This is an email to a friend that I wrote in response to an article about why Gloria Steinem as a feminist isn't voting for Nader.

Subject: Re: Gloria Steinem's Top 10 Reasons I'm Not Voting for Nader (fwd)
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 14:41:45 -0500 (CDT)

> 10. He's not running for President.  He's running for federal matching funds
> for the Green Party!

While this is the goal of many Greens, Ralph has never made this an
explicit goal. He is running to win, and barring that he is running to
build the party. This doesn't just mean matching funds, this means
having a strong base of people who has been counted at the ballot box
as being fed up with the 2 parties and who will go out and start
working on an alternative on Nov 8.

> 9. He was able to take all those perfect progressive positions of the past
> because he never had to build an electoral coalition, earn a majority vote, 
> or otherwise submit to democracy.

What the hell is he trying to do now! He's building a coalition of
labor unions, environmental groups, leftist activists, GLBT groups,
health care groups, etc. When in the 80s could you _ever_ imagine that
Labor and environmentalists would work _together_. The media has been
spinning labor and environment as fundamentally at odds for as long as
there has been an environmental movement. Nader's coalition directly
supports everything NOW, AFL/CIO, Sierra Club, Teamsters, Friends of
the Eart, etc support, with their support and presense in the debates
he could _win_ and yet everyone is too afraid to switch sides. 

> 8. By condemning Gore for ever having taken a different position--for 
> example, for voting against access to legal abortion when he was a
> Congressman from Tennessee--actually dissuades others from changing
> their minds and joining us.

This makes no sense. Nader is pointing at a pro-life guy who is
running on a pro-choice platform and saying "look he's pro-life". Yes
this too means that if there was a pro-choice guy running on a
pro-life platform Nader's actions would imply that _someone_ should
stand up point and say "look he's pro-choice". Shouldn't politicians
be honest? 

Thats the point of this campaign. If you want politicians to be honest
then vote for Nader. If you want politics to be a complex chess game
that regular folks can never win, that regular folks have to submit to
being pawns in, then vote for Gore.

But this doesn't change the underlying truth that Gore is the kind of
guy who changes his mind for political gain and can not be trusted and
Nader is not. If Nader were to drop out of the race to get Gore
elected then Nader would be as bad as Gore.

> 7.Nader is rightly obsessed with economic and corporate control, yet he
> belittles the movements against a deeper form of control--control of
> reproduction, and the most intimate parts of our lives.  

Again she drags out the tired "gonadal politics" line. She should do
some more research. It really seems like everything she knows about
Nader she read in the New York Times or saw on CNN. The media isn't
covering him. He's saying _plenty_ on issues other than corporate
control these days but no one is writing it down because they are
_much_ more happy to just write the same stories they wrote in 1996,
to make assumptions without checking them, to write the convenient
story which pitches Nader as an unlikely opponent of the Democrats. It
sells newspapers but its not the truth.

> 6. The issues of corporate control can only be addressed by voting for
> candidates who will pass campaign-funding restrictions, and conducting
> grassroots boycotts and consumer campaigns against sweatshops?  not by voting
> for one man who will never become President.

There will never be any candidates who support these issues unless
they are forced to do so because they are losing votes to the Green
party. Campaign finance reform isn't even on Gore's or Bush's agenda. 

> 5. Toby Moffett, a longtime Nader Raider who also served in Congress, 

People keep saying "hey _really_ the candidates are very different,
the media only focuses on the negative so they look the same" but I
haven't seen any of these people come up with _examples_ of positive
things about Gore that are not easily countered by evidence from
Gore's voting record and his behavior in the white house which suggest
that he does not really support that thing and having him president
would not help move that issue forward. 

> 4. Nader asked Winona LaDuke, an important Native American leader, to support
> and run with him, despite his possible contribution to the victory of George
> W. Bush, a man who has stated that "state law is supreme when it comes to
> Indians," 

Winona is one of the smartest women alive today. Winona is one of the
most active radical women alive today. Winona has been fighting for
native americans, women, and the environment all her life. I think she
is probably in a position to evaluate whether the risk of Bush
outweighs the risk of not supporting Nader. The very fact that she
entered this campaign should be a selling point for the campaign. 

Winona would point out the threat to native people that Gore has been
through his environmental and land use policy in the last 8
years. Gore has presided over the beureau of indian affairs which has
actually _lost_ (literally, as in they acknowledge that they do not
have sufficient records to know where the money is or who it belongs
to) millions of dollars of indian money that they were holding in
trust.

> 3. If I were to run for President in the same symbolic way, I hope my friends
> and colleagues would have the good sense to vote against me, too, saving me
> from waking up to discover that I had helped send George W. Bush to the most
> powerful position in the world.

Nader is not running in any "symbolic" way. In 1996 he ran in a
symbolic way and dropped out at the end. In this race he declared from
teh beginning that he is running to win. If he had gotten into the
debates he would have had a real chance at possibly winning.

Dole didn't drop out of the race and just hand it over to Clinton in
1996 even though there was _no_ chance in hell of him winning. He
continued to run to win. Thats what candidates do.

Gore should drop out and give his votes to Nader. Gore is too
compromised, too many people have given up on him, he can't beat
Bush. Nader can beat Bush. If people are worried about Bush they
should be petitioning Gore to drop out of the race.

If Nader dropped out of the race I would still not vote for Gore. He
is too evil. I'd vote for Hagelin or I'd vote for none of the above. 

> 2. There are one, two, three, or even four lifetime Supreme Court Justices
> who are likely to be appointed by the next President.

I can't believe this woman rides in from the sunset as if she's got
some great new news for us all so we can save ourselves from voting
for Nader and she brings out the same issues that have been around
since March. 

How many times do we have to point out that: Blackmun who wrote Roe
v. Wade was a republican, Scalia and Thomas who are opponents of Roe
were affirmed by votes from Gore and Leiberman respectively. Leiberman
spoke for 45 minutes on the floor of the senate in favor of Thomas'
judicial philosophy and then again after the Hill scandal broke
Leiberman spoke _again_ for 45 minutes supporting Thomas. Stevens, the
most liberal judge was appointed by Ford, O'Connor a conservative
supporter of Roe was appointed by Reagan. Souter is another of the
most liberal justices and was appointed by Bush.

The justices who are likely to leave have not actually announced their
intention to leave. Many of them could end up still being in when the
next election comes around. In fact they keep suggesting that O'Connor
is the third most likely to leave but she is in excellent health and
has made no suggestion that she will be leaving soon. I don't
understand why she is on the list and I don't know who the possible
4th person on the list could be.

Really the democrats should be putting _all_ their resources into
getting democratic control of congress back so that they can block any
ultra conservative justices that _either_ bush or gore might appoint.

70% of republicans are pro-choice. 80% of americans are pro-choice. It
would be political suicide for any president or congress to get the
court to override roe v. wade.

> [Bush would] dismantle remedies for racial discrimination, oppose
> equal rights for gays and lesbians, oppose mandatory
> gun-registration, oppose federal protections of endangered species,
> public lands, and water--and much more. Gore is the opposite on
> every one of these issues.

wrong. 

Gore pushed Clinton into signing Welfare reform. 

The DNC platform does not mention support for equal rights for gays
and lesbians, the only thing Gore would do is employment
non-discrimination, but he wouldn't help with health care, property
right, or marriage rights.

The guns issue is a minor one. I don't think either candidate would
make a big difference on guns really but I'll concede that Gore would
be "better".

They so can't talk about Gore and endangered species. Every chance
that he ever got to weaken the endagered species act as a
congressperson he used to do so.

Gore has refused to support the ban on logging on public lands that
the sierra club has called for. Gore supports oil drilling on public
lands in Alaska.

I don't know Gore's stance on the Clean Water Act but I do know that
Ralph Nader _wrote_ the Clean Air and Clean Water acts.

> 1. The art of behaving ethically is behaving as if everything we do matters.
> If we want Gore and not Bush in the White House, we have to vote for Gore and
> not Bush? out of respect for the vote and self-respect.

I believe that a vote for Nader matter much more than a vote for Gore
does. A vote for Gore affects how far backwards we go in the next 4
years but acknowledges that we must go backwards. A vote for Nader
says I refuse to be forced to go backwards every 4 years and starting
today I am going to fight to go forwards. If our struggles are not
backed up by our votes, politicians will not listen to us.

> Let's face it, Bush in the White House would have far more
> impact on the poor and vulnerable in this country, and on the subjects of our
> foreign policy and aid programs in other countries.

Have I mentioned that Gore pushed Clinton into signing welfare
reform. Isn't this _inconceivable_ to everyone! This has been
devasating for the poor and _especially_ for poor women. This is a
feminist issue. Clinton/Gore failed us on this issue.

Have I mentioned that Clinton has started more wars and bombed more
countries and killed more people in so doing than the last 3
presidents combined.

Have I mentioned that the bulk of our "aid" is going to countries with
abhorrent military and human rights records and that most of it is
simply there for strategic purposes rather than for humanitarian
purposes. Bush and Gore would both recognize the strategic value of
said aid and it would continue. Neither of them would see strategic
value in real humanitarian aid and would not start it. 

> Just as Clinton saved women's lives by rescinding the Mexico City
> policy by executive order

And killed millions of women and children by _not_ rescinding the
embargo or the ongoing bombing campaign on Iraq. Do you realize that
we are still bombing Iraq?

He's failed to use executive order a hell of a lot more often than he
has used it.

Besides which its a well known fact that Clinton is simply more
liberal and more intelligent than Gore. And Clinton is pretty scary!

> Perhaps there's a reason why Nader's rallies seem so white, middle class, and
> disproportionately male; 

I'll give white. This is a problem. I think it is a problem of access
and media but it is also a problem with the campaign. The campaign
does have endorsements from many prominent leaders of the black,
asian, and hispanic communities. 
http://www.votenader.org/press/citizens_committee.html.

I won't give middle class. The average activist or student is quite
decidedly poor. There are probably a lot more lower middle class
(working class) folks in the movement than poor folks but hey look the
country is _mostly_ working class folks. The DNC and RNC on the other
hand are disproportionately yuppie (upper middle class) and rich.

I _absolutely_ won't give male. Over 50% of the active people in the
campaign and the green party are women. I see women everywhere in this
campaign. I see way more women at Nader rallies than at Gore rallies
(watch CSPAN sometime).

> Think about the impact of our vote on the weakest among us. Then we
> can't go wrong.

Think about the impact Clinton/Gore has had on the weakest among us!
Average and Minimum wages are lower adjusted for inflation than they
were in 1972. Welfare reform has put 10's of thousands of people on
the streets. The Clinton crime plan has led to the incarceration of
over 1% of our population, disproportionately poor, disproportionately
black (even disproportionate taking into account the fact that blacks
are disporportionately poor and more poor people commit
crimes). Clinton bombed people, he has used economic sanctions against
people, he has supported free trade aggreements despite massive human
and labor rights problems in the places where free trade is extended
to. Clinton has trampled on the powerless. 

The _impact_ of a vote for Nader is to tell politicians all over the
country that we don't accept the behavior of Clinton/Gore. The
_impact_ of voting for Gore is tacit approval of his center-right
politics.

-- 
Zachary C. Miller - Go We Go - http://zach.chambana.net/ - @=
IMSA 1995 - UIUC 2000 - Just Another Leftist Muppet
  Social Justice, Community, Nonviolence, Decentralisation,
  Sustainability, Feminism, Responsibility, Diversity, Democracy,
  Ecology - http://www.greens.org - http://www.votenader.org