The choice between Al Gore and Ralph Nader still plagues the minds of many liberals; voting for either one still results in the loss of sleep over a bruise to the conscience from one side or the other. On one hand, the conscious liberal knows that Al Gore differs only slightly in views from our dear George W. Bush and simply caters to the rich public with the hope of receiving more campaign funds. On the other hand, it resonates from all sides that the worthy liberal candidate, Ralph Nader, has no real chance of winning: any vote for Nader pulls away a vote from Gore and brings the lovely Bush closer to presidency. As a result, the liberal-minded voter is torn between voting for an inept Gore and voting for a capable Nader who may just be the deciding factor in the Bush-Gore race.
However, Gore just does not measure up as the liberal candidate that Democratic voters would like him to be. Though Gore poses as an environmental figure, the half-million dollars worth of shares he holds with Occidental Petroleum, a company responsible for oil drilling in Colombia that forces indigenous peoples off their land, as well as campaign funding he receives from them glaringly indicates otherwise. Not only that, but also his stances on foreign policy, including support of the anti-ballistic missile defense system and free trade, hardly differ from those of Bush who holds essentially the same views on foreign affairs.
The Democratic party has shamefully strayed towards the right, leaving many liberals without a legitimate candidate for president within the two-party system. Nader is not taking votes away from Gore. Gore is losing his supporters by virtue of his apparent incompetence and ambivalence in his views, not to mention his lack of support for such liberal ideas as universal health care and implementation of a living wage system. How can a politically-conscious liberal vote for a man who places more importance in pleasing the rich elite despite the obvious need for social reform among the majority of the American population? Nader holds a platform that actually offers ideas for rigorous social change in hopes of reducing poverty in urban areas and raising the standard of living for all people.
Indeed, I cannot offer a completely safe way to vote for Nader and keep the evil Bush out of office. I can, however, bring to light the idea of movement-building on the part of minorities, homosexuals and women, who are thought to be the people who will be most affected by a Bush government and Bush-appointed Supreme Court justices. A loss to Bush will illuminate the people's discontent with the Democratic party and its dormancy on urgent issues usually addressed by a traditionally liberal party. In the past, minorities and homosexuals have looked toward the Democratic party for justice, but I do not see Gore as a man who seeks to fervently address these issues while in office.
Of course, Gore does not admit to such strong views as Bush in terms of gay rights, abortion issues, and gun control. But anyone can assure you that if Bush dramatically changes laws in regard to these issues - the activist, the homosexual, the sexually abused woman, the mother whose son was killed by gun violence - all will be waiting to voice there mounting resentment and rebelliousness in their hearts since Bush becoming president.
As of now, the Democratic party takes for granted the minority and gay vote (among others) because the Republican party makes it quite apparent that it is not very sensitive to either group's concerns. When the votes of these two significant groups begin to shift to a more sensitive and receptive party, namely the Green party, the Democrats cannot help but notice that attention must be given to these groups. It will signal to the Democrats that they cannot simply rely on getting the vote because of the common perception of the party as liberal. The party will have to prove that it is in support of liberal views by providing a candidate that can fight for social reform issues with conviction as opposed to the flakiness displayed by Vice President Al Gore. The Democrats will have to take a peek at the Green party platform and realize that they need to step up and finally really give people what they want. A bad Bush will call for more competent candidates. Bush as president will spur more disgruntled, riled up people to exercise their right to vote in the next election in hopes of averting another national tragedy, for a Bush in office is indeed a tragedy.
If Nader of the Green party receives five percent of the popular vote, the party will receive campaign funding in the next election and participate in the debates. The two-party system will be broken and the media will have to account for a third candidate who may actually have something substantial to contribute to the American government. Currently, the system and media shadows the existence of other parties in this election having a major affect in the way people vote and how much they know of the people running for office. Being of the two main parties Bush and Gore receive undue attention and enjoy the benefits of general associations attached to each party as a result of past presidents. Thus, it is integral to Nader and the Green party campaign to garner the support of at least five percent of the population in order to break away from the general mentality that the presidential election is merely a race between Republicans and Democrats.
That being said, I strongly encourage everyone to vote for Nader. It is true that this may threaten Gore's election to president, but that is mainly his own fault for being so unappealing in the eyes of liberals looking for change. A vote for Nader will highlight the need for a truly liberal Democratic party and a new movement that calls for serious attention to issues that have been poorly dealt with thus far. Vote with your conscience - vote for Nader.
Meena Jagannath is a sophomore who has not yet declared a major.
