Why Nader?

I am not a Democrat, nor am I a Republican, but I am a supporter of Ralph Nader. We live in a democratic republic in which nearly all aspects of the body-politic are dominated by a ‘two-parties-only’ system. I concede that there are differences between Democrats and Republicans, the most salient being the liberal/conservative divergence. However, the oft-perceived (and lamented) similitude of parties is not my reason for voting Nader.

I am voting against the two parties on the grounds that they constitute a two party corporate duopoly, a conclusion I have reached based upon thorough analyses of electoral history. Since the Johnson administration of the 1960s, there has been a significant decrease in social legislation and in progress generally. One does not hear of a “new deal for the American people,” nor does one ever see such an extensive and exhaustive War on Poverty as the one led by Lyndon Johnson, which cut the poverty rate in half during its nine year existence. In the interim–approximately 40 years’ time–there has been a reversal of progressive gains both on the part of conservative Republicans and New Democrats, inclusive of the Clinton administration.

For forty years, ghettos inhabited predominantly by people of African-American and Latino roots have deteriorated. These Americans are destitute, and realistically, it seems as if they have no escape from their cycle of poverty. In the realm of public education, the legislation that funded poor and middle class students in the 1960s has been repealed, and now the federal government pays only 7.2% of the money for public education; the rest of the burden falls upon the states and local areas. At the same time, the miracles of integration and of the liberal court of the late 1950s and 1960s are experiencing challenges and reversals. Rather than living in a society where equality of opportunity is respected, we face an achievement gap in our schools. Many of our nation’s schools are plagued with woefully inadequate funding and materials. Minorities score significantly less on English and math exams than their white counterparts. Additionally, the physical condition of educational facilities is deplorable in some areas, most notably within inner city and very rural locales. In some districts, run-down, thirty year old buildings meant to be temporary constructs are used as permanent classrooms.

Beyond education injustices, the United States continues to perpetuate other social criminalities. I am wholly dissatisfied with the last forty years of Democrats and Republicans because neither party is capable of attaining substantial progressive changes for the interests of the common people. In the real world, beyond the inner chambers of the Capitol in which Democrats and Republicans make power moves and play political strategy games, people survive in ghettos as they have for years. All of these problems continue while our resources, tax dollars, and the politicians we elect to represent us and address the country’s problems are all engaged at the same time in a bitter and uncertain “War on Terrorism.”

I have heard the Democrats and their arguments—but their platform is the sames as its always been. Frankly, John Kerry seems to switch back and forth, riding the fence on the most vital issues. Considering the upcoming election, I really don’t know which is worse—that the parties skirmish over issues such as George W. Bush’s ambiguous National Guard service (or lack thereof), or the dearth of progressive change initiated by both Bush and John Kerry. In Kerry’s nineteen years as a senator, he organized a moratorium on Vietnam POWs but achieved little else in the way of progress. I am tired of it all—and I am frustrated with the way both parties handle the affairs of our country.

Does it really surprise anyone that 50% of those eligible to vote in the presidential election of 2000 chose to not vote? This mass abstention results from a variety of reasons, but the fact that the two parties really aren’t representative of the majority of the people in America is certainly one of them. Two hundred years ago, the composition of our government could have been described as consisting almost entirely of wealthy white male bankers and lawyers. Two hundred years later, and the figure has only changed slightly. Can that group really represent us? Is it we the people or we the wealthy?

All of this fits in context when one considers the issue of campaign finance reform. What good is it to live in such a free and equal nation such as ours, when two parties can outspend any alternative voice? Who would want to vote under these circumstances? The election comes down to the lesser of two evils, and that is no choice at all. This country was based upon the proposition that all are granted equality of opportunity before the law, and that includes the ability to campaign equally, which is certainly not the case.

Concerning the current candidates, I respect both Bush and Kerry–but I do not agree with either of them. They do not represent me and I don’t think they represent most Americans. If Bush is voted out and Kerry wins-–then what? Will he cultivate again the so-called respect that our nation has lost? Will he actually give a damn about an average Joe trying to make a living barely above the poverty line? He may say he will, but how many other candidates over the years–Republicans and Democrats–have said the same and achieved no change?

So the question is, why Nader? Why is this man any better than the other candidates? Nader, the author of Unsafe At Any Speed, has consistently shown his true colors for most of his career as a vocal consumer advocate. He has been against the war in Iraq from the beginning, and he has been a fierce advocate for reform in many areas of society. Nader has particularly stood his ground on campaign finance, which he accurately terms a “corrupt… disenfranchisement of the voters.” He wants to make healthcare universally available, restart the war on poverty, provide better public education for all Americans, encourage a less-biased media, and fight for less corruption in the corporate sector. He has also been a driving force in helping to build vast support for the Green Party, starting 900 chapters of the party on campuses across the nation and building 450 local chapters. Nader has been a tireless, sincere, and honest fighter for what he believes is right. And right now he proposes to stand up again, against the status quo.

We live in an era where politics has become a sham, a pitiful excuse for a democracy, and an institution of corruption and broken promises. I won’t support Republicans because they are conservative and repgressive, but the Democratic Party is no alternative. Democrats in particular seem to uphold a policy of “cookies for everyone”—but in reality, you can’t satiate every special-interest group and still manage to attend to the welfare of the nation as a whole. I’m tired of the inaction I see, I’m tired of smear campaigns and lies, and I am tired of the duopoly that for 40 years has continually ignored most of the needs of its citizenry. For that reason, and that reason alone, I am voting for Nader with my heart and conscience, making what I feel is the right decision for me.