|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| A Letter to Ralph Nader | ||||||||||||
| By Howard Megdal and Caroline Morgan | ||||||||||||
| Opinion | ||||||||||||
| Mr. Nader: | ||||||||||||
| Now that the 2000 elections are completed and you have, if not thrown the election to Governor George W. Bush, at least obscured Al Gore's victory, you seem absolutely unrepentant. In fact, you have repeatedly expressed a disdain for Mr. Gore's ability to capture a clear mandate against the bumbling of Governor Bush, while at the same time maintaining that both Gore and Bush will be equally bad for this country's future. | ||||||||||||
| Well, Mr. Nader, we are this country's future. We are not a multi-national corporation. In fact, we are not even truly supporters of Al Gore, although we did vote for him. (Actually, we worked for Senator Bill Bradley during the primaries.) But we want to tell you exactly why your campaign has put our future into possible jeopardy. | ||||||||||||
| First and foremost is the question of the Supreme Court. If you do believe, as it says on your website, that the question of reproductive choice must be measured against many other issues in this election that you deem "more important," we can only question the arrogance of making such a subjective claim. Perhaps, since you are not a likely candidate for a possible abortion, it isn't truly important to you. But to my generation, keeping the gains that our country has made on social issues is critically important. It is irresponsible in the extreme to ignore the threat to these gains posed by George W. Bush in an attempt to reach your five percent of the vote. Our parents have enjoyed the removal of the government from this most private of arenas for 27 years. Your candidacy, which appealed by an overwhelming margin to otherwise Democratic Party voters, threatened that landmark declaration of women's rights, since, as you and anyone who has heard Governor Bush know, he will appoint pro-life judges. | ||||||||||||
| Of course, you have pointed to other "more important" issues like campaign-finance reform. Well, here, too, there are critical differences between Al Gore and George W. Bush. We are not naive enough to believe that Al Gore is truly running a populist campaign devoid of soft money. But you are not, we hope, naive enough to believe that Al Gore, or any other Democrat, could possibly win a campaign against the GOP money machine without soft money under current campaign finance laws. Unilateral disarmament means that the GOP will win. However, Al Gore has promised to sign Shays-Meehan/McCain-Feingold into law. George W. Bush has promised to veto it. | ||||||||||||
| As you know, a soft money ban is not the complete overhaul that both you and Senator Bradley advocated. We want public financing of elections, but there is simply not enough legislative support for it at the present time. However, there is ever-increasing support in the Senate for McCain-Feingold, and Shays-Meehan actually passed the last House of Representatives. All we will need is 10 or 11 Republicans (depending on the Cantwell/Gordon Senate race in Washington State) to join the Democrats, who as a party support this reform, for it to happen. This isn't everything. But it is an enormous step. With the election of George W. Bush, you will have prevented it. And make no mistake, Mr. Nader, the difference between a clear Gore victory and possible Bush victory is your candidacy. | ||||||||||||
| According to numerous polls of your supporters, between 50-75% of your voters would have not stayed home on Election Day. They would have pulled the lever for Al Gore. You criticize the Vice-President's campaign for failing to break out of the pack in his election bid against the bumbling governor. Yet, with your voters, Al Gore would have received the support of a majority of Americans. He will, even with your candidacy, receive more votes than Bill Clinton received in 1992 or 1996. American presidential victors don't usually win in landslides, and even LBJ won just over 60% in 1964, the most lopsided of elections in the history of the nation. Yet you seem to believe that this national characteristic is a fault of the Vice President. It almost seemed as if you wanted to punish Al Gore by continuing in the race, even once it became clear that you were only a spoiler in this election. You justified yourself by maintaining that there was no difference between the two major parties, yet you are knowledgeable enough to understand the positive results of McCain-Feingold and the detrimental effects of a Bush presidency in the abortion fight, as well as numerous other issues, not the least of which is environmental policy. | ||||||||||||
| No, Al Gore isn't perfect. And we disagree with him on some things. But within the Democratic Party, there are many like us who will continue to fight for the advancement of progressive causes effectively, by the piecemeal legislative processes of the U.S. government. And in your attempt to punish Vice President Gore, or whatever other private reasons you may have had for the race you ran, all that you may have done is punish people like us. | ||||||||||||
| Sincerely, | ||||||||||||
| Howard Megdal | Caroline Morgan | |||||||||||
| Editor-in-Chief, The Outside World | Deputy Managing Editor, The Outside World | |||||||||||
| Back to Main Page | ||||||||||||
| Back to Our November 13 Edition | ||||||||||||