Friday, September 03, 2004
It's like the Nader people (interestingly, in the same sense but the exact opposite way): they want to have an alternative voice in American politics, bully for them I agree it's be a good thing. But they fail to understand that they have no power when they vote for non-viable candidates: there is no partial representation in America. If your candidate loses, he has No Voice. At all. None. Zip. Zilch. It's as if you never voted.
The only way that any of the Greens' (or whatever Nader is this week) agenda, some of which is quite good, gets accomplished is by holding those votes hostage in a real sense (as Mr. Bearman suggested to Jennifer Stockman), by saying, we'll vote for you and help you win (in a real sense: this is a tight election; or in an organizational sense: we can GOTV) if you bring our issues to the table. If not, then we'll stay home. Quid. Pro. Quo.
It boggles my mind how so many otherwise thoughtful, intelligent (and certainly well-meaning) people (gays, pro-choicers, etc.) can withstand the dissonance of supporting a party that ignores all the issues that brought you to the table in the first place (economics, personal responsibility, etc.) and makes its entire platform about hate, and hating *them* (these gays, pro-choicers, etc.) specifically.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
Gay Republicans make me sneeze and break out in hives. I'm allergic to oxymorons.But this is not how it should be, and I would love to see a Republican party that was indeed a "Big Tent." I still wouldn't be likely to vote for them, but I would also not dismiss the possibility out of hand. And that would be good for