While studying in Paris this winter, I came into contact with a group of politically active college students and twenty-somethings who were aligned far to the left in the political continuum. I figured that we would see eye to eye on most issues and share common political experiences derived from being liberal and politically active students. While the former notion was, for the most part, true, I was astounded by the differences between politics there and politics here and the difference in what it means to identify as a liberal. Most striking was the difference in the way in which we framed the political debate. For liberals in the United States, I explained, the enemy is clearly situated on the rightwing. It is their policies that we dispute and it is them we seek to defeat come election day. They told me that they don't even worry about the rightwing; for them, the enemy is the center. Whether the manifestation is mainstream conservative or mainstream liberal, moderation cannot be tolerated and principled positions cannot be abandoned.
I recently thought about the views of my Parisian friends in the context of the current United States election frenzy. Many have argued that regardless of who actually occupies the White House next year, the political center will have won. As a liberal, should I perhaps be more concerned about the possibility of Gore/Lieberman than I am about Pat Buchanan? Should I have already changed my registration to the Green Party or Socialist Party and should I plan on voting for Ralph Nader? Having thought about those questions, especially the last one, the answer has become apparent: though my political views certainly fall to the left of the Democratic Party platform and the proposals of its Presidential ticket, I would do an enormous disservice to those views and my own steadfast principles if I didn't help elect Al Gore president.
In response to the claim that casting a vote for Ralph Nader is the equivalent of casting a vote for George W. Bush, Nader has defended himself by claiming a need to solidify a progressive political movement in America. If Nader's argument rests on the future of the political left in this country, his logic is sorely misguided. With George W. Bush at the helm, the political left will be all but stifled. Democrats, having come this far despite the hardships of the past eight years, will be forced to abandon the progressive agenda and compromise with conservatives to accomplish anything at all. Bill Clinton has taken progressive causes as far as he possibly could have (given an extremely conservative and vengeful Republican Congress) and now, building on the prosperity those efforts have engendered, having a Democrat in office can and will allow liberals to accomplish so much more. Health care can become universally accessible and affordable, even for the 44 million Americans who lack it now. A woman's right to choose will be protected by all branches of government rather than eradicated with a single Supreme Court nomination. Guaranteeing social entitlement of all kinds, rather than tax breaks for the already wealthy, will be a priority. With Bush in office, none of these dreams, already on their way to completion, can become realities. By casting a vote for Nader, a liberal makes a minimal political statement and a big political difference; the problem is that the benefit of that difference will be enjoyed by George W. Bush.
When Naderites says that the only difference between Bush and Gore is the speed at which their knees hit the floor when corporations come knocking, he is making a poignant though hyperbolic political statement. "Politics as usual," as Bill Bradley aptly labeled them this fall, are far from ideal. I agree with Nader on a wide range of issues, including the importance he places on a living wage, his pledge to radically reform campaign finance and his advocacy of abolition of capital punishment. Nonetheless, nowhere is it written that agreeing with a candidate is the only criterion for making the difficult decision that voting inevitably is. It seems logical, rather, to consider as a whole how one's vote can best be used to help realize the goals one wishes to achieve.
The fact of the matter is that Nader cannot win this race and Al Gore can. Each liberal American may cast only one vote and it is undoubtedly better used against the opposition than in favor of unbending principle for principle's sake. The admirable principles Nader seeks to achieve can be achieved if and when a strong Democratic leader like Al Gore takes office; if and when meaningful campaign finance reform is enacted, freeing lawmakers from the special interests; and if and when liberals in America elect a Democratic Congress that will work with the President to enact the reforms that are so badly needed.
Liberals can think of the so-called "middling" of American politics in two ways. The pessimistic outlook is one that my French friends would surely share. This view holds that, even if a Democrat gets elected, progressive principles are falling by the wayside. I have thought about and fully rejected this view. Instead, I choose the optimistic path. I see the election of the Gore/Lieberman ticket as yet another step in the right direction. While the influence of outspoken and well-respected liberals like Ralph Nader are a healthy component of our democracy and will certainly point our Democratic politicians in the right direction, I like to think that as November 7 approaches, American liberals will recognize that their votes are best used and their interests are best served if they cast a vote for Al Gore.
