Raiding Nader
Senator John Kerry wants the presidency so badly that he is closing down democracy to get it. Policy positions merit serious scrutiny, but when the party of the working person, the party that claims to have a vision to heal the divide between what Sen. John Edwards calls the "two Americas," turns its back on voters' right to choose whom they elect, no American should let that stand.
Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe has admitted approving efforts to block Ralph Nader from appearing on the ballot in 19 battleground states. From using state employees in Illinois to question petition signatures, to hiring corporate law firms to mount frivolous challenges to Nader's ballot efforts, the Democratic Party and John Kerry, who does nothing to stop these tactics, have made it very clear: no more democracy.
Liberals have a legitimate concern about Ralph Nader's appearance on swing-state ballots: Voters could choose him in large enough numbers to throw the election to President George Bush. Influential Democrats worried about this prospect could be saying to likely Nader voters: We support your right to choose a candidate and understand the desire to pressure Kerry by having Nader on the ballot in swing states, but we really want to convince you to vote for Kerry.
But they're not saying that. Instead, the Democratic Party has drawn a line in the sand; voter choice and the genuine dialogue needed to sway likely Nader voters is just too dangerous-we have to keep Nader off the ballot.
Meanwhile, Kerry has made it very plain he is moving his party to the right. This July, Kerry told the Wall Street Journal that, if elected president, he will likely keep troops in Iraq through 2008. Whoever wins, we will have four more years of war.
Shortly after the heinous train bombings in Madrid on March 11, 2004, the socialists were swept into office, replacing the conservatives who had defied the 80 percent of the population that didn't want Spanish troops in Iraq. But contrary to the impression given by widespread media reports, the newly elected Prime Minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, did not pledge to remove his 1300 troops unconditionally. Rather, he was more nuanced, saying, "If the United Nations does not take over the situation and there is not a rethinking of this chaotic occupation we are living through, in which there are more dead in the occupation than in the war phase, the Spanish troops are going to return to Spain."
That is a call for the use of force in accordance with international law. If we stay in Iraq it must be under U.N., not U.S., auspices. It's just the kind of cooperation one might think John Kerry is advocating from his campaign statements: Avoid unilateralism, work through international institutions.
But Kerry rebuked Zapatero unequivocally, saying, "I call on Prime Minister Zapatero to reconsider his decision and to send a message that terrorists cannot win by their acts of terror." In other words, simply saying that you require a U.N. mandate to participate in occupying a country is sending the wrong message to terrorists. Kerry's talk of working with the U.N. isn't about shared decision-making. It's about doing a better job than George Bush has done of getting them to follow us.
On social issues, too, Kerry is a poor champion.
Kerry has a strong record supporting pro-choice positions, but now says he would appoint anti-abortion judges, uttering the nonsensical caveat, "as long as the appointment doesn't jeopardize Roe v. Wade." Yet if an anti-abortion judge were hearing the recent case in San Francisco about partial-birth abortion, the right could well have scored a major victory for restricting a woman's right to choose.
Kerry used to be opposed to capital punishment. Now he favors it for terrorists. This makes him an advocate for killing those least able to defend themselves. Even an indigent African American facing the racism of the criminal justice system has at least a lottery's chance of getting a high-powered attorney to get him out. But he did it with access to due process, which those accused of terrorism don't have, because they face the greatest restrictions on due process in the wake of the Patriot Act that Kerry voted for. Since the freeing of over 100 death-row inmates from prison by DNA evidence, any fair person can see that those whose access to justice is most heavily restricted ought to be afforded the heaviest protections against capital punishment.
Kerry also opposes same-sex marriage, arguing disingenuously for civil unions. These would be honored at the state level, and would not therefore confer the over 1000 federal rights that are only available to married couples.
Still, many liberals say pragmatism dictates we vote for the lesser of two evils in November. In any single election year, perhaps especially this one, the argument can sound convincing. But over time, the lesser evil becomes more evil-and less powerful.
Kerry is pursuing a standard formula for Democrats to win the presidency: move right until enough conservative voters are won over. It's responsible for electing a Democratic president three times in a row (1992 and 1996 saw Clinton's election and reelection; 2000 saw Gore take the majority vote and, had he demanded a statewide recount in Florida, the presidency). Who can argue that this record proves the centrist strategy is anything other than a hands-down winner?
Sam Smith can. Writing in his Progressive Review, Smith points out that under Clinton, the Democrats lost "nearly 50 seats in the House, 8 seats in the Senate, 11 governorships, over 1200 state legislative seats, 9 state legislatures, and over 400 Democratic officeholders who had become Republicans."
That is a losing strategy, one Kerry is pursuing with a vengeance. In a New York Times/CBS News poll at the end of April, 61 percent believe Kerry says what he thinks people want to hear; only 29 percent believe he says what he believes. In contrast, 43 percent said Bush said what he felt others wanted to hear while 53 percent said he says what he believes.
If George Bush wins, he will be the first president in history to win with approval ratings as low as his are. Adding to Bush's economic woes, the war against Iraq is proving unpopular. Rarely does a challenger have it so good against an incumbent. This is Kerry's election to lose. And lose it he may very well do. As Bush sinks, Kerry can barely gain a foothold.
Kerry could be the bold candidate and win handily. He could oppose the war, as most Americans do, recognizing that it has done more to increase terrorism than abate it by killing thousands of innocent civilians. He could favor universal health insurance, as most Americans do, instead of proposing the subsidizing of private insurance that would still leave millions uninsured.
That's a platform to drive the 40-million-plus eligible voters who stayed home last election to the polls. But Kerry has instead chosen to focus on a factor in the 2000 election that had less than one-tenth the impact of the stay-at-home voter: the three million or so who voted for Nader. Abandoning any pretense to principle, Kerry and his operatives fret about how to cut off their choices. He may succeed. But those voters blocked from choosing may see the move to stop his ballot access as an alarming weakening of democracy at the very moment it needs to be strengthened. If they do perceive Kerry's actions that way, it could swell the ranks of those who don't vote-or don't vote for him-sealing his own fate.
But it gets worse. Bush's power comes not from his personality but from the fact that the Republicans control the three branches of government-both houses of Congress, the White House and the Judiciary-for the first time since the 50s. If there is a backlash to Kerry's tactics and mushy centrism and more people stay away, this could eliminate vital support for Democratic candidates in the House and Senate. By staying home and not casting a vote for Kerry, they won't be voting for Congresspeople either. This could prevent the retaking of Congress, leaving Bush not only in power, but with legislative power intact or intensified.
In swing states, there may be a compelling argument to vote for Kerry and get Bush out. That's most powerful in large swing states like Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio, least important in small swing states like Maine, for the simple reason that losing a large state is more likely to be a determining factor in the election than losing a small one. The swing voter's choice is the toughest.
Yet 75 percent of the electorate live in safe states where the outcome is certain. In New York, California, Massachusetts and Texas, we know who will win. In these instances a vote for Kerry is unnecessary support for war, for economic austerity, for a candidate who voted for the Patriot Act and Bush's No Child Left Behind Act that favors standardized testing and punishment over teacher raises and resources designed to boost learning. Voters are free in these states to vote their conscience and help constrain Kerry's move right.
Some argue that the effort to constrain Kerry is naive, that Kerry isn't listening. They may well be right. But that is an argument for why we need viable third-party efforts. To one day capture real power, a third party needs not just to exert pressure from the sidelines, but over the next 50 years come to rival or replace the Democrats as the leading liberal party. These groups desperately need support to get on the ballots in every state. For our democracy to thrive, the country needs independent and alternative party efforts-no matter who is running for president or when.