March 14, 2004

Electoral Musings

Everyone who knows me, knows I'm not particularly politically active. I vote when there's an election, keep up with the national/international news, and have my opinions on most of the current issues, but I'm not conspicuously vocal about them. This is for many reasons, probably most important of which is that I think politics (and politicians) suck. It doesn't matter really where they stand on issues, or if they even do—they just suck. I suppose it's a necessary evil, although I am not sure about the necessary part. However, I'm neither qualified nor particularly interested in discussing the value (or lack thereof) of politicians. Instead, I wish to voice an opinion on this year's upcoming presidential election.

If I had to classify myself, I'd choose Democrat, although this is really more about me not being a Republican than anything else. And as a Democrat (or more liberal-minded person, if you will), I have to say that the news (Washington Post - deal with the registration, lame ass) that Ralph Nader is once again running for president is more than a bit disconcerting. Don't get me wrong—Nader's indubitably a good person—he has many ideas I concur with and rides a bike instead of driving and generally doesn't suck. But being right doesn't really matter. What matters is winning and by standing up, in all his liberalness, all he really does is steal votes from the mainstream Democratic contender—nothing else. There is no chance in hell that the gun-toting, Confederate flag-waving, truck-driving, minority-lynching, racist, homophobic, bigoted assholes in some miserable, shitty state in the South will ever accept him. So then, one might ask, what's the point of him running in the first place?

Third parties (and their candidates) in America have always held a special place in history, forming out of strong support for a random cause and quickly dying out, as the mainstream parties fix whatever problem there is to rally around. Think back to A.P. U.S. History. Come on now—think hard. Well, to name a few, there was the Anti-Masonic Party, which opposed cult-like secret societies, the American Party (a.k.a. The Know-Nothings) who fervently opposed immigration, and the Populists (People's Party), with their Omaha Platform and William Jennings Bryan's Cross of Gold Speech. And undoubtedly, some very significant progress was made because of these parties, especially the Populists, who are credited with the secret ballot, the initiative, the referendum, the gradual income tax, and the direct election of Senators, among others (I actually don't remember all points of the Omaha Platform—I'm not sure whether this is good or bad). But there is a time and a place for everything, and now is neither the time or the place to blindly cast your vote on ideals.

The people who will vote for Nader in November, and in the process, detract from Democrats, are either really dumb or so blinded by foolishness (idealism), that they can't see the repercussions of their actions. It's all well and good to do what your conscience says, but seriously—what is your vote for Nader actually doing? Is it bringing him any closer to winning? I think not! All it's really doing is giving the Republicans an advantage. If Nader wasn't an option, where do you think all radical, hippy-dippy, tree-hugging people would place there support? Certainly not with the compassionate conservatives rising from the land of uncompassionate fascists (the South).

To me, it's very simple. We're standing at a fork in the road right now. We could either go down the middle road, or we could veer off onto the right, which will lead us down a path that I personally don't want to travel. For the Nader voters, trying to take the Road Less Traveled on the left, I've got news for you. Robert Frost sucks and poetry sucks even more and you're bound to fail by taking that road. If you don't die of hunger or lack of sustenance in the process, you'll just be attacked by the people in your group who really wanted to go right and forced to go down a path that is less agreeable to a greater majority of people. So what I'm basically saying is, life's about compromise and while the middle road might not be the right way to go, it's definitely the best choice available.

I can just feel the assault from all the crazy Berkeley folks coming up. Ha!