I write a lot of essays concering Ralph Nader and some readers wonder why. It's not because I think he's a demigod. It's not because I think he's the best thing since sliced bread. It's not because I think he's perfect or flawless. It's simply because I think he's the best candidate for president in 2004. And that's how I determine my vote.
Nader has a lot of critics, some fair, some unfair. This is predictable since any politician worth his salt is going to have critics, some fair, some unfair.
But one thing that's different about Nader's critics is the nature of their criticisms. Kerry's supporters criticize Bush for advocating reckless policies or policies that impoverish people. Bush's supporters criticize Kerry for not offering a belligerent enough foreign policy or for opposing theocracy.
What's different is that the most virulent criticism of Nader comes primarily from people who would otherwise be his ideological ALLIES. What's different is that most of his critics are assailing him not for the positions he takes, but from the mere fact of his candidacy.
This is why I'm quick to defend him or, more accurately, debunk the feeble criticisms. I can accept people not liking his ideology. I know people who can give plenty of reasons they think Nader is an evil Marxist. Their conclusions may be dubious but at least they try to back them up. At least their target is Nader's positions. That's the way politics should be: driven by issues. Though sadly, this is all to rare nowadays.
But when people can only criticize the fact of Nader's candidacy, it bugs me. Those critics think they're smarter than the voters, that voters should only consider the choices that they (the "smart guys") think are serious. They should focus on the REASONS for Nader's candidacy, not the FACT of his candidacy.
Some people suggest you not 'waste' your vote on a smaller party candidate. The 'wasted vote' argument is not really an argument. It's something people say when they have nothing else to go on, when their intellectual tank is dry.
The only reasons not to vote for a candidate are because you think s/he wouldn't do a good job or that they don't represent what you want done or that they're not the best candidate. If you base your vote on "who's likely to win," just like bettors at the race track, then you're more likely to get a horse's behind than a thoroughbred.
Whether or not candidates are 'viable' should be determined by voters, not by columnists, yapping heads or bloggers. This should not be determined by polling agencies or conventional wisdom or samples of 0.02% of the population. And this should be determined on Election Day at the polls, not in the media in August.
If you believe otherwise, then why have elections? Why not model everything on a computer and save a lot of money?
One thing his critics ought to realize is that Nader is not going to withdraw his candidacy. The sooner they accept this reality the better it will be.
Those people are better off trying to convince folks like me that their guy is better instead of trying to convince me that Nader shouldn't run or that I'd be 'wasting my vote' on him or pusing the demonstrably false statement that a 'vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.'
I will no longer debate the fact of his candidacy. This question is superfluous and irrelevant.
And to anyone Democrat, ABBer and/or Kerry-supporter, I offer this challenge: if you can name four things Ralph Nader advocates (based on his stated positions) that you vehemently disagree with, I will not write another essay about him for a month.
Most pro-Kerry critics of Nader I know can't do this because Nader's positions on the issues are beside the point.
A candidate's stances on the issues should never be beside the point; they should be the heart of the point.
3 comments:
The key here is the word "vehement." I have a hard time thinking of things that I am "vehemently" opposed to, with the exception of Les Expos leaving Montreal. That being said, I looked over the "Issues" page of Mr. Nader's site and I'll throw out a couple of things:
[1] "Immigration presents challenges and opportunities for the United States." Okay, nice bland statement. Reading further there is a LOT more on the page about the challenges than the opportunities. If I did not know better I would have thought that I was reading Pat Buchanan's page. I may be wrong, but I feel that most immigrants add more to this country than they take away (or at least my grandparents did).
[2] Under "Jobs" he says that "Overall 5.6% of Americans are unemployed while 10.5% of African Americans are unemployed" and then under "Worker's Rights" he lists several benefits and says that employers "should not be able to avoid these benefits." Pre-Clinton wasn't it assumed that Keynes was right and that an unemployment rate below 6% was considered impossible? At the very least it raised the spectre of full employment. I'd be very interested to read more about how he plans to balance the equation between higher corporate taxes, greater employee benefits, reduced access to international markets, living wages for all employees and still reduce unemployment beyond this historical low. He may have a great plan, I don't know.
[3] Under "Peace" he says, ""The UN Development Program and many NGO's working abroad provide essential experience. . ." Okay, this I'll be vehement about. My guess is that Mr. Nader has not spent a lot of time living overseas and dealing with groups like the UNDP. If there is a less efficient, more bureaucratic organization than the UNDP on the planet then I challenge anyone to name it.
[4] "Restore the critical Social Safety Net" I did not noticed that the social safety was missing. If he is talking about unlimited cash payments to people that are able to work and could afford to work given the living wage that he has promised then I'm not sure that is a step in the right direction.
Now, to really tick you off, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that, yes, you are missing the point. Given a choice in a 48/48/4 race where one of the 48% candidates advocates policies that are an anathema to me, I'm going to vote to block him from getting re-elected.
One more thing: Four years ago Nader spent a lot of time talking about building the Green Party into a poltical force in the US just as it is in other countries. The race was not just about him, he said, it was about building this progressive and evironmentalist party for the future. Four years later the Green Party is still there but Mr. Nader, instead of continuing to work for the party, is running for himself. To me this speaks volumes about the ego of this man in relation to the importance he sees in really building something that will last.
"Now, to really tick you off, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that, yes, you are missing the point. Given a choice in a 48/48/4 race where one of the 48% candidates advocates policies that are an anathema to me, I'm going to vote to block him from getting re-elected."
To me, this is beside the point. But you knew I was going to say that.
I will gave you credit, though, you're the first Kerry supporter I've read who could come up with objections to Nader's actual policies.
It's better than an acquiantance who responded, "I went to Nader's website and found I agree with everything he stands for. And that makes me more convinced not to vote for him."
And I note your concern about building the Green Party, but it wasn't his decision. He was never a member of the Green Party so he never left it. He was only his nominee in '96 and '00.
He sought the Green Party's endorsement this year, but the delegates (under controversial circumstances) ended up nominating someone else.
And the Green Party candidate has already said he won't campaign in "close states." So Nader won't be competing with him in a lot of states.
The "I won't campaign in close states" philosophy discredits the Green candidate in my eyes. (See here for further explanation: http://popeyechicken.blogspot.com/2004/07/why-i-wont-vote-for-green-presidential.html)
Basically, I've always been willing to hear a good honest pitch from Kerry supporters. I've even advocated, for over a year, a coalition agreement between the Democrats and progressive non-Dems. But this has only been met with hostility or contempt.
The demostrably false argument 'a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush' or 'Nader is a wasted vote' will never, EVER persuade me because they are non-arguments.
With just a little respect and a little less condescension, the Dems had a chance to get me but didn't take it.
Post a Comment