WASHINGTON, 5 June 2004 — Sometimes, just by someone’s look, you are sure that you know where they stand politically. In a Jeddah hotel last week, I saw one of the few Americans that one sees in Saudi hotels these days. He just had to be a conservative Republican. He had a short military haircut, a standard corporate suit and a tie that might have been purchased at a George Bush fundraiser. We visited. I was right on with my observation about his conservative Republican credentials. However, he said something that gave me quite a jolt. He said that he planned on voting for John Kerry.
My new friend not only shared with me that he had voted solid Republican in every election since he had reached voting age, but he also pointed out that he had worked with the US Congress for a conservative Republican US senator for many years. “Bush has just about destroyed our country,” he told me. “Bush and his neocons have put us in shambles, not only in the Middle East, but also in most of the rest of the world.” He went on, “Rumsfeld and Cheney are breaking the US Treasury with their military adventures while their buddies and their buddies’ companies get richer. I’ve just had it with these guys. I never ever thought I would vote for a Democrat, but I’ve had enough. I’m voting for Kerry.”
A few days later, as I left Saudi Arabia from the other side of the Kingdom, I sat next to an American engineer who works for Aramco. He was on his way to a conference in the US. “I’m a liberal Republican and I have voted for some Democrats in the past,” he shared with me. He continued, “But I can’t believe how stupid Bush and his people are. Maybe Bush has time to smarten up and I’ll vote for him like I did last time, but if the election were today, I’d probably vote for Kerry.”
Do we have a Republican revolution upon us with a surge for Kerry within Republican ranks? Not yet, if you trust the polls. Most presidential polls currently have Bush and Kerry running neck and neck. And no major pollster has noted any trends in Republican deflection toward Kerry. True, the Bush favorable ratings have fallen significantly, but this hasn’t led to Kerry leaping wildly ahead of Bush in the presidential polls. However, the Ralph Nader factor is currently being widely discussed in the current presidential political scene. Over and over again, we hear that, no matter who the candidate, about 40 percent of Americans will always vote Republican and about 40 percent will always vote Democrat. So the real battle is for the 20 percent in the middle and the states that hold the keys to the votes for those 20 percent. And, though minor party candidates for president such as Ralph Nader, are currently expected to receive no more than 3 to 5 percent of the vote, that small percentage and its effect on the US electoral vote might very well be the key to the election.
No one forgets that Al Gore won the popular vote in the last election by a few votes, but lost the electoral vote and the presidency. Ralph Nader is often given the blame for Gore’s defeat in 2000. Political pundits often point to Florida where Bush won by a few hundred votes over Gore while Nader garnered thousands of Florida votes. All or almost all of these voters would have voted for Gore had Nader not been on the ballot, they say. However, no one suggests that most Nader supporters in Florida might not have voted at all had Nader not been on the ballot. And Gore also lost his home state of Tennessee.
When I returned to my Southern home in the US, I decided to do an informal poll of some voting friends. “No, even though Bush could be doing a little better job, he’s had some tough times with 9-11 and all. Darn right I’m going to vote for Bush. Can you imagine how Kerry would handle the war on terrorism. It would be a disaster,” one friend said. Another friend even farther to the right said, “I’ve voted for one Democrat in my life and I’ve regretted it ever since.” He continued, “Did you see the pictures of Kerry cavorting with Jane Fonda, the Communist sympathizer. Kerry will probably pick her for his vice presidential candidate. I’d never vote for that guy.” However, I found another interesting perspective with some of my Republican friends. “I don’t think I’ll vote for president at all this election,” said a friend. “I’m really upset with Bush but I’d never vote for Kerry, so I’ll vote for our statewide candidates but just leave the presidential vote blank.”
What about the traditional 20 percent who could usually go either way? Apparently, according to the polls, they could still go either way, but one of the 20 percenters shared a very interesting scenario with me. “In my wildest dreams,” he said, “ Bush and Kerry will continue to beat each other up so badly that even the people who would normally vote for one or another will get fed up and not vote or vote for Nader. Nader would continue to pick up on the undecideds, end up with a plurality of the votes and become the president. Remember how Jesse Ventura (the independent candidate who became governor of Minnesota) won the election with a plurality while the Democrats and Republicans beat up on each other. It’ll never happen but I can dream, can’t I,” he mused. For years, the Arab-American movement in the United States has tried to organize politically and influence a presidential election. How ironic it is that an Arab-American candidate for president, Ralph Nader, who has never publicly identified with his ethnicity and has never been on the radar screen for mainstream Arab-American presidential organizers might, one way or another, influence the outcome of yet another American presidential election. In any case the Ralph Nader factor, the son of Lebanese immigrants to the United States, continues to play a major role in the conscience of American political discourse.
— Dr. Michael Saba is the author of “The Armageddon Network” and is an international relations consultant.
