The who's who of liberal presidential candidates descended upon Madison Wednesday and liberal voters were left to decide between one candidate's potentially successful yet intellectually uninspiring fare, and the other's ground-breaking socially progressive message, which at best is slowly losing its once-popular grassroots momentum. And while Wisconsin's reputation as a swing state surely has not gone unnoticed, if anyone is still undecided, they surely are not considering between President Bush and Sen. Kerry, rather, between Kerry and independent consumer advocate Ralph Nader.
Each presidential challenger took his turn behind the podium on Wednesday. Kerry attempted to rally his troops, stumping on the war in Iraq, the need for affordable health care, limiting tax incentives for large companies and a local college-town plug for a tuition tax credit. Everyone could certainly hear Kerry's speech loud and clear. The problem, it seemed, is that no one really listened to his message. For Kerry, the anti-Bush propaganda seemed to be his sole rallying cry. For anyone unsatisfied with Bush's leadership the sole alternative seemed to be the senator from Massachusetts.
Later Wednesday evening, however, another voice from the left spoke. This candidate came without the crowds, chants, stickers or signs. Ralph Nader appeared before a packed yet comparatively small crowd, and without spouting stumped one-liners and routine cheers, gave an informed talk explaining his presence on swing-state ballots, and a general overview of the state of the nation, both domestic and abroad. His enlightened analysis on the corporatism of America, the quagmire in Iraq, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and corporate crime were more in depth and insightful than anything Kerry said throughout his entire speech. Though the two certainly agreed in their sharp criticism of the current commander in chief, Nader didn't stop with the GOP, as he had equally scathing remarks about Kerry and the Democrats, specifically Kerry's flip-flopping regarding the war in Iraq, his willingness to take corporate money and the two main parties' mutual exclusion of issues important to everyday, average, middle-class people.
Nader naturally has a valid argument, but at what cost? Can Nader's presence on the Wisconsin ballot really be a bad thing? If you listen to the television pundits, the Hollywood backers, even populist liberal Michael Moore, a vote for Nader is simply another vote for Bush. But every free-thinking, independent person must rationalize in their own minds before Nov. 2 whether a vote for Kerry is really all that different from a vote for Bush, and therefore simply a stamped endorsement of the status quo.
\Do something!"" Nader urged. ""Where is your breaking point?!""
Certainly Bush has passed the breaking point, but where will we be if Kerry gets elected? Will we all feel hypocritical in our criticisms? When Kerry fails to pass successful progressive bills, will we blame a Republican Congress? There's no better opportunity than the present for real grassroots political change.
