PATIL ARMENIAN/Daily Bruin Senior Staff Green Party
presidential candidate Ralph Nader offers a sound
alternative to the two major-party candidates, Vice President Al
Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush.
It’s hard to ignore the fervor surrounding Ralph Nader and
his campaign. Yes, Nader is here and it is disheartening to hear so
many people question supporting the Green Party candidate because
of their fear of electing Texas Gov. George W. Bush.
Only one thing is clear in this election: having Bush in the
White House would set the social progress our country has made back
by many years. During the reign of the big-hearted governor, 139
convicts have been executed the state stands at 45th out of the 50
states in the number of children without health insurance. Houston
also came in first for the worst air quality in the country, an
accolade reserved in the past for Los Angeles. Now that’s
compassionate conservatism.
But in this election we believe Nader when he says, “Vote
your hopes, not your fears,” and it is for that reason we
endorse Ralph Nader for president ““ conditionally.
It’s hard to ignore the hype: five rallies of 10,000
people paying to see the Green candidate. Likewise, his visionary
progressivism has prompted typically apathetic voters, many of them
on college campuses, to take an interest in politics.
But the electoral college system has turned an election year
which offered a clear alternative for progressives across America
into a tired cliché of “voting for the lesser of two
evils.” If, going into Election Day, the election is within 3
percent, voters should bite the bullet and vote for Vice President
Al Gore.
Unlike Bush, Gore is not seeking to thwart advances ““ both
in and out of the Supreme Court ““ made in this country. Under
Gore, a federal hate crimes policy may still be passed, and gays
and lesbians may still hope for the passage of the Employment
Non-Discrimination Act.
Gore also supports a woman’s right to choose, gun control,
and environmental protection. At the very least, Gore would
maintain the status quo, and very possibly make some advances.
That’s not to say that Gore is without his faults. Nader
and Gore line up on several issues, such as those mentioned above.
Nader, however, is opposed to the World Trade Organization, the
International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, NAFTA, and other
international institutions and free trade agreements that promote
policies where human rights and environmental protection may be
compromised in the interests of corporate profits. He also
advocates publically funded elections to take the wind out of
corporate interests in politics.
But why is Nader silent when it comes to issues the two main
candidates focus on, like prescription drugs and abortion? His
campaign has captured the attention of progressives everywhere with
his chiding of the single corporate party, but what about concrete
plans on the national budget, and a clear stance on education?
You won’t hear Nader talking about these issues, but
it’s not because he doesn’t have an opinion. You must
remember that above all, Nader is concerned with the institutions
of power, how they function, and who controls them. He is a man
interested in reform who hopes to change the institutional system
for future generations.
Bush and Gore work within that system. They are also the only
two candidates who have a chance of being elected to office.
So why vote for Nader? With several pundits calling him a
spoiler, one might question why he doesn’t throw his weight
behind Gore.
Nader is fighting for federal funds. If he succeeds in garnering
5 percent of the vote, the Green Party will receive matching
federal funds for the 2004 election, solidifying itself as a
legitimate political force for the future. This is an admirable
cause which we support wholeheartedly.
But we don’t like Bush.
That’s why if the election is tight, and people sacrifice
Nader’s five percent to put Gore into office, it would
behoove Gore to adopt Nader’s progressive agenda in an effort
to reclaim liberal voters.
The Gore camp has worked hard recently to counter Nader’s
threat and sway more progressive voters back into its fold ““
a distracting endeavor drawing energy away from the threat of
another Bush administration.
Yet what Gore fails to hear is the wake-up call: with liberals
jumping ship for Nader, Gore should return to his progressive roots
as he has done in the last few weeks on issues such as the
environment. Gore’s preoccupation with capturing the swing
vote has led to dissent among the ranks. It’s too bad it took
a spoiler to force him to face this one issue.
With two or three Supreme Court seats potentially up for grabs,
the Court is a hot topic. Gore supporters and organizations such as
People for the American Way and Voters for Choice have played it as
a trump card, saying that Nader supporters should vote for Gore to
keep the appointment decisions out of Bush’s hands. But
it’s important to note that it would be political suicide for
Bush to appoint “strict constructionists” to the court
since approval of the appointees must come from the bipartisan
senate.
This brings us to the first of three important points when
considering Nader for president.
Point No. 1: the Democratic cavalry. Last week, President
Clinton, Gov. Gray Davis and the vice president all campaigned in
California, cementing a solid Gore lead in the state. Maybe a vote
for Nader in this state isn’t as risky as it was a few weeks
ago. A vote for Nader could be just that: a vote for Nader. Of
course, that’s not to ignore other crucial swing states such
as Florida, Oregon, Washington, Pennsylvania and Michigan, where a
vote for Nader could be a vote for Bush.
Point No. 2: What is preventing Bush from returning in another
four years if he is defeated? Even if Bush loses this year, we may
still have to vote the lesser of two evils in another four years,
and the cycle will continue.
Point No. 3: How often does a candidate come along whom people
care about? Nader’s idealism and zeal to clean up politics
has energized young people and progressives across the nation,
combatting disinterest and voter apathy.
If on polls show Gore and Bush are within 3 percent of each
other in California on Election Day, vote for Gore. But remember
the vision, and legacy that is possible for the future of America
with Ralph Nader. Don’t let the opportunity for political
change and forming a legitimate third party pass you by.