It's been interesting watching (and participating in) the Nader debate here, and I see some glaring holes in the argument that we must vote Dem this time around or face certain peril. First of all, it is a total lie to imply that somehow a Dem winning the presidency will change things - sure maybe some domestic issues will shift, but by and large
nothing will be different...
The back-story is that Clinton, while hailed as the hero of the party, was almost as imperialistic and self-dealing as Bush is, he just put a different face on things. WTO, NAFTA, IMF, Central Asian oil, these are all some of Clinton's favorite things, but you wouldn't know it getting your news from the Democratic party. These same machine politicians, such as Kerry, that are supposedly going to save America from itself in fact aided each and every one of Bush's misadventures. The Patriot Act, one of the most sweeping and large-scale shifts in domestic American policy, won handily with the aid of our brothers in congress, many of whom later admitted to barely even reading it through.
Barely even read the most fundamentally frightening and divisive legislation of our time. The war in Iraq, again widely supported by the Senate, was so blatantly wrong and such a large-scale afront to the masses that it drew some of the largest protests in world history. History is being made alright, and the Dems have plucked along the entire way, acting offended yet getting right in line, and we are somehow supposed to believe this will change if one of them gets elected president.
Another point I keep seeing here is that, if we win, we will get Pelosi as speaker and other goodies, so voting for people who are essentially conservatives running as Democrats, suspending ideals and values in favor of the lust for a return to power is okay. But you know what? Pelosi exists because she stands for what she believes in, she has ideals and values, and she rarely backs down -- the kind of Democrat to be proud of. Stacking congress with spineless turds will only serve to water down the effectiveness of people like Pelosi. We are already in dangerous territory as a party. A DNC leader who essentially only got the job because he was good at raising loads of cash, a Senate that gave its powers over to the most conservative president in decades, and a presidential nominee who scolds Bush for presenting him with legislation that he promptly passed. Where does it end, at what point does the ship sink entirely?
Another classic argument is that "now is NOT the time to vote third party!" So let me ask you: when
is the time to vote third party? Will the Dems ever have the luxury of running against a slacker Republican who is polling in single digits, hence the green light to go ahead and vote your conscience? The days of landslide elections are over, the country is evenly divided, and there will not be a convenient time for those of us who are gradually becoming more and more disenchanted with the Dems to go vote our way without being made to feel like we robbed the party of something they never bothered to earn. This argument purely serves to keep third parties out of the system, but it won't last beyond this next election ESPECIALLY if Kerry wins the presidency and governs as many of us suspect he will.
So my argument is this: how long can the party shift rightward, with little clue as to why they keep losing elections? How long can the DLC attack the party's left for abandoning their conservative, losing strategies and money-driven machinations? How many times will we elect a Democrat who turns out to be another Gray Davis? How long before those of us who feel that the Democrats no longer serve our values completely jump ship leaving the dems with their asses in the wind?
I will not vote Nader this time around, simply because, while I think he offers a fresh view on the issues, he would likely be bad for the country as a president. Once the Naders of the independent realm are replaced with highly electable and viable independents, the Democratic Party is in
deep trouble.