Ralph Nader is a folk hero. A folk hero with 2.8 percent of the disaffected, disenchanted popular vote in the 2000 presidential election, a race that could have come down to several hundred votes, had the Supreme Court decided to let democracy do its work.

Democrats have groused for four years about Nader stealing the election from Al Gore. They claim that Nader, a third-party candidate, made it possible for President Bush to be elected by siphoning away the more liberal Democrats from Gore, thus leaving room for Bush to sneak in.

So after years of vilification by the Democrats of all stripes, Nader has every reason to stay out of the spotlight.

A tireless consumer advocate, he could write a revision of his groundbreaking book on automobile safety, “Unsafe at Any Speed.”

He could work for the Public Interest Research Group — which he founded.

He could lecture at any university, falling into the safe enclave of the ivory tower.

But on Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” Nader announced that he was running for president.

And we applaud him.

Terry McAuliffe, national chairman of the Democratic Party, asked Nader to “stand united with the millions of Americans who yearn for change, who yearn to have their government and their country back.”

Translation: Stay in line with the “Anybody But Bush” mentality so pervasive throughout the party. This isn’t about voting for a candidate, it’s about voting against Bush.

While we understand (and feel) the nervousness at the prospect of four more years of fiscal irresponsibility, international invasions and questionable civil liberties, the democratic process of voting is about a lot more than hatred and fear.

And if the Democrats are worried about upholding a unified front, maybe they should address some of the issues Nader champions.

Nader’s positions obviously appeal to a significant percentage of voters; instead of dismissing those voters as silly idealists, maybe the Democrats should wonder why those voters ignored the traditional “liberal” candidate.

Third-party politics have a rich history in this country.

Nader is filling an important niche, one that questions the viability and monstrous power of a two-party system.

Our only complaint is that true Republicans don’t have a strong third-party alternative to Bush.