Never mind what you heard. Voting for Ralph Nader is not a “waste.” While it is true that a vote for Nader may work to the advantage of our beloved current president (a.k.a. The anti-Christ), it’s not very clear that electing Kerry to office will do much to alter any of Bush’s brilliant policies either. If what we’re seeking is effective long-term change, then I suggest voting for Nader.
Don’t worry, I’m not going to go off on a tangent about stupid policies that Bush and Kerry support and why they’re complete morons for doing so. I’m not even going to delve into the many reasons why I think Ralph Nader is more qualified to run this country. If you don’t already know why Bush isn’t fit to be president, then you’re obviously too dumb to vote anyway. And if your only justification for voting for Kerry is because you think Bush is a complete putz, then perhaps you should relinquish your right to vote, because the only putz here is you.
Bush or Kerry? Kerry or Bush? Neo-Con or Neo-Con? Corporate monkey or commercial bastard? Thank you two-party system for the wonderful choice! Let’s be honest, we’re being forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. I don’t know about you, but this is one situation where “democracy” has failed us.
The last time I checked the U.S. government was created “by the people, for the people.” Doesn’t that mean that the President owes his allegiance to the general public? Isn’t the whole point of voting to pick a president that represents your interests? I don’t know about you, but my interests have little to do with giant corporations and chasing fake weapons of mass destruction, and more to do with all the unemployed people, run down houses and under funded schools in the beat-up neighborhoods surrounding Temple University.
Simply put, both the Republicans and Democrats have nominated candidates for president that aren’t exactly ideal, to say the least. If we swallow our pride and vote for the less un-ideal candidate, then we’re basically being forced to vote for someone that we wouldn’t want as our president under any other normal circumstance. Go ahead, vote for Kerry or Bush. But in effect, what you’re saying to our future leaders is that it’s OK for our elected officials to ignore our interests, as long as they don’t ignore them too much. But that’s a dangerous precedent that I’m not willing to set.
So what do we do? Well here’s an unoriginal, yet effective, solution: Why not vote for neither Kerry nor Bush? Think about it. What we’re in need of is a strategic bargaining position vis a vis the two candidates and their parties, right? If what we’re seeking are candidates who take into consideration the fact that their constituents actually matter, then shouldn’t we refrain from voting for those who are more concerned for their personal wealth rather than the public’s well being? As American citizens, we should be initiating a proactive policy toward electing officials that actually represent our interests. By uniting and voting for Nader, we would be telling both Republicans and Democrats that in order to attract our votes in the future they better put us at the top of their list of priorities. After all, it is our country. Isn’t it?
It’s time to give up our reactionary stance. Don’t vote Kerry only because you hate Bush. Don’t fall into the popular misconception that a vote for Nader is a “wasted” vote. Let’s set the bar for what a president should be. Think of a vote for Nader as an investment in a better America for tomorrow. Yes, maybe Bush will win this time around. But I’d rather have four more years of Dubya’s ingenious policies then succumb to a lifetime of corporate stupidity. It’s time we take the White House back. I suggest logging onto www.votenader.org and learning about a better option: Ralph Nader.
Nadeem Muaddi can be reached at email@example.com.