Support Our Troops!

[Zoe]

xtisme, if we follow your line of thinking that all citizens are responsible for the actions of their government, then those who died in the killing fields of Cambodia were responsible for their own deaths, the Kurds in Iraq were responsible for their own slaughter, and so forth.

I have supported our troops in that I have thanked those that I know personally for their service and welcomed them home. I have reserved judgment of individuals, but tend to stand in awe of their courage.

I vote in every state-wide and federal election. Like most citizens, I did not vote for George W. Bush. I was opposed to the war in Iraq even though I believed at the time that there really were WMD in Iraq. I have been consistent in speaking up about my opposition. I’ve signed petitions and written letters to Senators and Congressmen. I’ve tried to keep family and friends informed. I have become a C-Span and news junkie.

I believe that the founders of our country advocated working to change things when they aren’t right – not abandoning the country itself. At the moment there are places that I had rather live – places that make health care for the elderly more affordable, for example. But my family is here. I’m not about to abandon my retired husband, our home, my 91 year old mother, our four grandchildren or friendships that have lasted, in some cases, literally since the cradle.

I’ve managed to clear myself of responsibility for this war except for one thing. Although I do not have money invested in any of the firms that have sent civilian contractors to Iraq, my husband may. I do not have access to that information.

As for taxes, I receive Social Security and the government now pays me more than I pay them.

I have served my country in other ways earlier in my life on a different kind of frontline in another combat zone. Further, I am a member of Amnesty International and the T-shirt that I wear proclaims that my citizenship extends to the rest of the earth.

If I am responsible for this war, it will take an argument stronger than yours to convince me. Didn’t you see the signs that war protestors carried before the war began:

NOT IN MY NAME!

[XT]

@David Simmons

I know that’s the party line but I think it is expecting a lot of a 20 year old private to publicly stand up to even a 2nd Lt. If an officer would give an unlawful order then at the later trial he or she wouldn’t hesitate to lie about it and deny having done it. And for another thing, the officer is a member of the club and the private isn’t. I know that the troops are given regular exposure to the rules but to expect ordinary soldiers to feel themselves on solid ground when disputing their commander on the grounds of miltary law is asking a lot.

I can’t speak to the other armed services, but I’ve seen this actually happen in the Navy. Not to name any names or go into any details but I was on a ship in the I.O. and a seaman FC refused an order by a L.T. AND a CPO and was brought up to a Cpts. Mast. However, it was discovered the orders given would have endangered not only the lowly seaman but could have endangered the ship too (it was a safety thing). Basically the seaman got off completely (I THINK he was even rewarded) and the L.T. was court marshalled. The CPO basically got a slap on the wrist (he got a Cpts Mast also).

I think you are underestimating the professionalism of our military to be honest. Sure, some folks slip through the cracks (like those bozo’s in the prison fuck up), but generally our military is well trained and well disiplined, and pretty responsive when things go wrong. And when folks DO cross the line they generally get slapped pretty hard IMO…reguardless if they are officers or enlisted.

Of course, I was never an officer, so YMMV, and I really don’t know much about the other branches with the possible exception of the Marines (some of who were stationed on board a few of the ships I served on). Even there, Sailors and Marines generally don’t mix (except to fight on shore).

-XT

[iamme99]

@David Simmons

I know that’s the party line but I think it is expecting a lot of a 20 year old private to publicly stand up to even a 2nd Lt. If an officer would give an unlawful order then at the later trial he or she wouldn’t hesitate to lie about it and deny having done it. And for another thing, the officer is a member of the club and the private isn’t. I know that the troops are given regular exposure to the rules but to expect ordinary soldiers to feel themselves on solid ground when disputing their commander on the grounds of miltary law is asking a lot.

Absolutely agree!

You’ve got a bunch of mainly high school educated (and we all know how poor many high school educations are these days!), with limited life and military experience taking a chance that a senior officer is wrong? Taking a chance that he knows the rules of law better than a senior officer? Unless, it were something really, really blatant (like shoot those woman and children over there dead), I don’t think so.

I don’t know if this exists in the military, but it seems that a possible solution would be some sort of independent Ombudsman/Advocate that any soldier could go to, with assured privacy, to ask for advice in some of the situations that have been described . I’m not thinking of a psychologist but someone verse in military law and procedures.

[iamme99]

@Zagadka

If we are talking about blindly respecting people for risking their lives for something that they believe in, why limit that to Americans? Don’t we then have to “respect” the Iraqi “insurgents,” or FARC, or the Chechen rebels, or the millions of other people who risk their lives for something they believe in (very frequently taking a greater risk than American soldiers, and almost universally for much less compensation)?

You may recall that Bill Mahre tried this same argument with the 9/11 hijackers. It didn’t go over very well and he wound up losing his show on ABC.

[David_Simmons]

@xtisme

And when folks DO cross the line they generally get slapped pretty hard IMO…reguardless if they are officers or enlisted.

I had several CO’s that I respected a lot, even in the bad old days. But, we’ve got a test case going on right now haven’t we? Let’s total up the punishments given to the enlisted prison guards versus those given their commanders. It is always possible I, or you, or both of us are mistaken and time will tell.

[XT]

@Zoe

xtisme, if we follow your line of thinking that all citizens are responsible for the actions of their government, then those who died in the killing fields of Cambodia were responsible for their own deaths, the Kurds in Iraq were responsible for their own slaughter, and so forth.

:rolleyes: Did you skip over the part where I made the distinction between a democratic society and a totalitarian one…or did your head explode before you got to that part?? Did NO ONE actually read through what I wrote??

@Zoe

I have supported our troops in that I have thanked those that I know personally for their service and welcomed them home. I have reserved judgment of individuals, but tend to stand in awe of their courage.

And how is this different in any way of what I am advocating? I said that people should respect them for the jobs they do for all of us, but not blindly worship them, nor blindly follow the government just because they respect the men and women in our armed forces. As individuals there are certainly some real bastards in the military…no doubt about it, I’ve met a few myself (hell, some might say I’M a real bastard :)).

@Zoe

I vote in every state-wide and federal election. Like most citizens, I did not vote for George W. Bush. I was opposed to the war in Iraq even though I believed at the time that there really were WMD in Iraq. I have been consistent in speaking up about my opposition. I’ve signed petitions and written letters to Senators and Congressmen. I’ve tried to keep family and friends informed. I have become a C-Span and news junkie.

…

They you are practically my ideal as far as a citizen goes. You are informed. You are skeptical of the government. You respect the men and women in uniform without blindly worshiping them, and you reserve judgement on an individual basis.

Having trouble cut and pasting atm…as to the responsibility thing you say at the end, all of us are responsible because its OUR government. We elect it, it serves us, therefore we are responsible for its actions. We fulfill our responsibility by watching over our government, being informed, and when it does things we don’t agree with we fulfill our ultimate responsibility by voting our principals. Then we abide by the results and understand that if our candidate didn’t win, its STILL our government, and we are still responsible for its actions…because thats what it means to be a citizen in a democracy.

Think about it some and turn it around. What if we do it your way? What if when YOUR candidate wins it automatically free’s someone on the other side from all responsibility for the decisions made? Ultimately this way leads to a total polarization of the US, where we are only connected and responsible when its OUR government that was elected…when its the other party’s government we just dissassociate ourselves. This also leads to increased power of the government over us IMO, as we are distracted by the little partisan in fighting picture and loose sight of the BIG picture.

Why have a Union in that case? And what if we take it a step further? Maybe even though you voted for the government currently in power you suddenly decide you don’t like its decisions anymore. Now you can skate again and disclaim any responsibility because they aren’t doing what you want them to do.

Just to continue to beat this obviously dead horse, responsibility of the kind I’m talking about is the nature of living in a democracy, because ultimately our government is a servant by the people and of the people, and its answerable too us via the election process. We all implicitely have agreed to abide by the rules layed down as to the election process. The people we elect represent our collective will…their power and authority stem from us, ultimately. If we find that our servants aren’t doing as we wish (the collective ‘we’), then its our responsibility to be informed, to be watchful, and to vote out our servants that aren’t properly executing our will and vote in someone(s) who will.

THATS why you, me, the guy who works at the 7-11 getting you a slurpee, and even elicudator ( ) are all responsible for the actions of OUR government…because ultimately WE are the source of the power given and excersized by our government. If we are lax in our responsibilities then we all suffer as the government starts to think IT is in charge…instead of the other way around. And its attitudes like I’ve seen in this thread that allow such, because people shirk or disclaim their responsibilities when its not THEIR candidate in office.

-XT

[XT]

@David Simmons

I had several CO’s that I respected a lot, even in the bad old days. But, we’ve got a test case going on right now haven’t we? Let’s total up the punishments given to the enlisted prison guards versus those given their commanders. It is always possible I, or you, or both of us are mistaken and time will tell.

Fair enough, but I actually think this is not a good example (for you). Its been too public, and the black eye it gave the armed forces too visible. I can practically guarentee that the book is going to get thrown at these guys, because of the embarrassment to the Administration. Its going to be a witch hunt IMO.

Time will tell, but I’m pretty confident that these guys are going to be thrown to the wolves reguardless. I think some other test case that is less politically charged, or at least less visible in the publics eye (like some of the alleged abuses or ‘accidental’ killings in Iraq) would be a better test of the UCMJ than this.

I think also that its a pretty forgone conclusion that in THIS case (the prisons) things will change radically. I think they would have changed anyway, but you are going to see people shaking the trees and rattling the cages after something like this.

-XT

[annaplurabelle]

@xtisme

Think about it some and turn it around. What if we do it your way? What if when YOUR candidate wins it automatically free’s someone on the other side from all responsibility for the decisions made? Ultimately this way leads to a total polarization of the US, where we are only connected and responsible when its OUR government that was elected…when its the other party’s government we just dissassociate ourselves. This also leads to increased power of the government over us IMO, as we are distracted by the little partisan in fighting picture and loose sight of the BIG picture.

You say “what if”??? IMO, the US populace is polarised and disempowered.

Anyway, here’s yet another rebuttal to your “civics for dummies” preach-a-thon:

ACT Responsibly: Don’t Vote!

That’s not a bumper sticker you’ll see in coming months. Instead, you’ll hear - endlessly - that voting is your civic duty. Yet for some the ballot is just one more government form to fill out - and saying “no” a powerful political act.

Those for whom non-voting is a conscious statement of protest generally argue as follows: The check mark, flipped lever or punched chad means “yes”: It is the active consent you give to the electoral process by virtue of participating…

No wonder all candidates agree on one point: You should vote. First and foremost, politicians want you to sanction the process by which they acquire power and money because, without that sanction, they have no legitimacy.

It is commonly said, “If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain about the outcome.” The opposite is true: By playing the game, voters agree to the rules. Only those who don’t play and withhold their consent have a right to complain about the outcome, especially since the winner will have his hand in the non-voter’s pocket.

Voting is not an act of political freedom. It is an act of political conformity. Those who refuse to vote are not expressing silence. They are screaming in the politician’s ear: “You do not represent me. This is not a process in which my voice matters. I do not believe you.”

Non-voting has a rich and long history through which the dissenting electorate has expressed everything from religious convictions to political cynicism. If people truly believe voting is important, they should use their mouths to do more than insult non-voters and utter election slogans. They should discuss and debate the issue with those who disagree.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/20930.htm

[aruvqan]

@Airman Doors

You know what I think “supporting the troops” means?

It means not calling us criminals. It means giving us some of that “intangible moral support” that means everything when you’re stuck in a tent in the middle of Bumfuck with no ability to see or speak to our families. It means welcoming us home when we get back. It means thanking us for doing a difficult job, whether you agree with the politics or not.

And that is why I “adopt” the occasional squaddie of my brothers or cousins, or friends over there. It makes a whale of a difference for them to actually get something at mail call, whether it is one of my care packages [that they usually end up sharing the munchies with their buds and passing the books around] or a silly post card.

[aruvqan]

@xtisme

BTW, my understanding is that in some countries in Europe their birthrate isn’t keeping up with the mortality rate…in other words they have a negative population growth (the implication being they NEED immigration). Also, I know that a lot of people immigrate from OTHER countries to several European countries (witness the influx of people from muslim countries in France for instance), so I can’t see why they would block Americans. Could you explain this seeming contridiction?

FWIW, americans probably see some countries immigration requirements as too draconian. Germany frex REQUIRES you to be pretty much fluent in day-to-day common german. Our country doesnt require you to be fluent in your birth language, let alone english…I would have to check, but I also think it requires you to have been a resident for 15 years<? I had heard that had changed to 8 years…> and some other things on top of that. Heck, I think America probably has the least stringent of all immigration requirements, you can’t be a criminal in your own country, you put in your paperwork and they squeeze you into the quota for your country of origin category, you have a green card and you are gainfully employed…something along those lines. I don’t believe there is a fiduciary requirement [Doesnt one of the scandanavian countreis require a minimum amount of cash in the bank to prove you can support yourself and a job?]

Personally, I like living in a country that lets me have the franchise to vote. And because I vote, I feep perfectly happy to bitch about the polticians in office, write nastygrams to them, and put my support behind people I believe will do the best job possible.

[jshore]

@annaplurabelle

Anyway, here’s yet another rebuttal to your “civics for dummies” preach-a-thon:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/20930.htm

It seems like a pretty dumb one though. As my moveon.org shirt says, “democracy is not a spectator sport”. Unless you don’t believe that democracy is the correct form of government, I don’t understand supporting the notion of not participating in it. And, I suppose if you really believe it is the wrong form of government or is being implemented wrongly, you should be working to change that too.

[clairobscur]

@Airman Doors

Why doesn’t it make sense? You can respect soldiers from other countries even while you’re fighting them. Fact is, you should. Even if you don’t agree with their cause they’re fighting because they’re either forced to or they believe in it.

I don’t think we’re discussing about the same thing, here, so I can only repeat what I wrote :

Stating that “we must support our troops” on the mere basis that they put their life in line and/or have no say in the matter doesn’t make sense because the ennemy is exactly in the same situation. So, if the support is due only to our troops there must necessarily be another reason to support them rather than the people they oppose.

Most people in this thread argue that this other reason is the “our” . I argue that the reason should be the moral value of the fight they’re involved in. And that this moral value can only be determined individually by each of us, regardless what other people, being our elected representants or not, can state or decide. I don’t rely on other people to determine my moral judgment.

[clairobscur]

@Airman Doors

There’s a vast difference between respecting your enemy and giving them aid and comfort.

Also (but this isn’t different from what I wrote above) : your ennemy wouldn’t necessarily be mine, even if we happened to be citizens of the same country. So, though you could want to only respect them, I could want to give them aid and comfort.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@clairobscur

Also (but this isn’t different from what I wrote above) : your ennemy wouldn’t necessarily be mine, even if we happened to be citizens of the same country. So, though you could want to only respect them, I could want to give them aid and comfort.

In that case, due to the laws of virtually every country in the world, you would would be charged with treason, convicted, and at the minimum imprisoned.

The hard fact is this: If you don’t like what the democratically elected leaders of your country are doing, you have very few choices. You can leave, you can resist and go to jail, you can commit treason and at best face jail, you can protest (for what that’s worth), you can remain silent, or you can engineer some sort of coup. Every action has consequences, and as long as there are borders between countries, you will have to face those consequences. In this country, treason is well defined and has dire consequences. I don’t know exactly what the laws are in France, but I’d be willing to bet that they’re similar. It’s up to you whether you want to find out or not, though.

You seem to be a moral relativist. That’s fine. But if the choice comes down to rooting for my countrymen or yelling “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, VietCong are gonna win”, or worse, pulling a Jane Fonda, my countrymen are going to win out. Every time. You’re obviously different in that regard.

[iamme99]

NY Post
DON’T VOTE

By WENDY MCELROY

May 15, 2004 – 'ACT Responsibly: Don’t Vote!"
That’s not a bumper sticker you’ll see in coming months. Instead, you’ll hear - endlessly - that voting is your civic duty. Yet for some the ballot is just one more government form to fill out - and saying “no” a powerful political act.

…

*Wendy McElroy is co-editor of “Dissenting Electorate: Those Who Refuse To Vote and the Legitimacy of Their Opposition.” *

Don’t vote opinion link

Regardless of how it sounds on the surface, this is a very foolish course of action. The politicians don’t really care how many people vote for them, as long as enough do for one of them to win. Sure, the media and the loser will complain about lack of voter participation but the winner will always be happy.

All “not voting” achieves is that a politician gets elected by a smaller number of people. But the politician still represents you and the area the you live in, can still vote on and/or initiate bills that may become law and which will affect you just the same and still has all the powers and benefits that are bestowed on an elected official. When you choose not to vote, you are giving other people the power to make decisions that affect you. Not voting is not going to change our system of government. That goal can only be achieved by VOTING!

[Jman]

Well, I am one of those soldiers who is serving in the Iraq war who has never, and still does not agree with the war. Why am I here then? Well, that’s easy…6.5 years ago I signed a contract agreeing to serve at least 4 years in the Active Army in exchange for the government paying for my college. When I signed up, it was a different time, with different expectations. I agreed to serve in defense of my nation, and to protect our allies, etc, etc. When I signed up, Bush wasn’t president, and there was virtually zero chance of us invading Iraq.

Shortly after I started my service, 9/11 happened, and I supported our actions in Afghanistan. The Iraq war I never thought was justified…but I don’t get a choice in the matter. It’s one of the things that makes our military work. If soldiers ONLY fought in the causes they truly believed wholeheartedly in, we would have an extremely weak national defense, as we could never accurately estimate troop levels for rotations, and more. For instance, if I originally agreed with the war in Iraq (I didn’t, but for sake of argument…), but after finding no WMD, decided that I didn’t like the way things were going…I’d be able to leave. If we were allowed to choose the conflicts we fight, then the huge loss of troops after that point would leave those who stayed in a situation of almost certain death. Ultimately, this would cause the failure of basically ANY military operation at ANY time…because troops would always want to get out.

For me…I am here in the war because there’s really not an option. Here are my options:

1. Do my duty, that I signed up for and agreed, contractually, to fulfill, despite not agreeing with the current action. Do what I can in this war, which to me means I need to bring all my soldiers home alive. Finish my service in a year and a half. Leave the Army when my time is up. Go on to successful civilian career.

2. Refuse to go to the war. Get thrown in prison for willful disobeyal of a direct order, missing movement, conduct unbecoming, etc, etc, etc. Get dishonorably discharged. As a result of the dishonorable discharge, never hold a job of ANY significance the REST OF MY LIFE. Essentially, throw my Ivy League degree out the window, and force my wife and I to live off her teachers salary plus my burger flipping wages. Ultimately destroy any chance of a meaningful career.

What would you do? Anyway…I disagree with the current administration on a huge amount of issues, but I respect Bush as my commander-in-chief, and I will obey his orders. I signed on to protect my country, and I don’t get to make the choice of what orders I obey. The reason the defense of our country works and the might our our military is so great is because everyone obeys the (legal) orders of those above them. Without that structure and the willingness to do things that you might not agree with, our country would be essentially defenseless. The only time we have a choice about these actions is every four years. I will not be voting for Bush, but during the time I’m in the Army, he is my commander, and I will follow him.

Support the troops…they are the people (tons as young as 18 and 19) who signed up to protect our country from the bad guys. While the current action may not be directly protecting the nation, without those soldiers, our country would not be free. Without a standing military, the US would not last 5 years. Just the presence of these soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen deters enemy action against the US, and if that alone is the only reason to support them, then that should be good enough. The leaders of the country make the decisions of who to go to war with…not the soldier on the ground. The soldier on the ground keeps you free.

Jman

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

Well said, Jman.

[Zagadka]

@Jman

If soldiers ONLY fought in the causes they truly believed wholeheartedly in, we would have an extremely weak national defense, as we could never accurately estimate troop levels for rotations, and more.

Am I a ultra-liberal commie pinko for actually thinking that isn’t so bad an idea?

I mean, obviously, you would have to maintain a permanent army for national defense operations, but I think you could easily keep a force sufficient enough with our current model. However, for wars not of national defense, require a volunteer operation, much like the raising of a militia in response to a threat in the old days. If the People truly believed in and supported a war (ie, Afghanistan), you would find no shortage of volunteer service people. In a war that the People were not strongly for, the use of force would have to be done more carefully - resulting in a “softer” foreign policy, better international relations, and a more responsible use of military force.

In the scenario of Canada invading America, obviously recruitment would skyrocket for the defense operation (unless maybe they were just invading Idaho, we don’t need that). In the event some nutjob barely squeaks by in an election, lies publicy to invade another nation, and gets half the country steadfastly opposing him, his exploits would be curtailed, to say the least.

You could even provide bonuses for the volunteers - more college money, shorter service time, prisoners to mutilate, whatever floats their boats.

The best part is, no one is forced to take part in anything they don’t want, and the freakbaskets saying we need to invade them ragheads to teach 'em what Freedom is all about can put their chips on the table.

The way I see it, win-win!

You may recall that Bill Mahre tried this same argument with the 9/11 hijackers. It didn’t go over very well and he wound up losing his show on ABC.

God Bless America, where a man can stand up and speak his mind freely withou- wait, what’s that? Oh, right… America is the land of the free like the Soviet Union was classless. All I’m concerned about is being right. The key to your statement is that Bill tried the argument, and the best refute that anyone could come up with was duct taping his mouth and throwing him off a bridge. Oooh, dangerous and wild ideas threaten me, oooooooh, all I can do is silence people, oooooooooooh. Tell you this much, I have more respect for FARC than ABC. To quote Republicans everywhere, “at least they believe in something.”

As you may note above, I don’t have a latenight TV show to lose, so the worst that can happen to me (so far) is some rednecks throwing Coors bottles at me or Airman Doors getting confused about when I’m serious and when I’m joking.

I still stand by my revised position - in addition to “supporting our troops,” we should be overly critical of them, and the two are not mutually exclusive.

[annaplurabelle]

@jshore

Unless you don’t believe that democracy is the correct form of government, I don’t understand supporting the notion of not participating in it.

@iamme99

All “not voting” achieves is that a politician gets elected by a smaller number of people. But the politician still represents you and the area the you live in, can still vote on and/or initiate bills that may become law and which will affect you just the same and still has all the powers and benefits that are bestowed on an elected official. When you choose not to vote, you are giving other people the power to make decisions that affect you. Not voting is not going to change our system of government. That goal can only be achieved by VOTING!

I’m not defending that op-ed - I’m not sure how I feel about protest non-voting (or third party/write-in protest voting, for that matter).

But I do understand how some people can be significantly unhappy with the Dem or GOP candidates. What are you suggesting these people do? Are you saying it’s a civic responsibility to vote for the “lesser of 2 evils” rather than following your conscience or ideology? A Kucinich type liberal should hold his nose and vote for Kerry? A classic conservative should do the same re Bush? How is that not conformity, as the op-ed suggests?

The alternative would be third party/write in. Can you point out an example (recent) of how that benefitted the voters who did so, or democracy in general?

[iamme99]

@annaplurabelle

I’m not defending that op-ed - I’m not sure how I feel about protest non-voting (or third party/write-in protest voting, for that matter).

But I do understand how some people can be significantly unhappy with the Dem or GOP candidates. What are you suggesting these people do? Are you saying it’s a civic responsibility to vote for the “lesser of 2 evils” rather than following your conscience or ideology? A Kucinich type liberal should hold his nose and vote for Kerry? A classic conservative should do the same re Bush? How is that not conformity, as the op-ed suggests?

The alternative would be third party/write in. Can you point out an example (recent) of how that benefitted the voters who did so, or democracy in general?

Life is full of choices, few of them perfect. Given what is essentially a two party system of government, there are really only two viable choices you can make. Choosing a 3rd party candidate, writing in a candidate or not voting all have the same effect - nothing will change, because they aren’t going to get elected.

Here’s a bit on Pat Paulsen who ran for President 5 times. Other than providing comic relief and maybe making a few people feel that they had a choice, he accomplished nothing in running for President. I don’t know what, if anything he spent on his campaigns but I submit that whatever money was spent would have found better use donated to charity.

From FindArticles.com | CBSi
Performing perhaps the longest parody skit in history, comic Pat Paulsen ran for president five times between 1968 and 1996. A performer and comedy writer with progressive, rabble-rousing political leanings, Paulsen ran on a satirical platform, which, though relentlessly silly, drew serious attention to the real lack of choices in the American political arena. As Paulsen often said, he represented “the citizen who wants to vote for ‘none of the above.’”

From http://www.npr.org/features/columns/column.php?wfId=1810034&columnId=1930201
At the 1968 Democratic convention, he pledged, “If elected, I will win.” The Smothers Brothers show, politically controversial at the time, was yanked off the air in 1969.

But I have not come across anything that indicates if there were write-in votes on his behalf in the '68 election. However, he really did run in 1972 – as a Republican, no less – and entered the New Hampshire primary, where he received 1,211 votes against President Nixon. He got even more votes – though less publicity – when he ran again in 1992, finishing the primary season with nearly 11,000 votes nationwide. He also ran as a Democrat in '96 and received more than 1,000 votes against President Clinton in New Hampshire. He died on April 24, 1997 at the age of 69.

Perot and Nader are perhaps the most successful major 3rd party Presidential candidates in recent memory. Perot got 19% of the popular vote in 1992, a very impressive total. He hated Bush I and by running as well as he did in 1992, ensured Bush I’s defeat, allowing Clinton to win the election. In 1996, he got 8% of the popular vote.But did he accomplish anything by running? The Reform party has essentially disintegrated after fielding Pat Buchannan and John Hagelin in 2000. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Ross_Perot

Nader’s ran for President in 1996, 2000 and is now doing so in 2004 again. He got 1% of the popular vote in 1996 and 3% in 2000. His only claim to fame as a presidential candidate was acting as a spoiler and likely causing Al Gore to lose the election to Bush in 2000. It’s unlikely that he will get on many state ballots in 2004, so may not be able to act the part of the spoiler this time around. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader.

So yes, it does basically come down to the better of two evils. If you choose not to vote or to vote for other than the mainstream party candidates in major elections, then you are being either foolish or foolishly idealistic.