Dear List members I thought it would be useful if some of the discussion on this list in this last week were on what the legacy of the sixties should tell us about whether or not to vote for Nader. For myself, I am leaning strongly against voting for Nader. Here is my thinking so far: 1. There is no doubt that voting for Nader would help George Bush get elected. In Washington, Oregon, and California Bush has a real chance of winning, largely because of Nader's support. 2. A Bush Presidency would have tremendous costs, and cause a lot of damage to things progressives hold dear. Polluters would write major environmental bills. Gun violence legislation would stop. Progressive health care legislation would stop There would be oil drilling in wilderness areas Right wing judges would dominate the supreme court....etc. It's fair to say that many lives would be lost because of Bush's policies 3. At the same time, strong support for Nader, and a Bush win might be of some help to the progressive movement. A. A strong showing for Nader shows people how many progressives there are. B. A Bush White House would energize people in the progressive movement and help Unite them. 4. The main question then, is whether the gains that would be made by the progressive movement are enough to offset the costs of a Bush presidency. And I don't see the evidence that it would. The progressive movement, however large, can't be much more than a minor annoyance to corporate forces unless it is willing to make alliances with the Democratic party -- a group far less virtuous than progressives would like them to be, but a group that is willing to listen to progressives AND is in a position of political power that enables them to actually do something that can help people. I think one of the important lessons of the sixties is that an unallied "pure" independent progressive party can help the people in the movement feel virtuous, but it does little good beyond that. What did the Peace and Freedom Party, the Progressive Labor Party, or the Liberal Party every accomplish? Actually, let me qualify that -- such groups can certainly accomplish a lot. Protest and dissent can help put pressure on people. To help change hearts and minds and all kinds of tactics may be useful. But the question I am considering here concerns voting. Voting is one of the tools in our arsenal. How can progressives best use the VOTING tool to help the causes they hold dear. One of the most direct way to help the least well-off people in society is by passing legislation that protects them. Such legislation will never be pass unless progressives use their power, not just to condemn loudly, but to help elect representatives that share some of their agenda. So, as far as I can see, a Bush win would be horribly costly. And even if voting for Nader helps the progressive movement grow, a larger progressive movement can do little unless its willing to make alliances with Democrats. But if the way progressives can help people is by helping Democrats get elected, then the time to start is now, by voting for Gore. I'm interested in hearing others' thoughts. Todd Jones
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 10/30/00 EST