I’ve recently been having a discussion about Nader’s decision to run for president
with a few friends at ITP. Unintentionally, this
article made one of my points for me. It quoted John Kerry as saying that
he intends to "speak to all Americans. If people want to beat George Bush
badly, and that’s what’s at stake here, they’ll see that I’m speaking to concerns
that Ralph Nader and other people have."
Now, I’m not saying I believe him (Kerry), but this is what a third candidate
does! They bring up issues that may have otherwise been left behind when the only
answer is 0 or 1 (well, in this case, .5).
Here’s an excerpt from an email I recently sent:
1. Just because I support Nader, does that mean I also do not support a movement
to get Bush out of the White House? Does it have to be Nader or Bush? It’s back
to the simple black and white, good and evil, that Bush spews: voting for Nader
is just as bad as voting for Bush; you are with us or against us… This is simply
not true.
2. Who says a vote for Nader is not tactical? On the contrary, in 2000, I *knew*
Gore would take NYC, and, after knowing he would lose my electorates, I was voting
to try and get the Greens their 5% nationally, thus breaking the two-party system.
I’ll do the same thing this year, if circumstances dictate as such.
3. A lot of people are talking about how narcissistic Nader is, but not many are
questioning his intent from the other side. (I’m not saying I necessarily believe
the following, but it’s just as possible as ‘pure narcissism’ is.) Given that
Nader is being attacked by progressives, neo-liberals and conservatives alike
(from all sides), there isn’t a chance in hell that he’ll get the same turn-out
he did last election year. Perhaps the "right to ____" he speaks of
is not to run for president, but to shake the system, to provoke Democrats into
acting more like Democrats. He energized non-voters, as well as Dems, to do just
that once before… Get angry. Do this: get more people that are not angry to
be angry – cuz Nader voters are not the enemy here.
Also in response to the linked article – perhaps Nader is not on the Green Bill
because his *only* intent is to shake things up – he knows he can’t get 5%, so
running independently can accomplish only one thing: dialogue. If it’s narcissism,
wouldn’t he be on a bill that gave him a much better chance?
