PGHIMC - Pittsburgh Independent Media Center

Some Thoughts on the Nader Campaign
by Carl Gunther Thursday, Oct. 28, 2004 at 10:51 PM
carl@moraluniverse.org

An examination of the relative merits of voting for Nader vs. voting for Kerry in the present historical moment.

If you are considering a vote for independent Presidential candidate Ralph Nader, then I suspect that we have many of the same goals and commitments, and that we share many of the same concerns regarding the coming election.

Like you, I am appalled that the only candidates who have a chance of winning this election are John Kerry and George W. Bush. While Bush is clearly a far worse candidate than Kerry, aspects of Kerry's program, especially in the area of foreign policy, are in dramatic conflict with my own beliefs, and, I believe, with any reasonable standard of moral behavior.

Because we are close to an election, there is a tendency to focus on this lack of desirable choices as if it were our only problem. But our lack of electoral choice is just one symptom of a far more serious and generalized loss of real progressive influence. That loss of power is characterized by:

* The present weakness of organizations representing a collective interest, including unions and community organizations,

* The division of the body politic along racial and economic lines,

* The present domination of our media, our economy, and our government by the totalitarian hierarchies known as corporations, and

* The internationalization of corporate influence in the areas of trade and monetary policy, to the detriment of labor and the environment in each individual nation

When we consider our own lack of strength within this broader context, it is hardly surprising that we are not being offered real progressive change for the tiny price of punching a hole in a ballot card. Clearly, serious progress that takes us beyond the present dire situation can only come about through a relatively long-term strategy that sees our vote in this election as just one part of a larger campaign.

That strategy will require continued action after the election on a number of related fronts, from unionization drives, to anti-war organizing, to campaigns to bring justice into the gulags of our criminally racist injustice system. These are the little wheels that can actually turn the big wheel of change.

When we go to the polls this Tuesday, we should cast our votes in a way that creates the most favorable environment possible for that grass roots organizing to take place, and take root, after the election. We should vote with an understanding that while we do not have the power required to implement the policies we truly want by simply voting, our votes can still tip the balance between two elite factions in a way that will make all the difference in whether we succeed or fail in our organizing over the next four years and beyond.

If we vote on that basis, then it should be clear what an enormous advantage it will be for us to have John Kerry as our opponent rather than enduring four more years of the present administration.

Take a look at the judiciary, which Bush has all but stated he will populate with judges who are hostile to a woman's right to choose, while Kerry has said unequivocally that he will support that right and will choose his judges accordingly. Think about how those same Bush judges will act when civil rights and civil liberties issues are brought before them. And keep in mind that as many as three Supreme Court justices (Stevens, O'Connor, and now Rehnquist) are likely to be appointed by the next administration.

Take a look at our embattled affirmative action programs, which Bush has actively opposed, and which Kerry has unequivocally pledged to support, specifically stating, in a national debate, that they are necessary to offset persistent societal racism.

Take a look at the record number of executions under Bush in Texas, with people of color hugely overrepresented, and compare that to Kerry's position of opposing the death penalty for all crimes other than terrorism.

Take a long, concerned look at Cuba, for which Bush has dramatically increased restrictions on travel, while Kerry supports the lifting of most such travel bans. The Congress also presently supports the lifting of these restrictions, so if Kerry is elected, travel will probably be normalized by Spring of 2005, resulting in an estimated one million new visitors from the U.S. during that same year, thus providing important political and financial support for what is perhaps the greatest accomplishment of people's movements, the always-embattled Cuban revolution.

Take a look at the environment, where Bush has refused to participate in Kyoto and other international agreements, and has pillaged our natural resources at home whenever it has suited the interests of his corporate cronies, and compare that to John Kerry's consistently good record on issues impacting the environment, and his clear statements in support of Kyoto.

Take a look at the demonstrations at the Republican National Convention in New York, where police literally threw nets over people as they peacefully demonstrated, arresting 1,800 and tossing over 500 into a filthy, toxic holding area on an abandoned pier for periods ranging to several days, most of whom were only released under the pressure of a court order (from a Democrat-appointed judge). That is just a taste of things to come for the anti-war movement if Bush is elected next week. Kerry, on the other hand, has expressed his support for civil liberties, and has spoken out against their abuse under the present administration. Arrests at the Democratic National Convention this year numbered in the single digits (Note: in 2000, the number arrested at our protests of the DNC was 194, which is horrific, but still half the number of the RNC in 2000, and an order of magnitude less than the 1800 at the RNC this year.).

Finally, think of the impact on the people of Iraq. Even though Kerry has said that he will continue the Iraq occupation, consider with whom the anti-war movement will have more influence as we pressure whoever wins this election to bring the troops home. Who is more likely to listen when the recently-formed group, Iraqi Veterans Against the War, raises the question "how do you ask a person to be the last one to die for a mistake?" Even if Kerry doesn't want to listen, he will have to listen. His entire political history makes him immensely vulnerable to our organizing, and to our arguments, against this war. And it will be easier for Kerry to listen because he is not the one who *made* the mistake. Kerry's Democratic Party base is strongly anti-war. None of the above is true of George Bush.

As you read this message, U.S. expansionism is generating unsustainable deficits that can only be fed by additional conquests and still more internal looting of the labor force. Already, our junta-in-training is setting its sights on Iran. Another four years of Bush will complete the transformation of this country into a mechanized Sparta of corpulent channel surfers watching their bombs blow up every place on Earth, while its underclass and dissidents languish together in dungeons.

Yes, the platform put forward by the Nader campaign represents my own views far better than the platform of John Kerry. The same can be said of the platform put forward by Green Party candidate David Cobb, who, unlike Nader, is running as the candidate of an actual, progressive, third party. If this election were simply a poll regarding which candidate's platform best represents my own views, it would make perfect sense to vote for Nader or for Cobb.

But an election is not a poll. Yes, our power has been reduced, but we should not become so depressed by that fact as to retreat to some kind of a moral high ground in an abstract universe where we get to choose our own perfect platform, while ceding any power that our votes could have had in the real world to the soulless operatives of the Bush/Cheney campaign, who will be only too glad to allow us that empty moral victory, so long as they can have absolutely everything else.

That is why I am urging progressives everywhere who care about our movements and about our issues, the very issues that are listed in the Nader campaign's platform, to cast your vote for John Kerry so that we can defeat George Bush in the coming elections. A vote for Nader is a vote for despair. Stay with us in the real world and continue to build the people's movements that will fight for a more survivable and democratic environment. Use the power of your vote to create a more favorable climate for progressive change, both within the U.S. and throughout the world. Do it for the people of Iraq. Do it for women, young people of color in prison, and developing nations. And do it to protect your own right to continue to act on behalf of the ethical principles that give meaning to our lives as progressives.

Carl Gunther
carl@moraluniverse.org

www.paitdb.org/index.aspx?Page=GuntherOnNader&Menu=GuntherOnNader

add your comments