Kevin Boury sent me this e-mail and I thought it was worth quoting and answering. It's in response to my statement that "no one who wants Bush out is going to be dumb enough to not vote for the Democrat."
I guess I would be that dumb. Dumb enough to vote for the person who I want to see elected. I'm just not smart enough to vote for a candidate who has a platform that does not appeal to me only so that I can join in with the other brilliant democrats and their personal political goals. After all, conforming to a majority is what this country is all about, right? Boy I am an idiot.
I just do not buy the Barbara Streisand mentality that I have to vote for whoever the Dems nominate. That goes against the whole idea of a democracy. Why should I allow her, you or the democratic party limit MY options when I go to vote? Our continuing two-party-only system is as damaging as another 4 years of Bush, so I want to vote against that. Shouldn't I be able to do so without being considered moronic? Why should everyone else get to vote their conscious while I am forced to vote for the lesser of two evils? Why shouldn't I vote for MY choice?
Anyway, its more important for the Dems to take control of Congress in the long run. But they will lose that fight since they are so focused on Bush. Great, then we'll have a Dem in the White House, but one who can't get legislation passed without major conflicts.
I am voting for Nader. Dems who think Bush has already lost will not be able to bully me into voting for their team, no matter how "dumb" they think I am.
I don't think you're dumb, Kevin. I just think it's dumb to think that a vote for someone other than the Democrat is going to help get Bush out of office. If you think that a vote for Nader will better accomplish some other, more worthy goal, no one in the world could, should or would stop you. Matter of fact, if I thought a vote for Nader would do something to break down the two-party monopoly, I'd probably grab a placard and march for the guy. So far, I don't see how it can. The trouble with third-party attempts in recent years is that they're all about one guy — a Nader, a Perot — and the party is a distant second, almost a technicality. This time, Nader's taken it even farther. He's making a third-party attempt without a party, which means he can't even say he's trying to establish the infrastructure and future viability of one. He's running as Ralph Nader. His run last time, if anything, may have hurt the notion that a third party could be more than a way of splitting the vote for one major party so that the other profits. I certainly don't see a lot of people this time talking about alternative candidates as anything but a way to press the Democrat farther to the left or the Republican farther to the right.
I also don't think anyone's going to "bully" you into voting for them except in the sense that everyone backing a candidate does what they can to get your vote. But let's pick this up in eight months. Around the middle of October, drop me a note I can post telling me if you're still planning on voting for Nader and why. By then, I expect to be so repulsed by both major party nominees, I may join you.