I am amazed at how many people say "...I want
to vote for Nader, but...".
Gore has not earned your vote this election. Had he tweaked his campaign just a bit, taken a few steps from the center of the political spectrum back to the left, something as simple as coming out against the WTO as it currently stands, then perhaps an argument could be made to vote Gore instead of Nader. But Gore didn't do that. He is expecting you to vote for him because he's made you afraid of what will happen if you don't. People who vote out of fear are oppressed people. But in the interest of getting things out in the open, let's address the areas that Gore and certain Democrats are fear-mongering:
There's too much at stake this election! I agree! This is why I'm voting for Nader. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have what it takes to make the kinds of changes we Americans need to see happen in our lifetimes. Don't you want to see change in your lifetime? I've already posted what types of changes I believe need to be made (starting with "A Vote for Nader is a Vote for Nader"), so I won't rehash. "There's too much at stake." When isn't there too much at stake? Are you waiting for a safe time to step off the two party merry-go-round? If there was such a time, there would be no need for a strong new political party such as the Greens because the Democrats would be getting it right. But the Democrats traded in their convictions back in 1992 when they decided that assuming an unflinchingly pro-corporate political agenda is more important than adequately representing Labor or protecting the environment. And, worst of all, the Democrats continue to ignore their own constituents on these matters and are making no visible efforts to regain the soul of their party. We can no longer wait for the upper echilon of the Democratic Party to come around on their own and do what's right for the American people. Thank goodness the Green Party is here. The Green Party is worthy of your support no matter how the election turns out.
What about the Supreme Court?! What about Roe v. Wade?! If Bush gets elected... Armageddon!!!! Click here for a video of Ralph Nader's response to this very question at a recent press conference in New York (To watch the video you need Real Player and a fast modem.) To this complex issue I add the following perspectives / facts:
1.) Nader is a 100% pro-choice candidate. In fact, he is a stronger pro-choice candidate than Albert Gore who, in his congressional and Senate days supported a woman's right to choose with "ifs, and buts" tacked on for whatever reason. As a Senator, Gore even supported the appointment of Justice Scalia, now thought to be among the most conservative and anti-choice of the Supreme Court Justices. Even with Roe v. Wade in effect, it is presently impossible for a woman to get a safe abortion in 75% of the counties across the United States due to clinics shutting down in fear of anti-abortion terrorists. This after eight years of Clinton/Gore. There is no guarantee that Gore is any better at making Supreme Court appointments than Bush is. Nader, who is very familiar with the legal system and who (through much litigation on behalf of consumers and citizens) has personally interacted with numerous judges and justices of all levels, would be able to choose better candidates for our highest court. 2.) Nader supporters + Gore supporters = overall majority of participating voters. This means more votes combined than George W. Bush, no matter how the election turns out. This means more citizens taking part in election 2000 are pro-choice than are anti-choice. Politicians know what a majority is. Look at how Clinton ran his eight years in the White House. In 1992 and 1996, Perot votes + Republican votes outnumbered Clinton's final tally. During his entire presidential term, Clinton remained mindful of how many people didn't vote for him. His policy's reflect this. Al Gore and George W. Bush are cut from a similar mold, running their campaigns from as close to the middle as they can. No matter who wins the election, the pro-choice movement represents the majority of Americans and will not evaporate. In addition, pro-choice lobbys are stronger than they have ever been and will fight ferociously to protect a woman's right to choose. 3.) Thanks largely to Nader's participation, the US House and the US Senate will return to Democratic control. It is estimated that 50% of Nader's support is coming from non-voters, people who haven't participated in the last few presidential elections. When these folks are in the booth, after voting for Nader, they will see local races there on the ballot remaining to pick. When polled, Nader voters overwhelmingly indicate they will vote Democrat in the local races. With this in consideration even House minority leader Dick Gephardt likes the Democrats' chances of taking back majority rule of both Congressional bodies. As you know, all Supreme Court nominees must be approved by the legislative branch of government. (The Congressional situation gets even better than this, read "The Black House" by Michael Moore) 4.) There are currently no seats open on the Supreme Court. The panic by educated Gore liberals over a potential Bush presidency is a panic over what could happen... in a worst case scenario and not what will happen no matter what. So, according to frenzied Gore supporters, this is what is going to happen if Bush wins:
5.) If the Supreme Court does overturn Roe v. Wade, riots will break out EVERYWHERE. Once again, pro-choice is the majority opinion in the United States and in this election and politicians are aware of this fact (see point #2). The quickest way to coast-to-coast civil unrest would be to overturn Roe v. Wade. I doubt any politician is unaware of this fact. I doubt any politician thinks riots in their district will help his/her re-election bid. 6.) If Roe v. Wade is overturned, the question of reproductive rights reverts to the States. The abortion issue doesn't just end there. Each state will decide for itself whether women have the right to choose safe and legal abortions within its borders. In the early '70s–before the Roe v. Wade decision federally re-legalizing abortion rights–voters in Washington state passed an initiative that re-instated safe and legal abortions. How much of the above information did Gore pass along to you when he started playing on your fears? Did NARAL remind you of any of this info (particularly point #6), in their anti-Nader advertising? Don't succumb to single issue fear-mongering. There's too much at stake for that.
If Bush wins he will start oil drilling all over the place! I'm sure he'd at least try to do this. Keep in mind that organized labor recently allied itself with the environmental movement (and vice versa). The environmental movement in the United States is bigger and stronger than it has ever been. No Republican president has ever faced a stronger, more unified pro-environment voting block. A Bush victory would only galvinize this movement further . Any attempts by Bush to wreak ecological havoc across the US will fail.
But third party candidates don't ever win! Nader 2000 isn't Anderson running as an independent in 1980, though that was an admirable campaign. Nader's Green Party isn't Perot in 1992 or '96 though those were... entertaining campaigns. Nader 2000 is more like the Boston Tea Party attempting to shake up the comfortable minority living oppulent lifestyles at the expense of the majority of citizens. The long term goals of the fledgling Green movement has more in common with Women's Suffrage of the late 1800s and early 1900s, a movement which over the course of decades persisted and eventually won for women the right to vote in America. The Green movement is taking on corporate power itself... such a movement's closest relative in living memory could only be the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s & '60s which took on segregation and people's attitudes on race. Nader 2000 is about giving citizens more power and influence over our government than the corporations who now firmly control both the Republican AND Democratic parties. It's about taking civilian control of America's future... a power that has been lost to us bit by bit over the last twenty years. This is a HUGE struggle that will take a long time to win, but our ancestors will be ecstatic that we started here and now. Nader 2000 is the logical next step to the Seattle WTO protests on November 1999 and all the anti-corporate protests that followed in the U.S. and abroad: Washington, DC back in April... Philadelphia's national Republican Convention in July... the Democratic convention in Los Angeles last August... anti-globalism protests in Switzerland... Prague, Czech Republic... London, UK... and in Sydney; Australia during the Olympics! This political force is just getting started. It's global with national sovereignty. The Green Party USA does not stop on election day 2000. The party has it's eyes on the 2004 election. Your vote now helps this cause. By achieving at least 5% of the vote in 2000, the Green Party earns federal matching funds for 2004 which greatly boosts this party's efforts to get its message to the people and bring more disaffected voters back to the polls.
But look at what happened to the Reform Party this elecition! The Reform Party fell apart in 2000 (after 8 years) because that party only knew what it was against and could not agree within its ranks on what the party was for. This was true even when Perot was in charge. The Green Party knows what it stands for and has a strong focus. (see "Ralph Nader Issue-by-issue" at www.issues2000.org)
Nader is on an ego trip. As a private citizen in a 37 year career, Nader has fought harder and done more for the safety and rights of Americans than Gore or Bush - combined - have done as public servants. Nader is running because he has broad support of the people and is voicing many of their concerns re: labor, environment, human rights and corporate power... concerns that both Bush and Gore are ignoring not to mention hiding from (why else would they help keep Nader out of the debates?). Saying Nader's on an ego trip, is like saying Martin Luther King, Gandhi, or Mandela were on ego trips. Certainly the struggles are different but don't you know a modern hero when you see one? So see it!
feel free to e-mail Raptorial with additional perspectives on the Nader / Gore issue. |
|
