2004 is not the same as 2000

by Irwin Silber

I make no apologies for having voted for Ralph Nader in
2000. It wasn’t Nader who did Gore in. It was Al Gore
himself (aided and abetted by the Supreme Court) who
ran a totally lackluster campaign and did more to
alienate progressives like myself than anyone else.
(I.e., his crudely opportunistic decision to call for
keeping the Cuban boy Elian forcibly in the U.S.) I
believe Nader sees the corruption and underlying
affinity with corporate business by both Democrats like
Kerry and Republicans like Bush to the point where he
thinks a political alternative must, at least, be put
before the voters.

There are many of us who share Nader’s view on this.
But he is wrong, in my opinion, on two accounts:

1. He fails to recognize that Bush (and his gang)
represent something much more dangerous than
traditional Republicans and Democrats. Sinclair Lewis
once wrote that if fascism ever comes to America it
will be in the guise of patriotism. The possibility of
a "coup" is real. All Bush would have to do is declare
a national emergency, contrive a scenario to fit that
situation, and proceed to suspend the division of
powers (between the president, Congress and the courts)
and the suppression of most rights and liberties we
take for granted. The ease with which he was able to
concoct the war against Iraq on the basis of a pack of
lies is a glaring example.

2. Nader’s candidacy could be entertained as a
possibility this year if it was founded on a base of
popular support that could make him a political
contender or, at least, a force whose political clout
would be felt in the real world. This is clearly not
the case.

I have rarely supported a "lesser evil" candidate in
U.S. elections. And make no mistake about it. Kerry
is definitely a "lesser evil." But there is no other
way to defeat Bush who is probably the most dangerous,
despicable and, yes, "evil" figure to command the power
of the presidency.

Irwin Silber