11/01/00 12:35 p.m.
The Nader Position
Why the GOP should boost Ralph.

Todd Zubler is an attorney in Washington, D.C.,
and was the deputy general counsel on the McCain presidential campaign

n the past week, Democrats have started to think seriously and strategically about how to maximize the chances of electing Al Gore even as Ralph Nader siphons off votes from the committed Left. The Democrats' dilemma is that while a lot of liberals want to vote for Nader to help him get 5 percent of the popular vote and therefore qualify for federal funding in 2004, more votes for Nader means fewer votes for Gore. The solution proposed this week is for liberal voters in different states to trade their votes over websites such as www.nadertrader.org. Liberals in states like Texas (where their votes won't change the electoral count in any event) will agree to vote for Nader instead of Gore, while liberals in states like Michigan (where the electoral votes are being hotly contested) will agree to vote for Gore instead of Nader. Voila! Gore gets more votes, and Nader might get his federal funding too.

Maybe it's time, however, for Republicans to do some strategic voting of their own. The awkward position that Nader has put Gore in this year has been great for Republicans. Instead of watching someone like Ross Perot drain votes from the GOP like as in 1992 and 1996, Republicans have been able to sit back and watch Gore dance back and forth, trying to mollify the hard Left while at the same time attempting to convince moderates that he is a New Democrat. Gore thus has been unable to wrap himself in the moderate rhetoric that President Clinton was able to exploit so well.

Perhaps some of Gore's populism is just the real Al Gore shining through. But Gore is nothing if not politically calculating, and his repeated promises to fight for the American people against Big Everything are surely motivated in part by the fact that Gore cannot take his liberal base for granted anymore. Meanwhile, George W. Bush, like Clinton in 1992 and 1996, has moved to the political center, but has not had to move so far as to alienate his ideological base. Bush, for example, can sound all the right notes on school choice knowing full well that Gore has taken a rigid liberal position against any voucher plan.

What would be better for Republicans than to have this scenario repeated in 2004, but this time with the federal government kicking in several million dollars to help Nader? If Nader gets 5 percent of the popular vote this year, the Green party becomes a "minor" party under federal election law and would qualify for at least $7 million in pre-election federal funding in 2004. With that money, Nader's campaign would instantly gain new credibility and would put immediate pressure on the Democrats to either move left over the next four years or face sizeable defections in 2004. It might not be so bad for Republicans, in other words, if Nader gets 5 percent of the vote, and GOP voters might even want to help him.

Of course, this is a close election, and even Republicans who could stomach making a strategic vote for Nader don't want to jeopardize Bush's chances of getting elected. But thousands of Republicans live in uncontested states, and they could vote for Nader without hurting Bush at all. I live in the District of Columbia, for example, and hope as I might, my vote for Bush isn't going to add any electoral votes to Bush's column. Ditto for GOP voters in Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island, where Gore is also safely ahead. With Nader already close to 5 percent nationally, a few hundred thousand GOP votes for Nader from these uncontested states could put him over the top. (GOP voters might also be able to switch safely to Nader in states where Bush is comfortably ahead, but I'm not recommending that — locking up a Bush victory is far more important than giving a little boost to Nader's Raiders.)

I concede that pulling the lever for Nader will not be easy for any committed conservative. I am not even sure I have the fortitude to do it myself. But then I start thinking about how a federally financed Nader campaign might cause the Democrats to change their tune on the whole issue of federal funding of elections. And I start fantasizing about how a viable Nader candidacy could force the 2004 Democratic candidate to move left to compete for the endorsements of unions and other left-leaning groups. As a conservative, it ain't easy being Green, but it sure is tempting.