Don't waste your vote

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.