bubba and nothing more. Ideas are something that serious candidates must stoop to when necessary, but are otherwise to be avoided.

In fact, centrism has risen to the status of a virtue in and of itself. Watch the ongoing internet and media debates among activists and the pundit class about who should be the GOP nominee. Non-centrist candidates are written off as unelectable and non-starters. (I am intentionally not naming names so as not to incriminate potentially good candidates as admittedly not centrists.) There is even at times a level of hostility towards non-centrists. A sort of “who does he think he is” attitude. “He has no chance.” This has become not just a political assessment of a candidate’s chances, but it is often a value judgment of sorts. Not having “a chance” is treated almost like a moral taint.

The purpose of this article is not to re-fight the political purist vs. political pragmatist debate. That is for another article. But this dynamic has not always been so among the rightist coalition. At the beginning of the “modern conservative movement,” both pragmatists and purists largely agreed on many desired ends, they just disagreed on the best strategy to get there, compromise and slow change back or drawing a line in the sand. But pragmatism was a strategy, not a virtue or philosophical good in its own right. Today pragmatism and the related centrism has become an end in itself. It is all about electability and winning. Today’s politics has become more like a bunch of fans rooting for the home team than it is a true contest of ideas. Note for example how conservatives will often speak of the GOP as “we.”

Rightists must change this dynamic and paradigm if they ever hope to get past the paralyzing centrism that currently rules the day. Outside the mainstream candidates on the left such as Ralph Nader and Rep. Dennis Kucinich could potentially shake up the system from the other side. Hopefully they will precipitate a more authentic and honest and less “handled” debate on the issues. This is especially needed regarding the War, which all the major Democratic candidates except Sen. Barrack Obama initially supported, and are now dropping like a hot potato. Perhaps this is wishful thinking, but hopefully outside the mainstream candidates on the left will make the political climate friendlier for outside the mainstream candidates on the right.

We must re-establish political purism as a faithfulness to ideas that is to be admired, not derided. And we must return political pragmatism to its place as a strategy for attaining an end goal instead of an ends unto itself. Purist candidates on the left may well help us do that by normalizing something other than pragmatic centrism. In other words, they might help make it “OK” to not be a centrist.

What this country really needs is an election that forces a choice between a true Constitutionalist on the right and a Nader style soft socialist on the left. Then the American people would have to choose between the limited government envisioned by the Founders and the socialist nanny state envisioned by modern progressives. As things currently stand, we get Social Democrat party A vs. slightly less Social Democrat party B. And conservatives act stunned, simply stunned, that they are repeatedly betrayed. As Dr. Phil would ask, “Is it working for you?”

The Social Democrat Parties A vs. B is an observation that has been made repeatedly by third party advocates election year after election year. (Hence, the original source is hard to ascertain. It may be Howard Phillips.) But the problem isn’t just one of party; it is the stupefying dominance of the current center, yesterday’s far left, and the seeming acquiescence of self-described rightists to the current state of affairs. To paraphrase Barry Goldwater, there is no virtue in that centrism. It is a demonstrated strategy for perpetually moving ever more to the left.

So rightist should pick a primary candidate who they support on the issues, not some predetermined “top tier” centrists. Primaries are supposed to be about contesting ideas, not settling. And while they are at it they should be encouraging Ralph Nader to “Run Ralph Run.”

—–
Dr. Phillips is an Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at Mercer University School of Medicine in Macon, Georgia. He specializes in the treatment of alcohol and drug abuse. He can be contacted at Phillips_de@mercer.edu.