Vote for good
by Mischa Gelman
(published 11/1/00)

  A Catholic acquaintance of mine tells me he often feels like saying
confession after voting. Given the usual slate of candidates, I can
definitely see where he's coming from - while I do not say confession, I
certainly get a queasy feeling when picking from the available options.
That is why I'm so happy that we have some superb candidates for once,
people we can feel proud to vote for - in the presidential race, Ralph
Nader, and in the Senatorial race, Ron Klink.
  The choice of Nader is easy when you look at what the Democrats and
Republicans have to offer us. The Democrats have nominated Al Gore, a
2nd-generation career politician who believes in corporate welfare, who
supports the democracy-undermining WTO and NAFTA and who has, at best, a
passing acquaintance with the thing we call truth. The Republicans have
nominated George Bush, a 3rd-generation career politician who believes in
croporate welfare, who supports the democracy-undermining WTO and NAFTA
and who hasn't shown that he can successfully run a business, let alone a
country. Not to mention that we kicked out a George Bush just 8 years ago
for causing a recession - why would we want another one? Both back the
death penalty, erroneously claiming it deters crime. Both used drugs. Both
have gotten by only on the basis of their name - if either was John Smith,
they never would have achieved their current positions. Both are
bankrolled by the same corporations, who realize they win if either of
these guys get office. If these corporations gain more power, they may
win, but we definitely lose.
  Meanwhile, the Greens offer us a real alternative, Ralph Nader. Mr.
Nader has spent the past 40 years (twice the lifetime of many Pitt
students) helping the American people. He has been in the forefront of the
campaign against NAFTA, the WTO, Channel One and stadium welfare. He led
the fight for the Occupational Safety and HealthAgency, safer cars, the
Clean Air Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the Safe Water Act, the
Consumer Product Safety Commission and the EPA. He has helped start the
Public Interest Research Groups, Clean Water Acxtion, Public Citizen, The
Center for Auto Safety, the Disabilities Rights Center, Congress Watch,
Public Campaign, the Pension Rights Center, Global Trade Watch and the
Health Research Group. Can Gore or Bush (or Browne, Hagelin, McReynolds or
Buchanan) claim anything comparable to even two of these achievements?
  Mr. Nader doesn't lie like Gore. He doesn't foist stadium taxes on folks
like Bush. He doesn't offer sound bites, preferring solutions. He is
a millionaire (earning his money rather than inheriting it or taking from 
the public trough), but gives away most of his income and doesn't even own
a car. He might not be a religious man, but at least he doesn't tarnish
religion like Gore and Bush, who claim biblical values while routinely
violating the very same. Nader prefers the competition of capitalism to
the bribes and subsidies of corporatism that Bush and Gore use in their
war against capitalism. Nader realizes the death penalty has flaws. Nader
thinks democracy is more valuable than a couple more trade dollars. About
the only flaw I can see is his willingness to sanction abortion and other
immoral acts, hardly enough to outweigh his virtues.
  Yet some folks claim we shouldn't back such a great candidate. They
think we should side with the lesser of two evils - who cares if it's
almost impossible to tell which is the lesser evil? They claim that we
need pro-choice supreme court justices, even though a)Bush doesn't claim
he'll only pick pro-life justices, b)the Republicans won't confirm a
liberal justice, c)it's dumb to support a candidate that likes
infanticide, d)we should appoint the best candidates rather than one who
agrees with us on a single issue and e)the party affiliation of a
president has had little correlation with the ideology of the justices
they select. The cartoon "This Modern World" mocks these loons, arguing
that they would have us vote for an awful candidate just because he "may
appoint a slightly less conservative judiciary!" Columnist Harley Sorensen
comments that the 'lesser evil' crowd would have us pick Mussolini over
Hitler when a good candidate was available. Why must we settle for the
lesser evil when we can vote for good?
  Others say we're throwing away our vote. Sorry, but we're throwing away
our vote by picking a democracy-bashing, bible-ignoring 2nd-or-3rd-
generation career politician over a man who has spent decades making this
country a better place.
  In the Senatorial race, we have another candidate available who we can
vote for without saying confession. Ron Klink is the rare politician who
follows a moral code. While Republicans back profits over people and
Democrats back infanticide and fight the Constitution, Klink has been a
staunch backer of labor, the Second Amendment, is pro-life and works for a
moral economic system. Finally - I can pull the lever for a major office
candidate without any obvious flaws. Shouldn't you do the same? Why settle
for evil?
  
  In his first presidential vote, Mischa Gelman threw away his vote by
picking Slick Willie. He has learned his lesson.