Last summer, I finally decided to pop the question to one of my co-workers. I didn’t think our relationship could move forward until I knew the truth. It was something I had wanted to ask him for a long time, and one day I finally got the opportunity. I caught him off guard while he was eating lunch.
“So, why did you vote for Nader in 2000?”I asked. He paused and lowered his head for a moment of insincere reflection, as if he were about to bestow upon me some kind of profound wisdom that would be difficult for a simple-minded person like me to understand.
“I voted for him because I’m an idealist,”he said, lifting his head triumphantly. I wanted to berate him right then and there, but he had a solid 90-pounds on me, and frankly I was scared of what such an irrational person was capable of doing. Instead, I tried the diplomatic course. “But you learned your lesson, right? You’re not going to vote for him again, are you?”He shoved an entire doughnut into his mouth and wolfed it down after chewing only twice. I considered this a warning for what he’d do to me if I dared to instigate the argument that now seemed imminent.
“Of course I am,”he said. “I’m not a sell-out.”
His choice of words struck me as ironic, since it seemed that Nader and his supporters were the ones who were selling out. Supposedly, Nader voters are die-hard progressives who will stop at nothing to advance the ideals of creating a more peaceful world, cleaning up the environment, standing up to corporate interests, promoting social justice and generally sticking it to The Man. I can think of better ways of sticking it to Him than helping to elect George W. Bush.
I’m convinced that at least half of college-aged Nader supporters voted for him in 2000 because it was the cool thing to do. Proudly displaying a Nader sticker on your backpack then was the equivalent of popping your polo shirt collar now. If you had asked many of these kids why they were voting for Nader, most of them would respond, almost verbatim: “Because there’s no difference between the other two candidates.” Most of us have now realized how many significant differences there actually were. Imagine how many things would be different if Al Gore were president today-there would probably be about 1,000 more living American soldiers right now. So much for those ideals. In this election, the differences between Bush and Kerry are even more distinct than they were between Bush and Gore. Did John Kerry cave in to political cynical political considerations when he voted to support the President on the Iraq War resolution? Yes, he was as spineless as a sea cucumber, no matter what nuance he provides to explain his vote. Still, Kerry and Bush have vast disagreements on almost every important issue, from economic policy to foreign policy.
In many ways, Nader and guitar legend Carlos Santana have had parallel careers. In the ‘60s, both men were true innovators. Santana spent his time reinventing popular music. He helped bring national exposure to the San Francisco psychedelic wave by performing a groundbreaking set at Woodstock. Almost simultaneously, Nader was changing the rules of political activism by writing Unsafe at Any Speed, a scathing attack on the automotive industry. His book led to an array of new automobile safety laws. Both Nader and Santana personified the beginning of the modern American liberal era. By 1999, however, Santana had become somewhat of a nostalgia act and was fading into the graveyard of musical history. So Santana’s ego-and pocketbook-told him there was only one thing he could do: call up Matchbox 20’s Rob Thomas to collaborate on a hit pop song for the MTV generation. Meanwhile, Nader’s role in the public consciousness had been steadily declining, and ego told him that there was only one thing he could do: run a futile presidential campaign in order to regain national exposure. All Nader got from his ill-advised run was an incompetent commander-in-chief and a whole lot of bitterness from people who used to worship him. At least Santana won a Grammy for “Smooth.”
But what if the impossible happens this November? What if, by an act of the gods of butterfly ballots and hanging chads, Nader actually wins this election? Remember, winning in November should, in fact, be the ultimate goal of someone who’s serious about running for President. If Nader did win, he would be a wholly ineffective president. Besides having next to no support in Congress, he would have none of the experience required to perform several of the most important presidential duties. Even Governor Bush had far more governmental experience coming into office than a President Nader would.
While I didn’t agree with them, I can accept that many reasonable, well-informed people voted for Nader the last time he ran. If you vote for him this time, however, you will be exhibiting a serious character flaw. To me, Nader voters are worse than Bush voters. At least Bush voters have principles and a view of the country that they can reasonably hope will become a reality. If you are strongly pro-life, the United Christian Party candidate, Randy Sutherland, may be the person whose stance on abortion you agree with the most. But that doesn’t mean you should vote for him. Since Sutherland has no chance of becoming President, you should vote for the candidate that has a chance of winning whose stance on abortion is closest to yours: George W. Bush. Nader voters should do the same. If they believe strongly in protecting the environment, they should vote for Kerry: the only pro-environment candidate who has a chance of winning. There is a time and a place for blind idealism, but this election is too important for that.
