activefreemedia

Colin,
I suppose if your primary objective is too get Bush out and you have the 2000 presidential debacle in Florida in mind, you might be resistant to a Nader presidential campaign. However, I believe ultimately his actions are important for a true democracy. He made a very articulate case on Tim Russert's Meet the Press this past Sunday.

He is trying to create a space for third parties and other alternatives. Notice that he decided to run free of any party, so that he could impartially represent the Third Party. But beyond that, he has always claimed that he advocates multiple candidates in an election. This increases the chances of people really acting on their beliefs. There is a voter base out there who will not vote Democrat nor Republican. There are also Democrats AND Republican who agree with some of his platform.
I voted for him last time around and was looking at Dean this time. So for this upcoming presidential election, who knows . . .

A classmate of mine, a proud Republican, informed me Monday morning that Nader was in the race again. He was beaming, confident that this meant another four years of George Bush. My initial ire has ebbed though I still think Nader has chosen the wrong forum for championing his cause. In 2000, both parties were campaigning on domestic issues and the anti-corporate rhetoric was welcomed. I admit I was swayed. However the US is now irreversibly committed in Iraq and foreign policy is the issue that concerns me about the potential of the Nader effect.

While George Bushís ìcompassionate conservatismî and John Kerryís moderate liberalism and both candidates susceptibility to corporate interests may validate the argument that the two candidates and their respective parties are no different, the argument overlooks a very important difference that only in retrospect, after four years of the Bush Doctrine, have we learned. That difference is that while the face of the parties may seem like mirror images of one another, the ideologues behind the mirrors have tremendous influence. John Ashcroft is only the tip of a small iceberg next to the gargantuan ice cap of neo-conservatism that even though absent from the highest appointments in Bushís cabinet has infiltrated the administrationís foreign policy and instituted preemptive force as its modus operandi.

I have lived abroad for much of the current Bush administration and in addition to observing the impact US foreign policy has in countries seemingly out of its line of fire, I have grown an appreciation for multi-party political systems. However, Ralph Naderís independent presidential candidacy in 2004, after his Green Party candidacy in 2000 is not helping the cause of third parties in the US. He is mocking party politics and the grassroots movements that he once advocated. If we are to build a multi-party system in the US, we must do it by first electing third party candidates at the local level and developing independent party membership. It is a protracted effort that moves like Naderís recent presidential candidacy undermine.

I still plan to vote Green locally when possible and support independent party movements, but this presidential election I think the only responsible choice as an American, especially an American abroad where US foreign policy seems to be giving democracy an increasingly bad name, is to vote Democrat.