Who’s afraid of big bad Ralph (Nader, that is)? Apparently, not just the Big Three automakers anymore — a coalition of leading Democrats has urged perennial presidential candidate and consumer activist Ralph Nader not to run in the 2004 election, citing his infamy as the vote-grabbing spoiler in 2000 that cost Al Gore the election. This time, they say, the stakes are too high and ousting President Bush is too important a goal to have it foiled by Nader’s interloping.

The fact that Ralph Nader carried more votes than the margin of victory of George W. Bush over Al Gore in key states such as Florida and New Hampshire is beyond dispute. The question of whether such votes were lost from Al Gore (thus costing him the election) or simply people who would have stayed home or voted for other third parties is clearly not.

Nonetheless, there is a certain kind of hubris involved when Democrats tell Nader not to run. For instance, take Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe’s comments to CNN last week:

“We can’t afford to have Ralph Nader in the race,” he said. “This is about the future of our country. If you care about the environment, if you care about job growth, you’ve got to support the Democratic nominee. So I’m urging everybody to talk to Ralph Nader.”

What isn’t said in McAuliffe’s remarks is more important than what is — if the Democrats had a clear conscience on issues like the war with Iraq, the budget, the economy, and so forth, they would have nothing to fear from Nader entering the race.

Clearly if the Democrats have offered up a candidate who would present a substantial foil to Bush on these issues, the base of Nader’s support would be neutralized.

Rather, liberal voters would have no good reason to defect to the Nader camp should the eventual Democratic nominee present themselves as a strong candidate on the issues that McAuliffe list off.

Thus the secret fear — in the constant dash to the political center for purposes of nominating an “electable candidate” and embracing positions that appeal to a broader base of supporters, leftist members of the party are left out in the cold.

This, of course, isn’t a problem when there exists no viable alternative candidate in the race (third parties aside), as said votes are effectively captive to the Democrats.

If this strategy sounds remotely familiar, that’s because it’s the same form of hubris that has long held limited-government conservatives in the GOP, a party which could hardly be identified anymore with anything remotely related to cutting the size and scope of government.

The captive voter strategy works fine until a well-known interloper steps into the race, at which time all hell breaks loose.

Suddenly, supporters who were a sure thing out of sheer desperation and a lack of anywhere else to go are now at risk of defecting, threatening to bring down the party’s whole house of cards.

Yet, instead of trying to appeal to these disaffected voters on the issues, the Democratic establishment has relied upon ruthless Machiavellianism — defect and you’re as good as voting for Bush.

Scaring wayward voters into compliance by conjuring up the bogeyman of four more years under Bush may work for some, but it neglects the fact that there are still those out there who actually value their principles when casting their ballots and the frustration they express by voting for third-party candidates like Nader in the first place.

Relying on a strategy of holding core supporters hostage only works in the absence of a visible alternative.

Of course, what the Democratic leadership doesn’t appear to realize is that there is another option that has already cost the GOP more than one election under similar circumstances — such disenchanted voters may just choose stay home, like they did when Bob Dole ran against Bill Clinton in 1996. To conservatives, Dole was seen as a weak candidate not worthy of their support.

All of this begs the question: If the Democrats can’t win simply by urging their supporters to vote their conscience rather than their fears, what then does this say about the Democratic Party establishment as a whole?