Contact l Sitemap

home industries issues reasearch weblog press

Home  » Issues » Money & Politics

USA: Lesser-Evil Voting Is a Hard Sell to His Sons

by Robert ScheerLos Angeles Times
October 31st, 2000

Being a columnist is hardly the influential position it's cracked up to be. For weeks I've been trying to convince Ralph Nader voters that they have an obligation to vote for Al Gore or risk right-wing domination of government's three branches. For me, it's a no-brainer since George W. Bush has named Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia as his role models for the three to five Supreme Court appointments he's likely to make.

But it hasn't been an easy sell, even among my own three voting-age sons, who reflect the anxiety typical of my readers over the choices in this election, and who have come to different conclusions.

Peter, 19, a committed Nader supporter, is the most dismissive of my stab at electoral pragmatism.

"I don't feel like I'm throwing away my vote," he told me. "I feel like I'm participating in a youth-driven movement. It's very inspiring to see an older man fill a stadium with thousands of young supporters who pay to get in, and it's infuriating to then see news organizations say that young people don't care about politics.

"I'm for Nader because I do not want to compromise on issues of free speech, the death penalty, gay rights, the environment, corporate domination, the drug war and welfare, and I want to vote my conscience. Accepting the lesser of two evils is like voluntary slavery. Until you actually vote your own conscience, how can you expect any change? And the only way for me to be heard in this system is to vote for Nader. He's the only one who isn't lying to us, which is why they didn't want him in the debate."

My eldest son, Christopher, who at 33 is widely traveled and has worked as a journalist here and abroad, also challenges my arguments. He resents the pressure of folks like me who insist that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

"I haven't decided whether to vote for Nader or Gore," he said. "But these arguments for Gore strike me as the politics of fear, a crippling dependence on the lesser evil, which will completely hamstring any developing movement in the country for real progressive politics.

"Ralph Nader's not responsible for the alienation many Americans feel from the Democrats and Al Gore. After eight years of Clinton-Gore, this country's in pretty good shape for white, upper-middle-class people, liberal or conservative. But it's a worse place to live if you're poor, especially if you're poor and a minority. Thanks to the prison gulag, capital punishment, mandatory sentencing, welfare reform, the drug war, things have gotten worse than under [Ronald] Reagan and [George H.W.] Bush. Even on reproductive rights, the ability of women to get access to an abortion has steadily eroded.

"Many of these things happened not because the GOP forced them down [President] Clinton's throat, but because the Democratic Party decided it could run roughshod over the disenfranchised and still win elections by capturing the tough-on-crime Reagan Democrats because the left rump of the party had nowhere to go. Well, that's the point of the Nader campaign: to make a place to go."

Christopher went on, "I don't agree with many of the planks of Nader's platform, such as his recent call for a strengthened border with Mexico. And I hate the way he focuses on problems rather than solutions. But how can liberals blame Nader for inciting passion among his supporters, many of whom have never voted, instead of blaming the New Democrats for their soul-killing strategy of 'triangulation' that paved the way for a progressive alternative? I may get scared and vote for Gore if the race is close in California. But I'll feel like a dead fish doing it."

Not Josh, 21, who's more critical in his assessment, not trusting any of the candidates, including Nader. But he supports Gore because he believes Clinton did a good job, and even though the Gore-Lieberman moralizing about mass culture worries him, "We still have the 1st Amendment to protect us."

Josh agrees with me that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush: "I understand wanting to get your message out, but this time getting Nader's message out means you get Bush as president, and I don't want him as my president, so I'm not going to vote for Nader. My fear is that with a Republican Congress, you need to have the check of a Democratic president to prevent bad things from happening with the right wing totally in control."

I agree with Josh and will vote for Gore as a form of damage control. But I agree with my other sons that Gore's problems are of his creation, not Nader's.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.