Greetings, potential Nader voters, Jane here. The first thing you need to know is, I've been there. I was there in 2000 (Washington: Gore 50.16%, Bush 44.58%, Nader 4.14%) and in 1996 (Oregon: Clinton 59.71%, Dole 26.82%, Perot 11.20%, Nader 1.55%). That's right - I voted for Ralph Nader in two of the three presidential elections for which I've been eligible.
This year I'm voting for John Kerry.
In 1996, deciding to vote for Nader was easy. He was running as a Green, and I believe in many of the planks in their platform. Clinton had a massive lead in the polls, and the Republican-driven welfare reform bill he had just signed moved him so far toward the center that he no longer seemed all that different from Bob Dole. It was the perfect time to vote on principle rather than out of practicality.
2000 was a different story. Nader's rhetoric about "the twins" didn't ring as true as it had four years ago. The polls were running close nationally, but Gore was doing well in Washington State, and ultimately I decided it was safe to vote for the candidate who best represented my values. The fact that I even had to stop and calculate whether I was voting "safely" just emphasized the flaws in the two-party, winner-take-all electoral system we have. And then there was Florida.
Like 1996, I have an easy decision this year, not because it's a simple matter to chose practicalities over ideals, but because they've aligned.
I still believe in reform of the two-party system and the value of every progressive vote; I just don't believe in relying on a presidential election every four years to make the point.
A president's administration is shaped by the Congress that supports or opposes him. Apart from the PATRIOT Act passed in a rush of post-9/11 fervor, Bush's agenda - from tax cuts to faith-based initiatives to the invasion of Iraq - didn't really build up steam until Democrats lost control of the Senate in the November 2002 election.
I want to see Kerry in the White House, and by 2006 I want to see a Congress with a Progressive Caucus composed of more than just Democrats. And I want it to have enough members to swing a vote.
I want to see Kerry nominating federal judges and justices to the Supreme Court who won't turn back the clock, and I want to see Congress approving his nominees.
Voting for Nader again won't get me what I want.
If we're serious about changing government, we can't settle for a symbolic vote. We have to put someone in the White House who can work with progressive legislators - and then we need to get busy in our Congressional districts to make sure there are plenty around.
Thanks for the excellent insight, Jane. Voting for Nader won't get me what I want, or what he wants for that matter. His losing this election won't move the government in a progressive direction, but may very well contribute to a more radically regressive government.
Nader is in a tough spot. His platforms, which I fully support, are too progressive to be included on a winning national coalition. But they're also too important to compromise for pacticalities. What is a leader to do?
Lead.
Prioritize. A smart leader reads the situation, knows their limitations, and always focuses on the mission. When they can't achieve all of their goals, they have the discipline and savvy to focus their resources on the most crucial point at the decisive moment. And then, win or lose, they prepare for the next opportunity.
Ralph's opportunity is now and you can make it happen. Ralphplease.org has collected donation pledges of $100,000 in just five days of operation. Their cause? Donate to Ralph Nader's campaign finance reform organization, Public Citizen (citizen.org), in exchange for his withdrawl from this year's presidential race.
A bribe?!? No -- an opportunity.
An opportunity to advance an important, core plank in the progressive platform. An opportunity to greatly increase the visibility of Public Citizen and it's purpose. Imagine the news coverage: Every talking head explaining to every TV owner in the world the concept of publicly financed elections for three or four days! Priceless.
This is an opportunity for Ralph to recruit for tomorrow's battle, a chance to decrease the perceived "whack-o factor" of progressive politics, to win the hearts and minds of practical progressives and plant the seeds of progress in other potential allies.
This is an opportunity for Ralph Nader to make the hard decisions that leaders have to make. Does he the vision to make a real difference in what matters, when it matters?
Do you?
Ralphplease.org
Posted by: Mike on October 20, 2004 07:28 PM
