The Green Virus: Purity and Contamination in Ralph Nader's 2000 Presidential Campaign

Abstract

This essay explores how the rhetorical binary of purity and contamination undermined Ralph Nader's 2000 presidential campaign. Instead of insisting on an unadulterated space from which to launch their attacks on a corrupt system, the Greens might have had more success by embracing their role as an infecting agent--a kind of green virus--actively forcing a reconfiguration of American politics.

Containing the Third-Party Voter in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election

“…Through an analysis of public arguments about third-party supporters in the 2016 election, this essay suggests that a possible reason candidates like Stein and Johnson lose support at the end of the race is the rhetorical containment of third-party voters. While previous scholars have described tactics employed by the major parties and media elite to negatively frame third parties (Harold, 2001;Kirch, 2013Kirch, , 2016Rosenstone et al, 1996), this study expands that scholarship by focusing on how such attacks target third-party supporters themselves. The study develops in several sections.…”

“…Rosenstone, et al (1996) argued that the effort to delegitimize third-party hopefuls is propelled by accusations that they are "'fringe' candidates who stand outside the bounds of acceptable political discourse" (p. 44). Ultimately, Harold (2001) suggested, the last-minute campaigns against thirdparty candidates seek to build a "corruption of signification" (p. 595), framing one's ballot not as an expression of free will, but as potentially undemocratic when cast for a fringe outsider. Altogether, Kirch (2016) wrote about the news media's tactics of delegitimizing third parties, they ironically work to "essentially undermine the democratic process by systemically ignoring or ridiculing alternative viewpoints that run counter to cultural and political assumptions that are accepted as natural to American democracy" (p. 166).…”

“…Employing an extreme form of causal argument, those seeking to call out third-party supporters described them as the decisive vote in America's presidential election. Such voters, like the candidates they represented, posed a risk of spoiling the system, meaning that they were outsiders with too much clout, and by their very nature represented what Harold (2001) called "a contaminating element in an otherwise well-ordered political system" (p. 582). Drawing the gaze to these outsiders, journalist Jill Abramson (2016) warned, "Even with all the self-inflicted wounds, Trump still starts out with a likely base of 170 electoral votes" (para.…”

“…Political scholars writing about third-party campaigns agree with Johnson’s perception that the sudden drop in third-party support toward the end of the campaign is inevitable. Political communication scholars have suggested that third-party candidates exhibit a rhetorical style that is too extreme to sustain support (Harold, 2001; Neville-Shepard, 2017; Tonn & Endress, 2001; Zaller & Hunt, 1995). Additionally, political scientists have described various cultural and structural barriers to third-party success, ranging from political socialization that creates an allegiance to the two major parties, to restrictive ballot access, single-member plurality districts, limited media coverage, and exclusion from debates (Bibby & Maisel, 2003; Gillespie, 2012; Kirch, 2015; Rosenstone, Behr, & Lazarus, 1996).…”

Constrained by Duality: Third-Party Master Narratives in the 2016 Presidential Election

“…Explaining this phenomenon, political scientists have attributed third-party struggles to several structural and cultural barriers, including the single member plurality system, voters’ political socialization, unfair ballot access laws, poor financing, meager media coverage, and exclusion from debates (Gillespie, 2012; Rosenstone, Behr, & Lazarus, 1996). Additionally, political communication scholars attribute the shortcomings of third-party campaigns to candidates’ rhetorical practices, describing their discourse as too polarizing, unconventional, and informal (Harold, 2001; Tonn & Endress, 2001; Zaller & Hunt, 1994, 1995). However, communication scholars’ observations about third parties leaves much to be desired, as most of the existing research has focused on a few campaigns and, with the exception of Neville-Shepard’s (2014a, 2014b, 2016) work on third-party speech genres, few researchers have described the larger patterns in third-party political communication.…”