The Workday Liberal

During the 2000 presidential election, Ralph Nader ran as an independent claiming that the differences between Al Gore and George Bush were only marginal. Six years later I would like to ask Mr. Nader and those who voted for him, (especially if you voted for him in Florida): Do you still believe the differences were only marginal? If you could have that vote back, would you switch it, knowing now what you did not know then?

Al Gore has been front and center through out the Bush presidency detailing major differences in matters of policy. Today Mr. Gore gave a withering speech which can only be taken as a clarion call to action by patriotic Americans to save our constitutional form of government. The differences in fundamental constitutional understanding could not be more stark between Bush and Gore.

We are brought to this crisis by the conduct of Mr. Nader in harpooning the democratic candidate for president in 2000. There is no doubt that if Gore had received the votes of the extremely progressive supporters of Nader he would have won that election. How would history have differed then?

Ralph Nader is responsible for the Iraq war. If Gore were president I have no doubt that we would not be involved in that war. The war is a long held neo conservative article of faith that has turned into a quagmire. The Clinton policy, even under the mistaken notion that Saddam continued to hold WMD was long term containment. And that policy self evidently worked as evidenced by the lack of WMD once Bush made the neo conservative doctrine/blunder.

Nader is responsible for the shredding of the constitution by this administration. I have no doubt that Gore would be a far better steward of this document. Can there possibly be a worse steward than we now witness? Gores speech makes clear that this administration is a danger to our very democracy. He asks

Nader is responsible for the budgetary abyss we currently find ourselves plunging through. His elevation of Bush to the presidency has seen a massive reduction of taxes on the wealthiest Americans whilst spending has boomed. The example set by Clinton/Gore during eight years of budgetary stewardship has been forsaken and the consequences could not be clearer. Nader ran in 2000 on a platform that included shifting more tax burden to the wealthy. Ironic, no?

I could continue ad nauseum with a list of stark differences between Gore & Bush. You think Mr. Nader is really going to like the consumer affairs driven rulings by the Roberts/Alito court for the next 30 years? But the list of true differences is book sized in length so I'll leave it alone for the time being.

I understand the wish of the left to unite at these dark times and not eat our own. This would be great except for the fact that even after Nader's complicity in electing George Bush to the presidency in 2000 was evident, he chose to try the same stunt in 2004, largely with the backing of Republicans. When it comes to unification of the left in these times, we are well served to remember the disunification given by Mr. Nader in 2000/2004 that has led us to the pass we find ourselves at now.

In the interest of progressive unification, I call upon Mr. Nader to disavow his previous contentions regarding Mr. Gore's and senator Kerry's supposed similarities with George Bush's governing style. Only when he admits his disastrous mistake and promises to not repeat it, will I be willing to forgive his role in bringing America to the brink of constitutional collapse, and welcome him back to the fold as a spokesman for progressive issues of our day.