Long live the third party

Long live the third party

Nov. 2, 2000

'Smatter of Fact
By Katharhynn Heidelberg

I would never presume to tell anyone else how to vote, but I would presume that others would respect my right to make my own decision.

However, it doesn’t appear the New York Times is willing to trust us to do that. Witness its needlessly scathing editorial that pillories Green Party presidential hopeful Ralph Nader for indulging in "electoral mischief."

Whatever one thinks of the candidate selection this year - or of the concept of third parties in general — surely, it is more than a little out of line to suggest one of them is a mischief maker simply because he has chosen to run.

Oh, but the Times takes considerable care to sound fair - all the while assuming us incapable of reading between the lines. "We would regard Mr. Nader’s willful prankishness as a disservice to the electorate, no matter whose campaign he was hurting." The piece then goes on to expressly decry the apparently impish Nader for having wrecked Al Gore’s chances at the White House.

It graciously concedes that voters "who want to cast an ideological protest vote for Mr. Nader have the perfect right to do so," but in the same breath dismisses such voters as not being "tactically minded."

The beauty of America, of course, is that there is no law requiring us to meet the New York Times’ standards of tactical mindedness. Too, the country "deserves" not a "clear up or down vote between Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore," but the right to vote for anyone it pleases. This by extension is the beauty of third parties. Through them, people can at least maintain the illusion that their beliefs will be represented.

After casting numerous scurrilous allegations at Nader’s feet - "demolishing Democratic chances"; "particularly obtuse"; "deludes his followers" - the Times goes on to complain that Gore must actually now expend energy garnering the extra votes he needs.

Perhaps the residents of Oregon and Washington State should feel flattered by the extra attention the sudden fear of Nader has netted them. Ordinarily, they might not have been a blip on the Gore campaigning screen.

Now, the rest of us are subjected to late-in-the-day smear tactics directed against Nader. Anyone who makes a bid for public office is bound to have his detractors. But, such tactics could have been waged at any time, and to wage them now smacks of gibbering terror. If Nader is truly a wasted vote, why are some so afraid?

The end result of both anti-Nader editorials and advertising: Whiny. Personal opinion: Far from impressed; further still from convinced.

Moreover, such miss the point. In the election game, there is no such thing as "entitlement" to votes from any particular sector. Choosing to vote for a third party candidate is neither foolish nor malicious - it’s a right.

The Times having made its allegations, I will make one of my own: that the media, alarmed by a slight upswing in the polls for Bush, are pulling out all stops to reverse the trend. And, if this means demonizing Nader as the Grinch Who Stole the White House, and painting his supporters as starry-eyed idealists too stupid to see through whatever nefarious agenda he supposedly espouses, what of it?

Logic has it that a vote for Nader "takes" a vote from Gore. This assumes that everyone who votes for Nader would have voted for Gore if only dear Ralph had kept his sharp mind hidden, and his eloquent tongue silent — an idea so undemocratic that it beggars belief.

Here’s a mind-blower for both parties: I intend to cast my vote for Nader, and I am a registered Republican. Wouldn’t that make my vote for Nader a vote for Gore?

Funny. I think of my vote for Nader as a vote for Nader.