It's Our Own Fault, No One Elses's!

(Published in "The Chronicle" March 6, 2008)

Dear Editor:

This past week, Ralph Nader announced his entry into the presidential race and caused quite the stir. Pundits used the word "spoiler" many times. Many unknown Poli-Sci professors had their day in the media spotlight opining that Ralph's Quixotic campaigns are largely irrelevant. Some editorialized about why someone with "no chance" of winning would even bother to run.

Lets just stop the propaganda for a minute. Gore ran a terrible campaign in 2000 and, even though he won, he refused to do anything about it (ignoring 57,000 stolen votes in Florida alone).

There were also six other candidates on that fateful Florida ballot who (using the "spoiler logic") cost Gore the election. Do you remember their names? No one does and they haven't been attacked and vilified like Ralph because he is the one that scares them silly! If Ralph Nader was ever allowed into (what passes nowadays for) presidential debates, he would totally destroy his opposition while pointing out the corporate interests each candidate is beholden to. When you are that effective, they have no choice but to ridicule you and call you names.

As for Nader's (extremely limited) chances of winning, that is completely our fault. We allow the corporate media to bestow millions of dollars of free coverage on the two-party candidates

and do nothing when they totally ignore third party candidates. Hillary and McCain and Obama will get media attention every single day this year until November and independent candidates

will get little or no coverage at all. Imagine how much stronger our democracy would be if everyone had to get equal coverage. Would independents fare better? You bet they would!

That said, it really does seem that we are simply incapable of voting in our own best interests. Even though we all complain about severe lack of choice, we also continue to vote Democrat or Republican in every election. A Republican friend of mine who does not support Nader's Quixotic presidential runs told me the other day that he was "kind of leaning toward Obama". I asked him why and he regurgitated some rhetoric about "hope and change". So, I asked him why, in a safe state, he would even consider voting for such a disappointment when he was perfectly free and clear to vote for an independent (like Ralph) who could further the cause of more and better issues and fairer ballot access? He looked at me blankly and that when I

remembered, once again, that very few New Yorkers understand that we live in a safe state.

If all Americans knew about safe states, we could likely wrestle control of our democracy away from its corporate sponsors in just one or two election cycles. New York is one of about forty states where the two-party candidates won't even bother to show up during the election cycle. They don't bother because they both know who will win already. If we ever realized this and voted accordingly, we would have a bloodless revolution overnight. If you've ever believed that the kind of democracy we learn about in school is actually possible, then you need to think outside the box and exercise your right to choose, wisely. Voting for and supporting Ralph Nader & Matt Gonzalez (or anyone other than the two-party candidates) is in all of our collective best interests. Food for thought. (votenader.org)

Sincerely,

Matt Funiciello