Won't vote for the Dem in 2004? Read this, or ignore it. :-)

[jpgray]

Here are my own opinions on this--feel free to accept them or discard them:

Kerry and Edwards represent marginal and slow turns away from disaster, but Bush reigns supreme as the radical authoritarian. While Kerry and Edwards are merely comfortable bourgeois territory, Bush and his ilk are the gateway to something much worse. Another term of Bush in office risks too much for me to turn up my nose at either Kerry or Edwards in the GE. I'd prefer Dennis, but either the people or the system won't accept him, and you don't change that by letting the Republicans dominate all three branches of government. They are already persecuting Green party leaders, consolidating the media, stealing elections, and trampling on civil liberties. Has this Republican stewardship of the system made it more or less difficult for people to elect the best candidates?

I'll grant you that a plan to fix the system by not liking it is within our means, but it hasn't been terribly effective thus far. :) Heading towards the iceberg, I should rather work to turn the ship away at even the slowest speed if I'm unable to turn it away rapidly. I don't think I would sit on my hands and refuse to turn the wheel at all, waiting for the sea, the ship or the iceberg to change into something more amiable.

The big fallacy of eschewing the nominee is the assertion that either Bush or Kerry/Edwards will just maintain the status quo. After making this argument, the same folks will tell you the country has moved to the right and has abandoned liberal principles. So here one has to ask some questions. Who were these perfect, no-compromise-necessary liberals we had running around? The ones who fought imperialist wars to make the world safe for Standard Oil, or were they the ones who interned the Japanese? When was the country a magical land where the status quo wasn't represented by the two intrenched political parties?

The answer is, of course, "never". I like to think I would have voted for FDR, for example, but if I wanted to vote without compromising my values, Norman Thomas probably would have been it, or later, Henry Wallace. You're probably never going to find a major presidential candidate who doesn't have some *major* flaws. But you can find one this year that's better than Bush if you want to.

But as always, no one is entitled to your vote, and casting one for a third party with liberal values is something no one should demonize you for.