Democrats, Defect!
By A.M. Siriano (09/16/04)
Ralph Nader is rarely allowed by the media to outline his political agenda, mostly because he has time only to answer the charge, “Isn’t voting for you a throwaway vote?” Nader defends himself well, but it is always obvious that he would rather get past this silly question and onto real issues.
Now, before I make a case for why you should vote for Nader—assuming you are a diehard liberal and dead-set against another four years of Bush—let me first tell you what Nader stands for. You will be able to get your arms around his rock-solid platform right away, whereas with John Kerry, the same exercise is like playing the “What do you see in that cloud?” game. Here are just twelve points to prove that Nader, not Kerry, is your man:
1. He believes mankind has an obligation to pool resources to stop poverty.
2. He is for the working stiff, and is against big corporate power; he believes in a “living wage” and protections to stop workers from losing benefits and pensions.
3. He wants to undo laws that make unionization difficult.
4. He wants to tax the rich and give to the poor; he’s for a truly progressive taxation system.
5. He thinks the U.N. can really become a bastion of goodness and peace.
6. He believes it is the President’s job to “create jobs,” and acronyms like WTO, IMF, NAFTA makes him cringe.
7. He believes the environment is a top priority, because people are dying by the thousands for our poor stewardship of the planet. With him, Kyoto is a go-go.
8. He thinks global trade is irritatingly impossible to stop, but it’s okay, as long as we balance it out with laws to protect the workers and the environment.
9. Electoral voting is out, popular voting is in, and the government should fund it all. (If he wins in 2004, I’m running in 2008, just for the free travel and meals alone.)
10. He wants to get back to smaller farms that commit to Rodale-like organic production; he hates big agribusiness and probably would like to see everyone at least think about getting veganized.
11. He’s for affirmative action to offset historical wrongs, and he thinks women and gays still don’t have enough rights. That means he won’t undo Roe v. Wade or stop gay marriage.
12. He will end the Patriot Act and will pull the troops out of Iraq without delay.
Sounds remarkably like what liberals really want, so that leads to the first point of my argument. If you agree with Nader as wholeheartedly as I think you do, then I must assume that the only reason you aren’t voting for him is either, you don’t believe he can win or you, like me, can’t imagine having to put up with his rapidly misfiring right eyelid for four years. It is surely not that you think he’s a flip-flopper, because his message has not changed in essence since the Seventies. (And not voting for him because of his looks is just poor citizenship.)
But, seriously, here’s the thing: The chances are very slim that Kerry is going to beat Bush come November. The battle against an incumbent is an historical long shot, especially when, by all reasonable analyses, the economy at home is not tanking, and the war (the one started by the terrorists, remember?) is being fought outside our borders.
My first plea would be for you to come over to our side (“You Zellin’?” “Like an RNC felon …”), but I won’t hold my breath. So instead I would urge you to defect to Nader and make your liberal voice truly heard.
“Heard” is the key. You may not win with either Kerry or Nader, but at least with Nader you will be heard in 2004, much as the Ross Perot-driven Reformists were in 1996. The notion that a vote for Nader is wasted is entirely false, because it subtracts a vote for the other parties, and gives a voice to the other sides of the issues. Yes, as Nader himself has been forced to point out repeatedly, there are more than just two sides to any one issue, but by voting for Kerry you are refuting that fact. For example, if you vote for Bush, you are saying yes to military action as a valid means of solving global problems, but if you vote for Nader you are saying yes to Euro-friendly pacifism and the illegitimacy of war. Instead you have conceded to the Kerry position, which has you voting yes to both hawkish bravado and dovish complacency … or neither, depending on which way the populist wind is blowing for him.
It is in this sense—that you would vote for a man who doesn’t really represent you—that has you truly “throwing away your vote.” Ideologically speaking, if you are a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, knocking out that hangin’ chad for Kerry is tantamount to 86’ing your principles. And that is something that even we disingenuous conservatives would not want you to do.
So Dems, defect! Vote for your principles by voting for Nader, and please, pay no attention to that trouble eyelid, which even Botox probably can’t help. I’m guessing that it must render Nader’s outlook rather like a perpetual strobe-lit disco, but he hasn’t let it affect his viewpoint, which, unlike Kerry, has been steadfast for over thirty years.
(Printer friendly version) Email: A.M. Siriano
