“I think this is a monstrous ego running unchecked.” – Carl Pope, Executive Director, Sierra Club.

Once again, the primaries draw to a close and it’s now time for Americans to snap out of their quadrennial daydreams of popular democracy and choose the candidate that walks the tightest rope between big money and public interest.

The race for the White House has officially begun.

And as if almost a fixture to contemporary presidential elections, at Ralph Nader is back in a bid for the White House – or at least for the shot at bidding in another four years. His rallying cry of “more voices and more choices” appeals to voters who are tired of a stagnant “duopoly” of American politics. And just like the 2000 elections, Nader is once again portraying himself as the faint echo of democratic integrity – an idealistic taboo that America is afraid to reach out to.

It goes without saying that Nader is noted for many landmark developments in Washington over the past few decades. His 1965 book, “Unsafe at Any Speed,” sparked enough controversy to make General Motors hire prostitutes to ambush Nader in a grocery store. His resulting lawsuit in this blackmail attempt won him the money that founded Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs) all across America. Overall, there is no doubt that this man has done a lot to keep this country clean, both politically and environmentally.

But that was all then and this is now.

Voters will now have to realize that the visions of “Saint Ralph” are over. We no longer have the “white horse” hero of the American people that many on the left look up to. We no longer see a man who is determined to expose the sick consumerist facade that tells us to trust anything with a catchy label. It’s been over for quite some time now.

In his place, we see a man who was about as rebellious as Kurt Cobain – loud, yet controllable. Nader has become yet another teacher’s pet, still trying to wrap himself in his 1960s creed of integrity-through-nonconformity, but to no avail. He’s part of the system he claims to fight against and when it’s all said and done, he’s just another ego, hell-bent on the Oval Office.

Nader’s aspirations have, in fact, become so flagrantly reckless, that even Bush donors have contributed to the Nader campaign, reports the Dallas Morning News. (Of course, many of these donors came up with the excuse of trying to “promote diverse views” in politics, but who are they kidding?) It’s a sure sign that Nader no longer cares about the nearly fifty-year-old agenda that he’s been promoting.

The same article reports that over 10 percent of Nader’s donors of $250 dollars or more are “reliable GOP donors.” The list includes Terrence Jacobs (executive, Penneco Oil), Jeno Paulucci, (Jeno’s Pizza Rolls), and even Ben Stein.

It’s entirely understandable now why both Democrats and Republicans repute the former Green candidate with stonewalling and secrecy. Nader is actually a substantial investor in companies that he’s known to publicly “expose.” According to Salon, Nader’s then-running mate Patty LaDuke, had “exposed” Al Gore for owning stocks in Occidental Oil Co. What she left out was that even Nader himself had shares of this stock through his estimated $100,000-$250,000 mutual fund with Fidelity Investment.

In fact, a 2000 article from Salon reads, “The Rainforest Action Network – whose members no doubt include myriad Nader Raiders – has slammed Fidelity for ‘investing in genocide.'”

That same year, Nader told the Washington Post that the profits of these mutual funds, which sometimes trickle down to his PIRGs, are from “the most neutral-type companies,” claiming, “No. 1, they’re not monopolists and No. 2, they don’t produce land mines, napalm, weapons.” What he didn’t tell the Post was that his mutual funds included shares of Raytheon, Boeing, and even Chevron, which actually has a tanker named after the “poorest” member of Bush’s staff, Condoleezza Rice.

Nor should we assume that Nader’s name is synonymous with the Green Party with which he ran in 2000. In fact, an editorial in the “Green Horizon Quarterly” accuses Nader of running “with his coterie rather than party organizers,” adding, “he doesn’t involve local Green leaders.” Basically, it was a polite way of saying that Nader had simply hijacked Green Party politics in 2000.

And it looks like he’s not so eager to bring the Greens under the political umbrella this year either. He’ll be running independently of the Greens, under the shoddily spun catchphrase, “Declare your Independence,” instead.

But what does all of this show? It shows that Nader could care less about the plurality of American democracy and more about his own ego. When he spoils this year’s election, he’ll no longer be able to shrug and say he did it for the sake of Green recognition in mainstream politics. His actions show that he couldn’t care less.

Nader knew in 2000 that he became the “spoiler.” He also knows that the GOP is encouraging him to spoil the election once again, and he’s totally fine with it. It just goes to show that, like every other candidate running, we all know whose side Nader takes – his own.

Mark Ostroff is a Collegian Columnist.