Reply #38: I think you missed my point.

[scarletwoman]

I'm refering to the arguments I've seen that a vote for Nader is a vote AGAINST the status quo (represented by Kerry).

I'm saying that voting for Nader is not the way to change the sq. The choices we have before us are a status quo with "reasonable" people in charge, or a status quo with psycopaths in charge. Voting for Nader does not change this equation, it only makes the least desireable outcome more likely.

The former at least gives us some space to work in, the latter gives us less or none.

I'm not a Nader-basher or Nader-supporter-basher. In the 3 years I've been on DU I have steadfastly avoided all Nader threads until now. I had planned on voting for Nader in 2000, until it became obvious in my swing state that the election was getting too close. Then I did a "vote-swap" with someone in Texas where a Nader vote wouldn't matter.

I have, for some time, been giving due consideration to all the arguments I've seen people make FOR voting for Nader this year. I have come to the opinion that their arguments have no merit, and have decided to make my own counter-arguments.

I speak as someone who has been a dedicated leftist since the 60's, and have taken my own share of slander ("far left fringe") and incivility on these boards because of it. As a middle-aged hippie, I've got a pretty good idea of what happens when idealism smacks up against reality. I haven't lost my idealism, I just look for the most practical and effective ways to put it into action.

And, personally, I see the "idealism" behind voting for Nader as not just impractical, but downright destructive. I don't think it's "uncivil" to state this, any more than it's "uncivil" to yell "STOP" when you see someone about to walk in front of an oncoming truck.

sw