Why would Richard Egan, who has raised over $200,000 this year for the George W. Bush presidential campaign, and his family donate $6000 to Ralph Nader, whose political positions are certainly not in the GOP mainstream? Why are so many other wealthy Republicans sending tens of thousands of dollars to Nader’s presidential campaign?

They are following the advice of an old proverb, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” By aiding Nader in an effort to take votes away from Democratic candidate John Kerry, these Republicans are applying a cynical approach to international politics to domestic American politics.

In this presidential election, Republican efforts are going far beyond financial support of Nader. State Republican parties are supporting petition drives to put Nader on their ballot while state Democratic parties are battling those efforts. Official Republican party representatives piously proclaim they are only trying to ensure everyone has a chance to be on the ballot. Less hypocritically, their Democratic counterparts don’t want Nader to take votes from Kerry in swing states.

Aiding the opponent of your opponent can easily backfire ­ and our country may be the victim. The most famous example of this practice was the very conservative German military sending Communist revolutionary Vladimir Lenin back to Russia to undermine Russia’s resolve to stay in World War I. In 2004 as in 1917, these promoters hoped to unbalance a politically divided country. And, as in 1917, the consequences may differ greatly from what they intended.

In March, 1917 the Germans arranged for Lenin to travel from neutral Switzerland by sealed train across Germany to Russia. By November, Lenin’s Communist Party had seized power in a coup that effectively took Russia out of the war. The Germans were then able to send troops to attempt to defeat Britain and France on its Western front before American troops arrived.

The gamble failed. Not only did Germany lose the war, but Lenin established the Soviet Union, creating an ideological dictatorship that lasted sixty-four years and divided Europe in two. Adolph Hitler’s rise to power as a strong anti-Communist and the Cold War were two of the results.

Supporting your foes can literally blow up or, to use the jargon of the intelligence community, blowback in your face. In the 1980s, the Central Intelligence Agency funded and trained the mujahedin fighting a guerilla war against the Soviet occupiers of Afghanistan. Among the recipients was a Saudi Arabian engineer, Osama bin Laden. CIA funding helped defeat the Soviet Union, a major Cold War victory. Unfortunately, bin Laden, now more experienced and prominent, switched to an anti-American jihad and formed Al-Qaeda.

The Republican effort against the Democrats has already suffered some blowback. Earlier this year, Roger Stone, a veteran Republican political operator, managed and funded Al Sharpton’s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. This was the equivalent of Clinton political advisor James Carville managing a bid by ultra-conservative Pat Buchanan against President George W. Bush in the Republican primaries this year.

The Republican support of Sharpton backfired. Not only did Sharpton not split the Democrats, his poor showing made him a minor figure. In the long run, Sharpton’s clever critiques of the Bush administration -- he clearly had the best lines -- and willingness to play by Democratic Party rules may make him a more formidable figure than before. Republicans a decade hence may rue Stone’s actions.

Like Lenin, the revelations about Republican funding have not reduced Sharpton’s or Nader’s zeal. Lenin, bin Laden, Sharpton, and Nader acted wisely in accepting assistance from people who oppose them. Their reaction has not been one of shame but glee at having played the trickster, of convincing the farmer to throw Brer Rabbit into the briar patch, of receiving vital money and support from their political foes.

For Republican strategists, supporting Nader is a win-win situation. In November, he may draw enough votes to enable Bush to defeat Kerry, just like Nader did to Al Gore in 2000 (admittedly Gore ran a very poor campaign, but that is another story). In the meantime, the Democratic party is forced to devote time and resources to combating Nader while the progressive movement self-splinters and fights itself instead of the Bush campaign. Tactically, this is a brilliant move.

The unexpected consequences are less positive. Internationally, American efforts to promote democracy abroad appear hypocritical when the party in power is undermining it at home. Domestically, this blatant Republican support of Nader could easily inspire more Democrats and independents to vote against Bush.

Regardless of the choices before voters in November, the Republican effort to promote Nader will increase citizen cynicism about politics, confirming the worst suspicions of many about the corruption of campaigns. Some voters may become politically passive, deciding not to vote or participate at all. And that is a loss for all of us.