reedmaniac.com

I think your closing statement is excellent and articulated in a nicely novel way for me.

I’m in the same boat as you when it comes to who to vote for. My #1 choice is Nader but I too do not want to “throw my vote away”. (My second choice is Obama)

How about a Ralph Nader, “I’ll vote for him if you vote for him” Campaign?

I’m down.

Out of curiosity, what do you think of this willingness to vote for Nader because you are fairly certain of an Obama victory? I feel like this determination to vote for whom one believes in—to “throw away” your ballot—is a bit of luxury.

On one side, I hate that people think they are throwing away their vote by voting for a third party.  That cheapens the idea of democracy and what the Founding Fathers really wanted for this country.

And yet, idealism really is a luxury.  The world is too messy and harmful for every decisions to be black and white, good and right vs bad and wrong.  One should vote their conscience and balance the situation as best they can.

Let’s leave the founding fathers out of it—since they, too, were flawed fools, and their idea of democracy did not include the opinions of their wives or the people who blackened their boots in the morning.

Founding a government on the basis of “majority rules” manifestly includes an element of compromise. Nader seems to me as much of a lesser weevil as Obama, and as you say he is not the messiah, nor would he bring about a revolution in the White House. His stance is closer to what I believe in, yes—but again as you say, he is not campaigning to become president. He is playing a different game. With my one vote, I feel obliged to vote for a president, and change the game by changing the rules.

I’m enormously glad that Nader has the wherewithal and the conviction to run time and again, if only because it forces voters to think, to challenge, to consider and reconsider their beliefs. I think what bothers me most is the fact that America appears incapable of sustaining more than two viable political parties at any given point. We’re lazy, so we simplify, polarize, paint our own messy, harmful world in black and white—or red and blue.

Para. #1:  That is an overly simplistic viewpoint, but ok…

“With my one vote, I feel obliged to vote for a president, and change the game by changing the rules.“

You do not cure a patient of an addiction by feeding it more of the substance with a new name and snazzier marketing campaign.  I agree with your hopes and frustrations, but not that the solution is to realize only one of two men in this Presidential race can actually win and thus we should only choose one of them.  You are feeding the problem, not providing a real solution. 

Democracy is flawed in that it expects all eligible voters to care and be informed.  The price of Freedom is Ignorance!

And besides, some of us see the world in Green and Purple!

As someone who not only voted, but also spent dozens of hours campaigning for Ralph in 2000, I, too, am especially incensed at people who would claim that it’s “throwing a vote away” to vote for a third-party candidate. Taking that logic to its extreme, Zimbabweans should all vote for Robert Mugabe, since we know that he’ll get 99% of the vote anyhow. Or we could also argue that all those losers who voted for Al Gore also “threw their votes away” since it didn’t do a damned bit of good. 

However, I’m voting for Barack Obama this year. Ralph is still talking about the same things he was talking about 8 years ago, and it sounds dated. Things have changed a lot: George Bush’s presidency may have done more damage to the evil corporations than Nader ever could have done.

In fact, George Bush’s one and only virtue may be the fact that he seems to have brought to a disgraceful end the second gilded age in American politics. We needed Nader eight years ago to speak truth to the power of two-faced, centrist candidates who were consummate party insiders, running at a time when the corporate-government partnership was firing on all cylinders. But that’s just not the case this year.

I’d point out that Obama has been able to build a progressive movement unlike anything Nader has ever done before. His candidacy alone has enfranchised and invigorated millions of progressive young voters, especially in inner cities and among minorities, and I expect you’ll see hundreds if not thousands of them run for office now as a result of his example.

I’m still registered as a Green Independent and I’m proud to boast that my home of Portland, Maine has more Green elected officials than any other city in America. But third parties in and of themselves aren’t as important to me as the broader progressive goals that Barack Obama can accomplish.

I can understand your desire to vote for Nader. But maybe your broader goals might be better served if you voted for Obama AND volunteered yourself for local office as a Green or Peace Party candidate?

The reason Nader is repeating many of his talking points is the simple fact that things are still fundamentally the same in our two party system.  One could say the same thing about scientists who rang the bell about global warming for decades and were ignored by most.  And, I do not believe for a second that Bush’s numerous in/actions will in the short or long term negatively affect how corporations do business with our government unless there is a strong movement to change that.

The more people point out how Obama has invigorated progressives and started a powerful movement for change, the less I am motivated to vote for him.  Way too many of those who are swept up in this movement lack strong analytical skills or are willing to use them on his policies, his motivations or what he is likely to do as President.  Palin has had a similar, albeit smaller, affect on the Conservative base.  Countless candidates in the past have had the same power with disastrous results for the country and the people.

Has Obama really shown himself to not be a “two-faced, centrist candidate”?  Not to me, he has not.  I am holding out hope though…

“volunteered yourself for local office as a Green or Peace Party candidate”

I am not a politician, Christian, I lack the civilities.

Thought you might like this quote from The Nation, written just before the election (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081117/grieder_edit):

“Whatever you think of Nader’s jeremiad, it is exceedingly timely. Democrats are on the brink of losing their old excuses for timidity and retreat. If the election produces stronger majorities in Congress and a president who has promised big change, Nader’s analysis will be tested in the clearest terms. For the first time in thirty years, the Dems will have nobody left to blame. If Obama does not turn the page as he promised, if a Democratic Congress does not step up forcefully, then we may fairly conclude Nader was right. The decay of democracy will have been proven to be deeper than we wished to believe.“

Ah, indeed, Chris, I was reading that just the week before the election.  I am looking forward to the next eight and a half months, just to see what happens and if the Democrats can really be a true progressive party while still balancing a respect for other opinions.