Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader (along with running mate Matt Gonzalez) asks why the liberal intelligentsia continues to give their unconditional support to the Democratic Party, despite their continued refusal to act on causes most dear to liberals.
When they came to power, Democrats told us that impeachment would 'off the table' because they have more important things to do.
Like what? Help get us out of Iraq? Extend access to health care to all Americans? Dismantle America's foreign empire?
It turns out that the critical issue that the noble Democrats have been spending their valuable time on, such that they can't address these other issues? Steroids in baseball.
... and Nancy Pelosi strikes out looking.
After over a year in control of Congress, the Democrats have shown no indication that they will get us out of Iraq... or even that they will lead us in that direction. This, despite the fact that most Americans believe the war has been an unmitigated disaster.
Democrats won't advocate universal health care, despite the fact that nearly 2/3 of Americans support guaranteed health insurance for all. At best, Democrats want to nibble around the edges, even though 90 percent of Americans think the health system needs either 'fundamental changes' or 'to be completely rebuilt.'
Democrats won't tackle the bloated 'defense' budget, a budget that's mind-boggingly wasteful even if you exclude the two interminable wars of choice that are undermining our national security.
Democrats won't tackle corporate ownership of government, because they are controlled by corporate money as much as Republicans.
So if the Democrats are too cowardly to take positions on key issues that the majority of Americans support, why exactly should I vote for them?
Why should an anti-war citizen vote for a party that's enabled a disastrous war of aggression?
Why should an anti-militarist vote for a party whose main candidates have not ruled out future wars of aggression against non-threatening countries like Pakistan and Iran?
Why should someone who wants universal health care vote for a party whose candidates wants to make the insurance companies even more powerful?
Why should someone who oppose militarism and an imperial foreign policy vote for a party whose candidates continuously fund these projects?
Why should someone who believes corporate ownership of government has subverted our democracy vote for a corporate-owned party that subverts democracy?
My suggestions are simple. And it's based on a simple question. Do you hold your beliefs in theory or do you actually want them to become reality as soon as possible? If it's the latter, then the suggestions aren't exactly rocket science.
If you're anti-war, vote for a candidate who opposes the war(s)... in action. Don't vote for a candidate who's acted to perpetuate the war(s).
If you support universal health care, vote for a candidate who wants to implement access to health care for all Americans.
If you oppose militarism and empire, vote for a candidate who hasn't enabled it.
If you oppose corporate ownership of government, then vote for a non-corporate owned candidate.
If you really think about it, none of these suggestions are particularly radical. Nothing more than common sense.
For years, liberals and progressives have continually voted against their beliefs in the hope that, despite all evidence, the Democrat nominee would betray their recent record.
At the same time, conservatives and militarists have continually voted in support of their beliefs. They don't pick anti-militarist candidates like Ron Paul. They flogged John McCain back in 2000 when he was anti-theocracy.
In the last decade, which approach has been rewarded at the polls nearly every time?
If you waste your ballot on a candidate who opposes your beliefs, then you'll end up with exactly what you voted for... or worse.
2 comments:
You tend to get upset when someone claims they might be wasting their vote on Ralph Nader. But now you are saying the same thing about Democrats. I'm just inches from leaving the Democratic party, so I'm ready to be convinced to vote another way. Explain to me how casting a vote for Ralph Nader isn't "wasting" a vote just as voting for Democrats may be "wasting" a vote. My major objective this Fall is to see that we don't have another 4 years of G.W. Bush. Seeing McCain get elected means just that.
PCS: I get upset because people don't tell me I'm wasting my vote on Nader because he'd be a bad president or because the Democrat would be so much more fantastic. I could respect that opinion, even if I disagreed with it. It would be fair and rational.
I've never once been given a persuasive reason why I'm wasting my vote on Nader. It's always based on condescension ("You're naive"), insults (the flat out lie "A vote for Nader is a vote for the GOP") and speculation rather than anything substantive. "He can't win" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if people who agree with his ideas refuse to vote for him.
I think my position is very rational. A vote against your beliefs is a wasted vote.
Everyone has different beliefs so voting Democrat is not a wasted vote for everyone.
If you honestly and truly believe in what the modern Democratic Party has done in the last 10-15 years and what it represents (not just in words but in actions and inactions), then by all means vote for them.
The Democratic Party may claim to stand for many good things. And I have no doubt that many rank and file Democrats would love for those things to become reality. But the upcoming national election is not about rank and file Democrats. It's about Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. It's about Kirsten Gillibrand. It's about Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
Although Obama's ok, I don't think much of the rest of them. Because in reality, they never really stood for things like stopping the war. They always wanted anti-war folks to BELIEVE they would, without actually taking a concrete position on it... which might have annoyed pro-war voters. They were like a trinket that each person saw in them what they wanted to.
What have these Dems done to advance the good things they claim to stand for?
Never mind getting us out of Iraq completely, have they even gotten us a little closer to that goal?
Have they chipped away at American militarism and empire?
Have they gotten us any closer to universal health care?
Have they undermined corporate domination of government?
No.
Now if you don't have a problem with us being in Iraq, with militarism, with the insurance company mafia or with corporate suffocation of government, then a vote for the Democrats is not wasted.
But if you do have a problem with those things and consider them very important, then just ask yourself this emminently rational question.
How would a vote for the Democrats result in these issues being addressed in a way that past votes for Democrats have not?
I don't think a vote for the Democrats would address those issues which I consider absolutely critical. That's why I'm voting for someone else.
To me the most rational approach is this: ask yourself what issues you care most about.
Then ask what the Democrats have done to advance those issues.
If you're satisfied, then vote for them. If not, look elsewhere.
If you think Nader would a better job on your issues, then vote for him. If not, look elsewhere.
That's all I'm asking.
I won't berate someone for voting their beliefs. In fact, I'm begging people to.
Post a Comment