You want a direct answer? Fine.
The answer is “NO!” The Green Party should do whatever is is they think they are doing, without asking the permission of anybody. On the other hand, if the Democratic Party thinks that what they are doing will hand the country over to the Republicans on a silver platter, seting back the causes of both the Green Party and the Democratic Party back a minimum of 4 years, and endangering both enviromental standards and Women’s Rights, they have the right to be very angry about it.
Let’s go back to the original unanswered question, shall we?
If the votes for Nader split the Democratic Party bad enough to cause Bush to win the election, giving the Republican Party a green light to go forth without threat of veto, and possibly giving Bush a chance to put between one and three Supreme Court Justices on the roster, how will this help the Green Party, the rights of women, and the enviroment?
BTW, I don’t really care if you are not concerned with that aspect. In the real world, you have to worry about all the consequences of your actions, not just the ones that might benefit you. If you don’t, you are no better than corporate pirates that buy companies and fire all the workers just to sell off the assets.
Or in other words, the Green Party has the right to do whatever it damn well pleases. As does the Democratic Party.
What the Democratic Party wants to do is to try to stop the Green Party from handing over the country to the Republicans on a silver platter.
The Green Party has the right to do what it wants.
They do NOT have the right to do it unopposed.
All clear?
Let’s see. According to the last poll I saw in the Washington Post, Bush had 47%, Gore had 46%, and Nader had 4%.
That’s not a split by any stretch of the imagination. A split would be if Bush had 50% and Gore and Nader each had 25%, assuming the voters for Nader were liberal and doing so because they were solely dissatisfied with Gore. Nader is not splitting the vote. Gore, on the other hand, is obviously providing no alternative to Bush in voters’ eyes. If he were he’d be well ahead of Bush instead of trading the lead with him every two weeks. Stop blaming Nader for Gore’s obvious shortcomings.
What, like this hasn’t happened already? NAFTA allowed that to happen in Mexico, Southeast Asia’s been the focus of production for big companies like Nike, and let’s not forget to mention how involved Shell and BP are in places like Nigeria. Oil’s there, sure, but they don’t have to import many skilled workers, either.
Maybe they should worry about the kind of choice they’re providing instead of a party that’s only garnering FOUR PERCENT OF THE FUCKING POLLS.
Finally, let me add my personal insight into your question why I think a Bush presidency would be better than a Gore presidency.
I don’t. If I did I’d be voting for Bush. Bush is scum. Gore isn’t much better. Voting for Nader isn’t handing the Oval Office to Bush on a silver platter. Being a Democratic candidate who doesn’t offer anything radically different from the Republicans is. 'Cos people always prefer the original to a copy.
Gore’s loss, should it occur, is Gore’s fault. Not Nader’s.
In an election this close, those Nader supporters do indeed make a difference. What’s more important: making an ultimately meaningless “statement” with your vote, or using it where it will do some real good?
As for those saying that Gore needs to move to the left:
If Gore moved far enough to the left to please Greens, he would lose the middle and lose the election.
The perfect is the enemy of the good, as they say.
I believe that the whole point of many Nader supporters is that a vote for Nader is hardly an “ultimately meaningless statement.”
I agree with you that Nader is drawing people away from Gore more than Bush, and that this election is close enough that it could tip the balance.
But, like I said earlier: if a Green supporter is shortsighted enough to think that the 2000 election is all that matters right now, then Gore is the only way to go. If that Green supporter ever wants their party to gain genuine standing, to ever have a chance of really winning the presidency (2008? 2012?), they have to start actually casting votes for it sooner or later.
If Bush is so evil that preventing his election overrides the importance of helping the Greens win in 8 or 12 years, then by all means a Green should vote for Gore. Opinions run both ways on that, and neither one is stupid.
61% of 4% is 2.44%. If we give that to Gore it’s still 48.4% to Bush’s 47%. Ooh, Gore just squeaked into the White House postponing the Republican Apocalypse by 4 years! Whew, I’m breathing easier now.
The only reason the Democrats are panicked is because this damn thing is so close. If Gore had 75% of the polls and Bush had 21% and Nader still only the 4% he’s getting now, Nader would not be an issue for the Democrats.
So yeah, we do make a difference. But that’s only because Gore’s never had the lead the Democrats hoped he would. I don’t feel sorry for him -or them -at all.
I think that is fairly disingenious. Dems and Repubs already co-opt a lot of the Green agenda at the local level.
I lived in Austin Texas from 1991-97, and the whole time I was there the city leaders were very serious about the environment and those who were not didn’t get re-elected. Maybe they didn’t carry the banner of the Green party but you’d hardly know it.
But somehow, when these people go off to Washington they forget their roots. Partly because of corporate influence. Partly because you need the backing of a major party to win statewide of nationwide office. Partly because the Green’s national agenda is much more robust than it can be on the urban level.
No cities have politicians who care about the environment or a living wage? I doubt it.
If you can’t even get a mayor elected on the Green Party ticket, maybe politics isn’t for you. Unless of course you want to admit that without Nader the Green Party wouldn’t even be trying to run a candidate. You don’t have a political party, you have a cult of personality, much like Perot’s party. If Nader stepped back, your house of cards would fall flatter than his sense of humor.
Now here is your chance to tell me off by naming all those successful Green Party candidates that have previously gotten elected and made wonderful gains in helping consumers and the enviroment.
The same Newsweek poll also found that only 28% of Nader supporters would switch their vote to fend off a Bush victory. The Democrats have totally misconstrued the basis for Nader’s support and have simply given Nader more publicity in the last week than he’s received in the entire campaign. I hope his supporters in the swing states stick with their convictions rather than succumbing to Gore’s desperation tactics–Al has to earn his votes just like everyone else.
I have to agree with those who have a bad taste in their mouth left by the “throwing away your vote” push.
As a relatively young man, I am sick of living in a country where the choice is always between the lesser of two evils. And now, certain Democrats are even saying it out loud: “Our guy sucks less than their guy. Vote for the guy who sucks less to keep the guy who sucks more out of office.” It’s insulting.
If I choose to excercise my vote in an effort that could- by the barest of chances in a magical fairy land on Christmas morning- make the slightest difference in the way Washington is run, I think that’s an honorable thing.
Here’s how I see it happening. If Ralph and the greens get the legitimacy of matching funds, Ralph can go back to doing what he does best and a genuine politician can take the reins- being less scandalized by the typical loony third party stigma. The Democrats will look harder at the liberal left they’ve always taken for granted. And we will come closer to having real political debate instead of everyone trying not to piss off most of the people most of the time. Oh, hell, I don’t know. I’m just desperately tired of things the way they are.
There haven’t. But that’s because most of the people fighting for Green reforms (and the reforms Nader’s taken up) did it from the ground up, through activism and public pressure. You don’t have to be an elected official to get changes made.
Get off this elitist definition of who should qualify to run for national public office. Nader’s got every right to find as wide a forum as possible for his views and doesn’t need a list of political hoops he’s jumped through to do it.
slythe – didn’t you read my post? Maybe you missed it – but in Texas, the Democratic party largely agrees with Green policies. Why would the Green party want to split the vote among people who really care about the enviroment?
Here is a story from the Austin Chronicle discussing the races they are running this year statewide. They are only fielding candidates where the Dems have not bothered to run.
Perhaps if Gore endorsed some of Nader’s issues, the Greens wouldn’t be running and would have endorsed Gore instead.
I’m gonna be wacky and respond to the OP. I am voting for Nader because I believe in him and think he’s the best of the choices I will be offered on the ballot. What I think is really a “protest vote” (a therm thrown around way too much these days) is a vote for someone you don’t like to keep someone you really don’t like out of office.
Also, whoever referred to that ad which “admits” that Nader can’t win and is “in it for the money”: that ad is being run by an independent Nader supporter (George MacArthur?), who is a proponent of “tactical voting” (voting for Nader where it’s “safe”); it is not endorsed by Nader or the Greens.
This is a difficult issue for me. I honestly don’t know the answer to the problem brad_d poses.
I believe that if Gore wins with Nader garnering less than 5% of the vote, it will just be a signal to the Democrats that Gore was right–when it comes down to it, liberals will take it up the rear rather than let the Democrat lose. If the GOP figures that Bush lost by pandering to much to the center (which he has pretended to do–rather poorly, but the people seem to be buying it) then BOTH parties could shift even further to the right and leave liberals without a voice for decades. And of course, if Bush wins, without a showing by Nader, it’s even worse. I don’t honestly think Nader has a hope of EVER winning, but its been shown that third party candidates who play a potential spoiler role can bring their own issues into the debate between the two major parties, just like Perot did in '92 with the budget deficit–and look what happened to that! It wouldn’t be completely a protest vote because I actually do think he’s the best person for the job; I’m just realistic about his chances.
On the other hand, the thought of a Bush presidency REALLY frightens me. If he manages to appoint justices to the Supreme Court who think global warming is a Communist hoax, affimative action is unconstitutional, and Roe v. Wade is a big mistake, (and he’d try) the damage wouldn’t go on for decades, but generations.
Up untill recently, I’d been a pretty strong Nader supporter, but with the election looming and Bush still ahead by a razor margin, I’m beginning to waver. I don’t know what I’ll do on election day.
I’m just afraid that it’ll be a case of winning the battle-bringing the Democratic Party more to the left, but losing the war-giving the presidency to to the Republicans so that they will control 2(if not three!) branches of the government.
The funny part is, I wouldn’t mind letting Bush win if it would bring the left forward, if the Democrats controlled Congress and provided some sort of balance to the system. But the way it is now, too much damage can be done, some of it irrepairable, to take this chance.
IMHO, of course.
I found out last week that my once liberal mother is planning on voting for Bush. If you can’t trust your own mother (well, my mother, anyway) not to vote for a bleeding idiot like Bush, what hope does the country have? Last night, though, she said that she was thinking about voting for Ron Brown (Libertarian Party) instead. Now I’m considering making a deal with her–if she promises to vote for Brown tomorrow, I’ll vote for Nader instead of Gore. We’ll each know that we’ve prevented a vote for the “enemy,” and together, we’ll bring the two-party system to its knees!
I hope your mother doesn’t double-cross you.
My mother isn’t voting thank God.
She’s 82 and thinks Bush is better looking, which should be a good qualifier for being President. But she says whoever is the Democrat should be president, no matter who it is.
sigh
Harry Browne! Harry Browne! Harry Browne!
What was I thinking? That’ll teach me to post at the ungodly hour of 10:15 in the morning, when I should be asleep!
