May we recommend the whole text
of the 'Nader Dilemma' article? This is a very condensed version,
just a soundbite really.
- Nader can't possibly win; you're throwing your vote away if you
vote for him.
- Given the nature of chaotic systems like markets and
popular votes, "can't possibly" is a mathematical misstatement;
"is highly unlikely to" would be more correct. The nature of
large chaotic systems is that you cannot predict them; no one
can! something unexpected is always possible. But I would not
quarrel with anyone who said that a Green Party victory in this
election would be very surprising -- delightful, but very surprising.
- Any vote for Nader is a vote stolen from Gore. Gore can't win
if people vote for Nader.
- Here we are on shakier ground. There are many states in
which either Gore or Bush is so darned far ahead that the other
guy is already toast. In these states, a few votes for
Nader are not going to hurt Gore, and will definitely help
the Greens. In fact, in a state where there's little-to-no
hope of a Gore victory, every Democrat of progressive principles
might as well vote for Nader. In states where the two are close,
the polls are focussing on "likely to vote" or "previously voted"
registered voters. But there are a lot of people, maybe about
25 percent of the public, who usually don't bother to exercise
their voting rights because they are so disgusted with both
parties. If that 25 percent felt inclined to vote for Nader,
it wouldn't affect Gore's tally at all; they wouldn't have
voted for Gore anyway. And some of those who are switching to
the Green Party are disaffected Independents and even a tiny
handful of Republicans. These voters also don't subtract from
Gore's score, in fact the Reps subtract from Bush's in their
tiny maverick way.
- If we don't get Gore in, Bush will win.
- Well, there are only 4 candidates. We hope we can disregard
the lunatic Right. That leave 3 real contenders; but many
expert observers feel that Nader cannot be considered a real
contender. Some of these are just talking heads for corporate
media, but others are expert analysts on the Left. There is
difference of opinion even between people with very similar
beliefs and principles; Kathe Pollitt vs Alexander Cockburn,
for example. As things look today, it's a race between two
contenders, not three; but whether things two months from now
will look exactly the same is anyone's guess.
- Therefore, if you vote for Nader, Bush will win; a vote for
Nader is a vote for Bush.
- See above. In a state with a very close race between
Republican and Democrat, a registered Democrat who switched
to Green Party affiliation and voted Nader might directly
contribute to a Bush victory. In a state where the race
is already over, or for the voter who hasn't voted for
the last 15 years, it's not that simple.
- If Bush gets in, he'll stack the Supreme Court with right-wing
Christian conservatives and overturn Roe vs Wade.
- If Bush gets in, he'll start paying off his political
and financial debts. Sheesh, he'll probably make the Clinton administration
look clean. He will probably try to pay off debts and favours
from the loony Right by appointing ultraconservatives to the
court. But not all conservative appointees on the Court vote
their party line at all times. Nor is it clear what the
social repercussions of overturning Roe would be,
and whether even such an egomaniac as Bush would be willing
to face them. Whether Bush getting elected leads inevitably
to an overturn of Roe is a matter of opinion.
- Therefore, if you vote for Nader, abortion will become illegal,
and it will be your fault.
- This is obviously a reductio ad absurdum, but it's the
heart of the moral dilemma. Obviously, if you live in a state where
Bush has already won months before election day, and you vote for
Nader, your vote would never have swung your state for Gore anyway;
so you can only laugh when people start firing the guilt-gun in
your general direction. If you live in a state where it's running
very close, then you're definitely in the Maximum Dilemma Group.
But even so, in the humble opinion of this writer, it will not be
your personal fault that an evil and corrupt man backs a repressive
and hateful ideology; evil and corrupt men have been doing just
this for hundreds of years, and it has never been the victims'
fault, no matter how many people have tried to prove that it
was.
- Every feminist has to vote for Gore. To vote for Nader is
antifeminist.
- To vote for the only candidate with a real social justice
platform -- the only candidate in sight with a female running mate --
the only candidate who is not wholly owned by corporate backers;
this can hardly be called "antifeminist". To vote for Nader
means that you've wrestled with a dilemma, and with difficulty
decided that you think that supporting the Green Party now,
despite a degree of risk, is the best investment you can make
in a decent future for women in this country. No one can do
more with their vote than that. Those who vote for Gore,
because they have come to a different conclusion after
wrestling with the dilemma, are also trying to do their best.
It would be foolish to say (as the Democrats and the pundits
surely will) that a Gore victory implies the whole-hearted
support of the American people for another four years of
presidential malfeasance, corporate domination, and
rich folks generally running riot... or that the war on Colombia
will be all your fault because you voted for Gore. That kind
of blame-throwing is silly.
Most feminists who vote for Gore will do so, figuratively speaking,
with a gun held to their heads. The questions for all of us now are,
Is the gun loaded or not? and How do I feel about
voting with a gun held to my head?