Many friends and readers have argued with me over my professed intention to vote for Ralph Nader for president. I have heard many compelling arguments. I certainly don't want to do anything to get Bob Dole elected, and leave all three branches of government under the control of the Republican party. But as there seems to be little danger of that, I can relish the rare opportunity to actually vote for someone, rather than try to block the greater of two evils from attaining power.I understand that it takes a pragmatist to govern a nation as diverse as ours. I know that Clinton has done some good things for which he receives very little credit. And I know that he's blocked some of the more egregious plans of the reactionary right from taking hold. I'm glad that I was wrong when I predicted a year ago that he would cave in to Newt on the budget battle. But in so many ways, he's won the battle by moving over to the other side.
I have the luxury of declining to cast my vote for Clinton because of the stunning ineffectuality of the Dole campaign. But even if the election outcome were in doubt, I would have a hard time punching the flake for William Jefferson Clinton, who ended the federal entitlement to welfare for the indigent. His own administration estimates that an additional million children will be pushed into poverty by this Òreform,Ó which he signed for the most craven of political calculations, even while sitting on a 20-point lead.
That was the last of many straws, including GATT and NAFTA, an abysmal environmental record, extremely disappointing judicial appointments, the signing of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, and on and on. Even if his party should regain control of one or both houses of Congress (the only suspense left in this dismal election season), a second Clinton term will likely produce further betrayals.
The scandals bedeviling him will not disappear. The latest, regarding illegal campaign contributions from the murderous kleptocracy of Indonesia, would have resonance if it were being pressed by anyone other than the laughably hypocritical GOP. Clinton's indifference to human rights among our trading partners and his devotion to corporate welfare nearly match those of his rivals.
Fortunately, there is a candidate speaking out about these injustices. But his campaign was virtually blacked out by the national media. Ralph Nader never expected to win, but he agreed to run in order to energize progressive voters, and provide an alternative to the Republicrats. He told us that he wouldn't run a traditional campaign, and that if we wanted to make a difference, we had to get out there and do it ourselves. For whatever reason, that hasn't happened to the extent necessary. Nader also expected to take advantage of free media, as Perot did in 1992. That didn't happen, either.
But Nader also said he was running in order to help the Green Party gain ballot access. And that's reason enough to vote for him, if any further were needed besides his distinguished career of public service. Establishing a genuine alternative to the left of the Democratic party is imperative if we're going to reverse the outrages of the last four years; or the last sixteen.
The silver lining of having a malleable pragmatist like Clinton in the oval office is that he does respond to pressure. Right now, most of that pressure has been coming from his right. Whether you vote to ratify his contract or not, don't let the next four years go by without letting Mr. Weathervane feel some pressure from the left.