To Green or not to Green

Ralph Nader is contending that Al Gore and George W. Bush are cut from the same cloth, and that means Nadar has quite a credibility gap to deal with too.\nIn the New York Times, Nader insists the two major party candidates, though trumpeting their differences, are just Washington insiders, victims of "the increasing homogenization of both parties into one party indentured to business interests." As far as the Green Party candidate is concerned, Gore and Bush are both gray.\nThis is certainly a convenient political trick for Nader. By resorting to simplified sound bites, Nader quickly lays the ground for conversion to Green.\nThe argument is as follows:\n1) Most people don't like politics in general.\n2) The major party candidates are generally politicians (you know, the mean kind who do whatever big business tells them to).\n3) The major party candidates are, in fact, the same person!\n4) If you don't like that person, then the only real alternative is the Green Party.\nBesides, Greens say, their goal is not really to win the presidency. That's for another day. This time around, a Green victory would be 5 percent of the national vote, a number that would mean federal support for their next presidential bid. That money could mean the creation and maintenance of a viable third party (a questionable assumption at best).\nSounds good, doesn't it? Not excited about voting for Tweedledum or Tweedledumber? Vote for Nader, the vote of good conscience!\nThe only problem is that all of Nader's arguments defy fact, reality and common sense. \nBush and Gore are about as similar as cream puffs and titanium. One is a conservative Republican who believes in a big tax cut, school vouchers, pro-life Supreme Court appointments and an isolationist foreign policy. The other is a liberal Democrat who supports limited target-tax cuts, populist government entitlements, public school support, pro-choice Supreme Court nominees and an internationalist foreign policy.\nNow, here's a quiz on the above paragraph I'd like to give Nader.\nAfter reading Duncan Teater's short but incisive description of Bush and Gore, I can see the two major party figures:\nA) Are exactly the same. (Note to Ralph: this is the wrong answer.)\nB) Disagree on just about every major issue. (Note to Ralph: this is the right answer.)\nI have a feeling that, despite the elementary level of this exam, Nader would have a hard time passing. So here's a little bonus quiz for Ralph.\nRalph is:\nA) a zealot.\nB) trying to manipulate people with a ridiculous argument.\nC) a Green insurgent with blinders on.\nHappily, this quiz is designed for student success. All the answers are correct!\nI like Ralph Nader. I'm glad he's out there spicing things up, trying to bring a truly leftist perspective to the national dialogue. \nBut I resent his attempt to convince Americans that the differences between Bush and Gore are meaningless. They're not meaningless if you feel one way or the other about a huge tax cut or a bigger government. The differences are important if you have any opinion at all about whether Roe v. Wade (the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion) should be reversed.\nAnd the black and white differences in foreign policy are the most startling of all. In a recent release, Bush's foreign policy team declared he would quickly pull U.S. peace-keeping forces out of the Balkans. This move would mark a major shift in the United States' attitude toward NATO, toward Europe and toward international engagement. It also marks a difference between Gore and Bush -- the difference between an engagement-oriented policy and an isolationist policy.\nIt would be nice to have a vibrant third party. I would be happy to see some Green members of Congress. But voting for Nader is not going to accomplish this goal. Remember the last party to argue that federal matching funds made it worth voting for a third party, Ross Perot's Reform party? And what happened to them? A quick, painful and embarrassing demise.\nSo give your Green vote to Nader! But only if you're willing to submit to the manipulation of a man seemingly intent on helping to elect Bush.