Step into this race and I will consume you--the fires of hell will scorch you years before they torch Ashcroft's rotting carcass, and I'll sit there with my now finally legal 40 of Olde English watching." ("Done With Nader," July, 29 2003)
The students of Dartmouth College should expect a loftier degree of civil discourse than this from the president of their student government. Janos Marton's op-ed last Tuesday was written in alarmingly bad taste bordering on the psychopathic. His last sentence alone is so inflammatory that it negates any and all of the good points (and there were not many) contained in the rest of the piece.
Marton goes on to say, "It's sheer arrogance to think that after these primaries are over, the Greens have the legitimacy to launch their own candidate." On the contrary, the true arrogance is on the part of the young college student who considers himself qualified to evaluate the legitimacy of entire political parties. In America, we have the right to assemble politically, even when it is on behalf of a lost cause.
Marton also asks, "What on Earth makes [the Green Party] think they need to make their voices heard more than every other non-conservative in America?" Marton's political elitism is quite shocking. In a time in which the two-party system is widely seen as unable to work effectively or efficiently for the people of our country, he is warding off all third-party comers, or at least those who threaten the Democratic Party. Marton seems willing to stifle debate, along with parts of the first amendment, in the name getting George W. Bush out of the White House in 2004. He would do well to remember the many progressive reforms enacted the late 19th and early 20th centuries whose origin could be traced back to third party platforms.
Two points Marton raises in his op-ed merit further debate. First, how can the Democrats consolidate the left wing of their party so as not to lose votes to a candidate like Ralph Nader in 2004? Anyone who still thinks that Nader's presence on the ballot did not cost Al Gore the presidency is in political denial, but this is different than saying that Nader took Gore's votes away. Democrats are not entitled to the votes of the far left any more than Republicans are entitled to the votes of the far right. At this particular point in time, however, the Republicans have no serious challenger to the votes of the far right, which brings me to the next important point.
Marton likens the pandering the Democrats must do to the Greens to the pandering the Republicans must do to the kind of people who hang out at Bob Jones University. While the comparison may be apt, the amount of splintering that takes place on the left is far greater than it is on the right. This is because many of the interests to whom the left is currently beholden have conflicting interests. For example, the teachers unions and the African-American community have differing interests when it comes to school choice. The Hispanic community and the AFL-CIO have different interests when it comes to immigration and naturalization laws. It is for this reason that we are seeing Republicans making small yet significant inroads among minority groups and even among some union workers. The Republican core constituencies, consisting of social and religious conservatives, hawks and small-government types, can usually coexist more harmoniously with one another. This is not to say that there is no infighting in the Republican Party, but at this point these groups have little to gain by attacking one another.
Many fascinating debates can be had about the changes happening in America's political landscape. Making silly or empty threats to third party candidates may serve the short-term political interests of the Democrats, but it hurts the long-term political interests of everyone. Dartmouth's distinguished SA President would do well to approach the American political debate with more thoughtfulness.
