|
|
Will.Whim JournalWork and Play by Will Fitzgerald |
|
| |
The presidential race is tight, very tight. If anything, it appears that George W. Bush has a slight edge because he has "momentum"--that self-fulfilling prophecy that he's gaining and Gore is lagging. But in many of the tight races÷in Michigan, for example, or Pennsylvania÷Ralph Nader is attracting enough voters that could make the difference between Gore or Bush being elected. Of course, no one÷not even Ralph Nader÷believes that Nader can win this election. This is an unabashed attempt to appeal to Nader supporters to vote for Gore and prevent a Bush presidency. Here, then are three and one half reasons to vote for Gore instead of Nader.
The first reason to vote for Gore: Democracies require practicalities, not unbounded purity. Some people cannot stomach voting for the "lesser of two evils." It is the nature of democracy, especially in a large democracy such as the United States, that politics is the art of compromise. With many differing groups, with many differing issues and values, it is inevitable that no "perfect" candidate can win. Thus, even voting for Nader can be considered, not a vote for the "pure" candidate, but voting for the least of three (or four, or five...) evils. If Nader were in the race for real, he would have to appeal to a broader base than the Green Party.
The second reason: a vote for Gore will do more for the environment. To those (like me) attracted to Nader's environmental stance) a good question is ask is: what will be a more effective stagey for getting attention paid to the environment at a national level÷voting for Nader, or getting Gore elected? Gore is the only presidential candidate ever to have written an in-depth, serious book on the environment, and he has reaffirmed his commitment to the principles of Earth in the Balance during his campaign. If you look at Nader's critique of Gore's environmentalism (available at Nader's website), you'll notice something interesting. The criticisms are very tactical, revolving around the political decisions Gore made in many particular instances. The interesting thing is that there is so much that Gore has, in fact, done in environmental politics. The obvious contrast is to G.W.'s desire to open pristine wilderness to oil exploration. Yes, there may be serious differences that remain between Gore and Nader, but it's not for nothing that the major environmental groups have endorsed Gore. Gore, I believe, will get things done, as he has in the past.
The third reason: the remaining issues that potential Nader voters care about are largely the issues that Gore cares about; further they agree, in general terms, on the solutions. Here's a list of issues from the Nader website, presumably a list of the issues which are most important to Nader: racism, gender issues, Native American rights, Gay and lesbian civil rights, the death penalty, people with disabilities; political reform, campaign finance reform, DC statehood, protecting consumer rights (food irradiation, drug safety, meat inspection, utility deregulation), nuclear power, global warming, sprawl, hemp production, healthcare, the living wage, housing, agricultural policy, social security, trade, labor, protecting workers' pensions, restraining corporate crime, corporate welfare, antitrust, tort reform, education for everyone, vouchers, educational commercialism, educational investments, civics and education, the military budget, nuclear weapons, land mines, "foreign policy" and immigration. Don't Gore and Nader largely agree on these? (well, maybe not on the death penalty, or perhaps hemp production and the military budget.) And, where Gore and Nader disagree, is a vote for Nader that might cause Bush to win worth the statement it would make?
The last, half reason: A Vote For Nader Is A Vote For Bush. Some people combine this with A Vote For Nader Is Throwing Your Vote Away. That would make it a whole reason, but voting for Nader wouldn't be a wasted vote. It's a strong message about important issues. I have tried to argue that the differences between Gore and Nader are (on the one hand) less substantive than some claim and (on the other hand) due more to political exigencies than to strict ideology. Still, the all important half reason remains: A Vote For Nader Is A Vote For Bush. If (say) Bush receives 49% of the vote, Gore 47%, and Nader 4%, there's nothing to be done about it÷Bush gets the electoral votes. But if Nader's 4% goes to Gore, Gore wins, not Bush. It's as simple as that, and that's what the polls are currently showing.
Will Fitzgerald, November, 2000.