As election year 2004 approaches, I’m struck that once again the issue of two parties and loyalty to democracy will emerge again. This is an entirely frustrating issue for me, as I find myself without a realistic choice. What if there are no candidates that represent my point of view?
Maybe this is a common problem. However, I am disturbed by a trend that seems to be continuing steadily since the 1980s and the advent of President Reagan’s election and his conservatization of the Republican Party beyond the scope of what was previously known.
It may also be argued that this was the point for a large departure toward issue-centered politics and the division of voters based more along the lines of abortion rights/anti-abortion or pro gun/anti-gun control issues, to name only two.
While I’m relatively sure that this has a significant intersection with the issues of both parties’ swing to the right, that is not entirely my concern. Rather, what happened to the Liberal or leftist choices in politics? Were they ever there?
The point of pre-existence may not be the issue, however there is a continuous slide toward the right, regardless of party affiliation, and it seems to be the landmark of President Clinton that starts this trend. To all Clinton supporters, this is not to blast him entirely, for example his record for appointing women to judicial and administrative positions is outstanding compared to previous presidents, and I’m not sure that his tenure as president truly portrays his actual politics. Rather, it seems that his initiatives in foreign affairs are looked at as the conservative hydras by the public. Initially, with all of the recent protest over the Iraq War and what became Operation Iraqi Freedom, the issue of Clinton’s track record in Iraq seems largely neglected.
Regardless of the war being right or wrong, how different was the declared and all out military assault on Iraq from the constant bombing raids and death caused by economic sanctions over the entire period of Clinton’s eight years? Where were the protests over this period when 5,000 Iraqi children died per month? The World Trade Organization protests also seem significant, but where were they in 1994 and 1995 when Clinton was de-linking China’s human rights abuses from Most Favored Nation status?
I’m not sure that the democratic party has ground to stand on any longer. Michael Moore, in multiple posts and e-mails surrounding the election (selection) of George Bush in 2000, continuously referred to the contest between Al Bush and George Gore. I sadly saw the same connections as Michael Moore as I watched the debates between the two and found their respective “differences” to be just refinements of the same positions.
Gore supported the death penalty, so did Bush. Gore favored certain restrictions on abortion, so did Bush. If this is the choice between the two parties, then I demand that there be a choice that is based on more than just degree. For Democrats, stop pandering to rightist politics and stop complaining about people like Ralph Nader stealing votes. Gore may not have lost the election, but it was his own fault that it was even close. It is the fault of any constantly moderating Democrat that you drive us Liberals and leftists to alternatives.
Many spoke in 2000 of voting ideally, rather than pragmatically, when they cast their votes for Nader. It is sad when there is no longer a leftist choice in politics-maybe the Cold War and our fear of the buzzword of communism still looms over us. Either way, if I cast my vote for Nader again, it won’t be an ideal vote, I’ll be settling because there is not another choice that finds itself anywhere near my position on the political spectrum.
The argument could easily be made that voting for Nader is politically irresponsible due to the impossibility of his competing for winning the presidency. This, however, overlooks the point that voters should vote ideally, or rather, for what they want. The construct of two parties, picking the winner and settling for what doesn’t piss you off entirely is a concept nurtured by the Democratic and Republican Parties. This does not have to be a vote against something, or a vote out of fear of what we could have.
There is no reason why people can’t vote according to what they believe. Also, as long as the “liberal” side of politics continues to ignore the left and the truly liberal voters, Nader will gain in popularity. His points doubled in this last election, even if they were minimal-what if they double again?
If the concept of the parties being the same seems ridiculous, then consider this: If one were to watch the second debate of the 2000 election between Gore and Bush (or pull the transcript off of Lexis-Nexis), you’ll notice that the candidates agree 32 times. No wonder they wouldn’t let Nader debate with a distinct or non complicit voice-the show would have gone on entirely too long, and our precious sitcoms might not have resumed that night.
Also, I have heard a lot of people comment about how happy they were that we had Bush as a president during the Sept. 11 crisis and after. Why? What exactly do they think is so different between Bush’s handling of the situation and what Gore’s methods after the incident would have been?
Gore and Clinton’s military strikes on all of the above countries were certainly not left wanting before Bush Jr. stepped into office. Maybe it was not as publicized, maybe it was not as broad or full scale, but the military attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq were there. Not to mention that we just passed the anniversary of the U.S. missile strike against the pharmaceutical producer in Sudan. They ended up making legitimate medicine, but did they receive an apology or compensation for the damage? And this was not George W.’s doing. When 2004 gets here, stop pretending and debating and give us a choice.