To the Editor:

I would like to take this opportunity to civilly disagree with Clark Goldband’s assessment of Ralph Nader’s motives and the impact of his candidacy. The title of his article was “Presidential Choice: It’s a Good Thing.”.I would agree with the rhetoric of the title, but I would argue that because of the way the voting system is set up, the perceived choice that Ralph Nader presents is an illusion. It is still a two-party system, just like it was before, during, and after the 2000 election. I find it significant that since that time, Nader’s support for reform of the two-party system has scarcely been heard until now that it can hurt the Democratic party again. There was plenty of opportunity to protest, march, and push legislation when the country discovered that the popular vote does not matter, and its President may come down to a Supreme Court decision which comes down to the unilateral decision of Sandra Day O’Connor. Plenty of people would have been willing to pursue the issue, myself included, if we only had a leader. If Ralph Nader really believed in reforming the voting system to allow for third party candidates to have a viable chance, that would have been the time.

Secondly, I understand Ralph Nader’s third rail issues, but for crying out loud, now is not the time. In 2000 he would have been likely to get a lot more sympathy from me on these issues. We were a prosperous nation then, and Bush did not look as bad as he turned out to be. Now, however, I am much more worried about patching up relations with the United Nations, dealing with international terrorism, and figuring out how to deal with the problems in Iraq and Haiti than I am worried about anything having anything to do with Cuba. The marijuana issue is going to take convincing of the people before any government agency can even attempt to debate the topic. While I am rabidly in favor of same-sex marriage, I would argue that now that Bush is pushing for an amendment, we have the high ground on the issue. Conservatives may actually hate amendments even more than they hate same-sex marriage. For many of them, this issue has shifted from a defense of marriage issue to a states’ rights issue. In summary, if we were to go with Nader and institute these admittedly good, but very unpopular policies on a federal scale before making them more popular with the people, the majority in this country will start making decisions without even consulting the “liberal intelligentsia” that Nader so arrogantly claims to represent. These issues make heroes out of local political figures such as mayors, judges, and activists like Nader himself, but they are political suicide for presidential candidates who have to listen to everybody at one time. By forcing these issues on the Democratic Presidential candidates while they are campaigning, he divides those who are angry from those who want to win. However, for those readers who are not convinced by my above arguments that third rail issues can wait, I ask what Ralph Nader cares about that Dennis Kucinich does not address? If you believe that third rail issues are the most important issues, Dennis Kucinich is your candidate. Given the appropriate amount of support, he can have a significant effect on what the Democratic platform turns out to be, and the best part is that he is not gambling the fate of the nation by distracting voters from their real enemy. So now the question remains, do you want to protest the two-party system and polarize Democrats, or do you want to work within the two party system and actually get support for your other issues? In 2000, getting rid of the two- party system was tempting. Now it is imperative that Democrats mobilize everyone to the left of Bush and work together to save this country.

Thirdly, it is impossible to convince anyone that Nader is now, or was in 2000 under anything resembling an ABB (anybody but Bush) policy. In 2000, Nader supporters protested Gore events as much if not more than Bush events, and the Nader campaign worked particularly hard to win over the liberals in the swing states. Florida was one of two states in which Nader got more votes than Gore lost by, the other was New Hampshire which also would have won Gore the presidency despite what happened anywhere else. I will agree that Gore was a less than ideal candidate, and his failure was largely due to poor campaign management, but Nader cannot plead complete innocence either.

Now, Nader is clearly not pulling punches on Democratic, or “non-Bush” candidates and is continuing the now antiquated rhetoric that claims Democrats and Republicans are exactly the same. Mr. Goldband highlighted three issues that differentiate Democrats from Republicans, namely healthcare, the environment, and education. There’s also foreign policy, social security, corporate control of the government, suspension of civil liberties, economy, separation of church and state, and now same-sex marriage, not to mention that a woman’s right to choose is soon to be on the Republican chopping block, and there’s even a possibility that something might finally happen about capital punishment. Nader stands on the Democratic side of all of these issues, (just further to the left), yet he predicts that he will pull as many votes from disillusioned Republicans as from Democrats. Not only is this claim preposterous, but even if it were true it would not justify running against the Democratic nominee. If there are Republicans out there who are mad enough to vote for Nader, it seems safe to assume that they would be mad enough to vote for the Democratic nominee if Nader were not running, so at the end of the day, even those votes are being pulled from the Democrats.

The fact is this: with the monstrous Machiavellian political machine that Bush has prepared, the Democrats were going to need all the help they could get before Nader decided to run. Now, in the first election in our generation in which the possible negative consequences will be immediate and devastating, Nader’s very candidacy has people like Mr. Goldband (a New York resident I’m assuming?) thinking his vote does not count, and that presidents are elected in New Hampshire and Florida. Even if I follow Mr. Goldband’s logic here, which I am loathe to, I must still retort that if Nader builds up enough support in states that “don’t matter” like New York and California, it will effect the opinions and voting habits of liberal Floridians. Nader cannot claim to be under an ABB policy. The system is set up so that presidential politics is a one on one sport where extra players are spoilers necessarily. If Nader really believed in his issues, he would have gone about supporting them another way. I believe that the only issue Ralph Nader really cares about is Ralph Nader, and that this time a vote for Ralph Nader is not a vote for change, it is a vote for masochism.

Sincerely,Tom Bishop