Coastal Post Online

October 2000

Vote for Nader

By Frank Scott

The November vote for president may mark a turning point in American politics. There is a big difference between Gore and Bush, but it is like the difference between cancer and polio. One can be more quickly fatal than the other, though both are diseases. But there is a chance to move towards good health, and it ought not to be missed. Voters concerned about the state of the earth, our nation and our democracy should vote for Nader.

The lesser evil choice has been drummed into our heads by both sides of the ruling party. Each works to convince us that we must vote against, if not for, in order to keep the greater evil out of office. At what point should a thoughtful voter say: enough? At this point.

Bush has the intellectual depth of a wafer, while Gore has that of a marshmallow. Americans will probably go for that cream-filled middle, but no matter which major candidate wins in November, most people will lose. That corporate employee will continue the global policies of scorched earth profiteering that leaves millions with money, more millions with empty stomachs, and billions with empty wallets.

Some argue the importance of liberal votes for Gore to head off a right wing assault. They are living in the Reagan-Gingrich past, when the right was stronger, before Clinton stole its politics. And they are primarily concerned with single issues, rather than the all encompassing one: the state of our democracy and our world.

Only Nader is confronting that issue, critically, intelligently, and with a track record of voluntary citizen representation that puts his corporate financed opponents to shame.

While the two heirs of Washington wealth and power battle over who has more compassion for the status quo, they differ only in how much oil stock they own. Of course Gore and the Democrats are better than Bush and the Republicans on many issues. But they are the same on the issues that count most.

They disagree on how to treat the disease, but they believe it ultimately represents good health. That disease is a system dominated by corporate capital, and a politics so beholden to wealth that both candidates receive the same amount of money from many financial interests. Even the segregated debates are controlled by a private corporation, founded by the establishment parties.

The corporadoes may argue about handguns, but they agree on major weapons; they debate gun control for individuals, not corporations . They both want more military power and more weapons profits, only differing on how much.

The corporate candidates may dispute the use of government in the marketplace, but only on how small and insignificant it should be. The new Democrats have adopted the economic policies of the old Republicans, calling for no interference with the magic of the market. And it was they who proudly announced the end of the era of big government, while rejoicing in the era of global capitalism and its destructive policies, allowed freedom from any government controls.

If there is anything to please secular voters, it is probably that the Republicans presently seem less obsessed with god than the Democrats.

Panderings to piety and empty religious rhetoric have become a trademark of the Democrat's duo . One says that before making any important decisions he asks, "What would Jesus do?" Apparently, Jesus told Hot Lips that it was okay to bomb Kosovo, murder children in Iraq, and do other godly things in pursuit of the globalized economy.

His partner was mentioning god so often that some of his fellow religionists grew uncomfortable and asked him to ease up on the invisible man stuff. These "new" democrats have not only put religion back into politics; they have all placed god at the head of the country.

Both corporate tickets worship a blasphemous holy father of corporate capital, who commands "thou shalt kill." if it supports profit-full, ethics-empty political economics. These are religious men who seem to have had moral vasectomies. They may dispute an American woman's right to an abortion, but their no-choice, pro-death policies are the same when it comes to savaging Iraqi women and children.

Nader has not made an issue of his religion or his relationship to a deity, but he has performed as one who respects and serves humanity. And not just one segment of it. He has not identified us as separate groups, but as what we are regardless of race, creed, sex or belief: citizens and consumers. He has fought for all of us on the highways and in the shopping malls, places where we are always together, even though isolated. He continues fighting to bring us into the most important place in a democracy: the government.

Nader heads the Green party ticket, along with Winona LaDuke, and a 5% vote for him will not only gain them a financial foothold. It may also bring Democratic progressives back to their senses. Reduced to a desperate mob of Clinton worshipers by fear of the right wing, they have temporarily sacrificed their ideals, and come close to losing their brains. Had they dumped Clinton instead of slavishly defending him, Gore would now be running as the incumbent president. They will be further disgraced if they continue pursuing single issue, short term politics, while allowing capital to pursue its long term destruction of democracy, and the earth itself.

A vote for Nader, and support for good Democrats in congress, could bring the party to its senses. It might also bring people back to voting, not only as an ideal, but as a way to affect change. To help our nation, our democracy and even the Democratic Party, Vote for Nader and LaDuke in November.

Coastal Post Home Page