There’s been some discussion about whether Ralph Nader is right to run for President, given that a good result for him could toss the election to Bush.
Are some candidates so bad that you’d vote against them, and vote for the candidate of the right, or left, best able to stop them?
FWIW, my two cents…I vote for who I like best. Period.
Why?
Most people are willing to vote tactically to stop candidates they loathe. So, your own vote based on your conscience is very safe…if you are being foolish.
I’ve lived under moderately conservative governments that were unwilling to pursue the sort of strongly conservative policies their voters wanted…in order to stay in power.
I got the feeling that these governments had the attitude of “Hey, be happy with what you get. Who else do you have to vote for? You don’t want those nasty X guys to get into power, do you?”
The nice thing about a Nader type of candidate, is that it allows a voter to say, “This is who else I have to vote for, pal. Smarten up.”
(Progressives will have no sympathy for me, I’m sure…but I think a saddened liberal who thinks Clinton/Gore have faded too far to the right might have similar thoughts, right?)
I will readily concede that I am not allowing for how North American politics really works, on a practical level. I am also probably being too idealistic.
I really wouldn’t be too concerned. The Democratic voting base will be greatly diminished due to a variety of factors, the single largest being that algore is already D.O.A. The 3-4% that Nader will siphon off won’t be significant.
After the country witnesses the debacle/freak show that will be the Democratic National Convention, the dems will be lucky to carry any state west of the people’s republic of massachusetts.
As a Republican, I have no business telling a disaffected liberal whether he should or shouldn’t vote for Ralph NAder.
But I will say this, from experience: sometimes, voting for a “loser” is a worthwhile move. It may be part of the process that gets a mainstream party moving in your direction.
Three examples come to mind: Barry Goldwater, eorge McGovern and Ronald Reagan.
Now, in 1964, Barry Goldwater was shellacked, just as George McGovern was in 1972. But would it REALLY be fair or accurate to call them “losers” in the historical sense? I don’t think so. Despite their failures, both managed to reshape their parties, to the point where THEIR views (which once seemed outlandish) are now the mainstream views of their parties. They lost their battles, but may have won the larger wars.
Similarly, by running against GErlad FOrd in 1976, Ronald Reagan weakened the GOP and may have been responsible for the election of Jimmy Carter. But in the long run, Reagan reshaped and actually STRENGTHENED the party.
So… I won’t tell any left-winger how to vote, but even if voting for Nader led to a victory for George W., you MIGHT still be making a good move in the long run.
Our nation is unusual in that we have, for the majority of our history, held to a two-party system. We seem to be quite willing to compromise some beliefs in order to align with the power that will protect the greater proportion of those beliefs.
“Coalition governments” are rare birds sighted usually only during wartime, or threat of war.
The dominant parties are willing to change their positions somewhat to encompass enough folks to give the party a fighting chance. Consider the role-reversal of the Democrats and the Republicans over the civil rights issue.
However, such a role-reversal required the success of a third party, the Dixiecrats, headlined by Strom Thurmond in 1948, to move the Bible Belt into the hands of the Republicans.
So your idealism is not untenable. It has and likely will continue to influence politics in America, but at a glacially slow level. If you have a particular issue, you might consider approaching the Reform Party. Their influence over the past two elections has been pivotal. Sooner or later, the Big Dogs will attempt to absorb the Reformers by adopting their positions, or risk dying off like the Federalists and the Whigs did.
This is a moot question for me, as I am Canadian. That said, however, there are some aspects of the American Reformers–namely their protectionism–that would lead me to vote for Bush instead.
Your general point, however, is very good. The New Democratic Party and what was then the Reform Party of Canada have had strong influenceup here–although they have never formed a federal government–for many of the reasons you cite.
The reform party is disintegrating as I type this; in fact, it’s already split into competing conventions. The lawsuit over the 12 mil in campaign funds promises to be entertaining.
What I’d REALLY like to see is some sort of alliance between the Greens and the Libertarians, mostly because of the fact that I love both the welfare state and my 10mpg 1973 Trans Am.
I feel you idealism, Scribe; ten years ago I would have been so with you.
But the unfortunate truth is that a vote for Nader (whom in a better univers would have a real shot) is a vote for Bush. In a very real way. I think you really need to consider this before you vote.
On a theoreticaly level, the more I learn about it the less impressed I am with the two-party system. But those are the current rules in the game you’re playing.
I feel, writing this, like I’ve become so cynical and lost all of my youthful idealism. But I just got so tired of being so ineffectual. Symbolism at the expense of reality has just come to seem less compelling to me as a way of life.
Dunno about the “a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush” axiom… Dems have been tossing around figures to the effect that 90% of Nader voters would otherwise vote for Gore, which I don’t think is entirely accurate. If Bradley were to have won the primaries (yeah right), I, personally, would have voted for him. But I would never, ever, ever, in a million years, vote for Al Gore… even if he were running against Idi Amin… cuz you know the Gore camp would try to triangulate with Amin voters and possibly co-opt their legislative agenda if their poll numbers were strong enough.
Not that I think King George II would behave any differently.
If it’s a bimbo vs. a reptile, I’ll take just about anything else.
My guess is the vast majority of Green votes will come from those who would otherwise throw their vote away even more profoundly… on the CPUSA or LaRouche or Bo Grits.
The fact that the REAL left has been able to feild such a strong candidate should be heartening, not frightening, to any registered Democrat who values the traditional base of their party.
And if the New Democrats are scared shitless, well, they deserve it.