I got an email today from a friend who wrote she was becoming "disillusioned" with Barack Obama because he has shifted to more moderate positions on some of the issues. She is thinking of voting for Ralph Nader. Here is my response to her.
Dear Friend,
Sorry to hear that. Obama has to win the election. He has to appeal to a majority to do that. The majority isn't as liberal as you are.
If you want to vote for Nader go ahead. Some Progressive people in 2000 thought Al Gore was too conservative for them. So instead they voted for a guy with zero chance. They voted for Nader.
If they had voted for Gore he would be president today. But no, he wasn't perfect enough for them, even though he wound up winning the Nobel Peace Prize. If Gore had been elected there would have been no Iraq War. The USA would be leading the world on climate change and alternative energy. There would be no Patriot Act, secret prisons, torture of suspects, throwing away of the Fourth Amendment. We would probably be on our way to health care for all.
But no. Instead of voting for Gore, they took their votes away from him and voted for Nader. By not voting Democratic they made sure George W. Bush would win. I hope they're happy with themselves. They helped bring about a needless war, tens of thousands of deaths, the diminution of Constitutional rights, another 4 trillion dollars in national debt, two more right wing authoritarians on the Supreme Court, the formation of an American mercenary army, eight more years of inaction on the climate crisis as sea levels rise and species die......the list goes on and on and on.
So, you vote for whomever you want. I know what I'll be doing. I'll be enthusiastically supporting Barack Obama and casting my ballot for him. The alternative to Obama is not Ralph Nader, it's John McCain. If enough people do what you're thinking of doing that's what we will get. Are you up for a new war in Iran? Maybe one with Russia? Vote against Barack Obama and that's what you'll be supporting.
Steve
5 comments:
Steve, I have to respectfully disagree. It is not as simple as that argument makes it seem--for example, one way to look at the Nader thing is that people voting for Nader "took votes away" from Kerry. But another angle might suggest that those votes never belonged to Kerry and that it was up to him to win them to his side, which he failed to do. Similarly, it is tempting to blame people who vote their conscience, and thus may vote in a myriad of ways and for different people, for the fact that some (many?) conservatives vote lock-step. But surely it is the lock-step voting that is the problem, not the liberal alternative. If we fault conservatives for that behavior, surely we can't urge liberals to do the same? I don't want to see McCain elected, but I can only urge people to think deeply about it and to vote their conscience. It is up to Obama and the democratic party to educate the electorate and position themselves to win over those who might be swayed. I hope they can do so, but I should not be asked to vote for him anyway if he fails to reach out to my ideals.
Good, thoughtful comment. Some people are strategic voters and others are purists. And of course the same person might vote strategically sometimes and other times insist on going for the person with whom they most agree, whether or not that candidate has a realistic chance to win.
I wanted to put the argument before her that maybe trying to secure a good chance of getting 70 or 80% of what she wants might be preferable to voting her conscience and taking a high risk of getting nothing. For some people that makes sense and for others it doesn't. After what has happened these past eight years, it certainly does to me, but yes, that's me.
And it was Gore in 2000 where exit polls indicated the Nader candidacy made the difference, not Kerry in 2004.
Steve, by your reasoning, the disenfranchised among us, that vote their conscience out of desperation with the democrat party are somehow to blame for what transpires in the Bohemian Grove or the inner sanctum of SkullnBones HQ or deep in the secret place that is the Federal Reserve. It's been; "yeah, but they'll appoint good judges!"...since the 70's,... now,they don't even throw a bone at the left. If the brother Rev. King were alive, he'd be down at the 'free speech cages', ...amen..."it's the war, stupid"..it just ain't healthy for women and children to be at war forever, for god's sake man, our children have known nothing else! I vote for social justice and peace.
John, I can tell your comment comes right from the heart. I especially feel your finishing words about endless war.
You may need to strictly vote your complete conscience. I respect that. I would just have you consider how long it has been since the Democrats had the presidency AND working majorities in both houses of Congress.
They will have at least 56 seats in the Senate and at least a 40-vote majority in the House. If Obama wins it would be a clean sweep. The Republicans are right about one thing: this candidate and the Democratic platform this year are the most liberal in 40 years. If they win you will get some bones thrown your way this time.
Who among those gathered in Denver, would publicly self-identify with the word, "liberal?" It's considered political suicide in fascist climates like DC and NY. Endless war, a Security State at home, and Imperial Hubris are the starting points for both of the two-party-parties. Dukakis, Gore and Kerry lost because they took there "base" for granted and ran as moderate republicans, Biden confirms a continuation of this failed strategy.
Post a Comment