One of the major criticisms levied against Kerry by Nader fans is that the only reason anyone supports Kerry is that he's not Bush. Laying aside the legitimacy of that criticism (personally, I don't think it's a bad reason to support Kerry), I wonder, does anyone support Nader for a reason other than "he's not Kerry or Bush"?
Nader holds no office. He leads no party, stands on no platform. He prioritizes certain issues in the manner of Kucinich or Sharpton: electoral reform, anti-corporate economics, and environmentalism. Which certainly are valid issues to raise. But, and please do correct me if I'm wrong, if he really cared about providing a third-party voice in American politics, he'd be running
with a party. And Kerry's record on the environment outguns Nader's, according to the League of Conservation Voters, who should know.
As for corporations, it's certainly fair to say that both Kerry and Bush have ties to big business, receive contributions from special interests and lobbyists, and are not as progressive on taxation and trade issues as Nader (or many of us on Kos). You may even be able to make any kind of a case that Kerry is not a better candidate on these issues than Bush, though I'd be hard-pressed to buy it. But this goes back to my point that Nader isn't an elected official. Like it or not, in this country, in this system, you do have to work with powerful interests, and be able to negotiate that system; you need the money; you'd be a fool to turn it down if you want to actually win, and you have to win before you can govern. Nader takes money from Republicans; is that any cleaner?
I know some people prefer Nader because he opposed the war in Iraq. Of course, he never had to cast a vote on the issue. But even if he had, I'd like to know how he plans to extricate us from the situation without causing even more chaos than already exists (and don't tell me Kerry hasn't articulated a plan for this, because Ron Brownstein and I will come after you).
Finally, and importantly, Nader's social positions are murky at best, and anti-progressive at worst. He is weak on choice, weak on gay rights, weak on education, and for me these issues trump the economy.
But then, I haven't done extensive Nader research; I've never even considered voting for the man, and obviously I like John Kerry, so I'm much more willing to apologize for his flaws. So I'm asking: am I completely off base about all of this?
Are there secret points in favor of Nader that no one has told me about?
And if Nader's appeal is only that of the anti-Kerry-and-Bush candidate, is voting for him any "better" than voting for the anti-Bush?