> The conundrum of the 2000 campaign nevertheless exists: For those with
> the most to lose, to those who need robust health care, social security,
> and child-care to survive, a vote for Nader may be too much to risk. It
> is painfully obvious that a vote for him could help elect Bush. So goes
> the logic, and it is difficult to disprove. But while Americans -- and
> especially the most marginalized of voters -- often vote their fears,
> every once in a while a small miracle might occur in the voting booth,
> and more than a few people vote their hopes. While the legitimate fear
> is that a vote against Gore will submerge those in America's "sewage"
> ever deeper, Nader represents the best hope of beginning the long ascent
> out of it.
It's quite easy to point out that a vote for Kerry is not a vote for policies conducive to hose that need health care, social security, and so on. All one needs to do is point out the track recrod of the Democratic Party on these issues. The Democrats promised universal health care in 1992. Their candidate was elected president. Perhaps I'm really out of the loop, but I don't see any sign of this health care coverage anywhere.
Then one can make the more radical argument that even when the Democrats pay lip services to social services, they simply perform their function as reformists for capitalism. They fight for just enough social services to keep most of the working class away from total economic disaster. These reforms only perpetuate human misery instead of organizing people to make a radical break with capitalism and the state. A system run by liberal poverty pimps and wealthy labor piecards is not preferable to a system run by Republicans with a population on the edge of open rebellion.
Throw all the bums out in '04.
Chuck0