Unsafe at any speed

I'm strongly considering voting for Ralph Nader. It's true. I voted -- with tremendous pride -- for Ralph in 2000, and I'm leaning heavily in that direction this time around.

The irony of it is, the Democrats, who on some level I want to be able to support this year just to oust Bush, are driving me away.

For most of the campaign season (dating back to last year), I accepted the line of reasoning that the most important thing was regime change at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And I still think it's necessary. It's just that I no longer buy the argument that the Democratic candidate, whoever it might have been, is automatically that much better than Dubya.

More accurately, I certainly don't believe that the anointed nominee for the Dems, Sen. John Kerry, is a great choice to represent the country, especially if we're talking about the shape I'd like it to take.

Back in the days leading up to the primaries, when it was still a relatively wide-open race, I recalled having my preferred candidates (Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich), then a tier of candidates with more realistic chances of winning the nomination whom I could tolerate (Howard Dean and Wesley Clark). Beyond them, there were a few Dems whom I just flat out didn't like, and was hoping would lose spectacularly so I wouldn't face such a dilemma.

Naturally, John Kerry was one of those. And naturally, he won the nomination.

What irks me about Kerry is, well, everything. In part it's that he's a self-proclaimed "fiscal conservative," which strikes me as ill-conceived and irrational. And in great measure it's because he flip-flops, or at least takes positions way toward the center-right, in an effort to woo "swing voters," "moderates" and "disillusioned Republicans." Not exactly apt descriptions of myself.

I guess the long and short of it is that once the Kerry freight train started to run away, I began contemplating my options. I could somehow try to stomach my disdain for the man and vote for him regardless, which seems like a cop-out to my principles, or I could follow my conscience and simply not vote. I have to think the latter was the likelier course.

But that process of contemplation became a lot more academic when Nader threw his hat into the ring. At least now I know there will be one candidate on the ballot (fingers crossed) who represents me and my ideas extremely well. This is the man who, all else aside, appears most deserving of my vote. Still, there are potentially important considerations to keep in mind, like unceremoniously tossing Shrub to the curb with the rest of the garbage. And I was (and am) still willing to listen to well-reasoned arguments for sucking it up and voting for the Dem.

However, I have to thank Democrats everywhere for eschewing such logic and giving me absolutely zero incentive to consider Kerry this fall.

Yup, as anyone could've predicted, the moment Ralph decided to run was the moment Democrats started getting in a snit and calling for him to drop out so people wouldn't deign to vote for someone other than not-Bush, which could only mean Kerry. They trotted out the same arguments they used four years ago that equated a vote for Nader with a vote for Bush, yada yada yada.

It's just such a stale and truly flawed line of rhetoric that I can't but instantly tune out the Dems. I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying what you're selling. Had I not voted for Ralph four years ago, I more than likely wouldn't have voted at all. Or I would've voted for David McReynolds, the Socialist candidate. Or some other minor-party candidate. Like a lot of other Nader backers, I voted only because Ralph excited me and motivated me in a way that Gore never could. It was Ralph or nothing, as far as I was concerned. Yes, I am that jaded and disillusioned with the political process in this country.

And yet, after seeing how Nader apparently (though not really) cost Gore the election, have Democrats learned from their previous follies? Have they tried to reach out to the Naderites and bring them back into the party fold? Of course not. They're too damn arrogant and self-righteous for that.

It's incredibly sad. All I need is some compelling reason to back the Dems. I mean, I'm practically screaming for an excuse to do it. But it has to be legit. It has to carry more weight than "we have to get rid of Bush." To me, and to a lot of others, it's not enough just to replace the bastard if we're just going to have a different bastard in charge. Carried to it's logical extension, I would be just as justified in voting for Nader, or Pat Buchanan, or whomever the Libertarians are running, while reciting the mantra of not-Bush.

No, what I want is a candidate who not only is not Bush, but who also reflects and affirms my own values, principles and ideas. Someone whom I can support for purely positive reasons, like having a good platform, that are irrelevant to the not-Bush characteristic.

So, naturally, Kerry and the Dems turn their backs on me. That's right, they're leaving my cheese out in the cold.

If I've learned much of anything (and holding a degree in political science, I probably have) from observing the last two presidential elections, it's that the Republicans are a hell of a lot better at rallying and motivating their base of support. And I mean the whole spectrum. I'm sure there are a lot of far-right, ultra-reactionary types who think Bush is a little too left for their tastes. But despite that, you'll always see W and the GOP reaching out to this lunatic fringe. Whether it's backing implicitly racist measures like an end to affirmative action or something more openly repugnant and degrading like a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, Dubya will do what it takes to get that segment of the spectrum to turn out for him in November.

You just don't see that kind of outreach on the other side.

Quick, tell me how often Kerry has embraced universal, guaranteed health coverage? Never. Or how many times as he said that the War in Iraq was absolutely unjust and that we never should've been there in the first place. None (unless we count when he voted against the First Gulf War). On these or any number of other measures that matter to me and other Nader supporters, you just don't find any sort of concurrence, even a wink and a nudge, with Kerry. Instead of trying to mobilize this group of voters, he's too busy moving further to the right in a vain and futile attempt to court Republicans. It seems like terribly ineffective political strategy, and if he loses the election, a lot of the fault should be placed on this very tactic.

Instead, we get any number of Democrats urging Ralph Nader to drop out. Their contention that he takes votes from the Dems is so arrogant and offensive that I honestly don't think I'll be able to ally myself with them, even for the strategic purpose of defeating Bush. To claim that Nader voters would otherwise automatically vote Democratic is ludicrous. It's preposterous. It's an insult to our very independence and intelligence. My blood boils and I seethe with anger at such presumptuous logic. No Democrat will automatically get my vote. Kerry, like Nader and everyone else, has to earn it. But I just don't see that happening, and thus Ralph will remain the only deserving candidate in my mind.

Look, I'm sorry if this irritates a bunch of liberals. But, dammit, I'm sick of being told that I'm throwing my vote away or helping Bush or any number of the awful, terrible things Democrats like to say about Naderites. We should be allies in this campaign. Really. We ought to be able to work together for a common cause. But until the Dems actually reach out and offer us something tangible, until they give a little, we won't compromise. Because I'd rather vote for Nader, or not vote at all, than to throw away my vote on a candidate who doesn't give a rat's ass about me.