Posted on

Will the Real Spoilers Please Stand Up?

Would we say that the Jews spoiled the election for Gore? In 2000 there were all those Jewish voters who voted for Buchanan.

Would we say that in New Hampshire women spoiled Obama’s win. Would we say that in South Carolina, African American spoiled Hillary’s victory?

I think most reasonable folks see such talk for the nonsense it is. If we must blame someone for 2000, lets blame the Socialist Labor Party. Yes they are a small party, but one that was decisive in 2000. In Florida, they had roughly 30 more votes than Gore needed.

But doesn’t that miss the point. Aren’t we spoiling every time we go to the ballot box. And in all truth is not that the point of voting. Is not voting the conscious choice of spoiling the election for one candidate over another.

Nader is right, the right to vote is meaningless, if the right to run is suppressed. They are dialectically intertwined.

The duopoly carries out a two front assault on voting rights in this country. The Republicans try to prevent spoiling by keeping voters at home on election day. The Democrats try to prevent spoiling by doing everything in their power to make sure third parties are unable to achieve ballot access. To say they are spoiling the vote is too nice, they are suppressing the vote, pure and simple. In fact, we should label the behavior of both major parties for what it is, crimes against democracy.

I hope Nader spoils this election. I hope he spoils it for the corporate duopoly. I hope he spoils it for the war mongers, and I hope he spoils it for the free traders. In 2008, I will be a spoiler, won’t you join me and be a spoiler too.

Advertisements

2 responses to “Will the Real Spoilers Please Stand Up?

  1. I wrote a much longer post, but deleted it because I think this is the only question that matters: do you really believe that Gore would have been as bad as Bush? Hundreds of thousands dead, international legal norms in tatters, environmental standards shreded, the strong unitary executive theory in full effect, all caused by many things that happened in the 2000 election, one of the most important being Nader convincing many liberal Democrats that there was no difference between their party and the Republicans.

  2. There are always differences. On foreign policy the major difference would be of tone. In 2000, NeoCons were very comfortable with Gore. Gore choosing Lieberman was a strong statement about where he stood. Bush, the I’m not a nation builder, was really an unknown. Bush could very honestly have been the lessor evil in 2000, also 911 changed all that.

    I do not think 911 would have happened under Gore, but going into Iraq certainly would have. Gore was one of the biggest critics of Bush Sr for not finishing the job.

    I don’t think the environment would have been greatly better. It was Gore who did not want Clinton to sign Kyoto. Gore today is not the Gore of 2000. The environmental records of Clinton / Gore was not that great.

    Overall its a matter of tone not substance. Much of the Patriot Act was defacto policy after 1998, Bush just made it official policy.

Comments are closed.