Gusalmighty.com: A Leaded Perspective

Ralph Nader, saving democracy one vote at a time

A great many people on both sides of the red/blue split believe that Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the election in 2000. Democrats and Bush-bashers hate him for it; Republicans love him. These animosities and affinities are in greater form in the runup to the next election because we are so painfully aware of how close a presidential election can be, how close this one is shaping up to be, and what effect Nader can have. There have been accusations that Republicans and conservative PACs have been supporting Nader in hopes that he will edge Bush over the finish line and further vitriol aimed at him from Democrats for allowing himself to be taken advantage of this way. Considering that most polls that include Nader indicate that John Kerry gets fewer votes with Nader on the ballot, this appears at first glance to be a legitimate complaint. Of course, whether this pans out at the ballot box or not remains to be seen: just ask Howard Dean about discrepancies between polls and results (Check out this analysis for a sharp perspective on what went wrong with Dean and his supporters, namely the internet and social software).

I (currently) believe that the hatred of Nader is misplaced and rather infantile; I've actually seen people blame him for the war in Iraq! (i.e. if Nader hadn't run, he wouldn't have cost the election, Gore would have been in power and Bush et al wouldn't have been able to go to war, blah, blah, blah. C'mon!) Without bothering to address this sort of nonsense, arguing that Bush's victory was Nader's fault ignores a host of other much more relevant and important points. Did we forget about the eligible voters who were stripped from voting rolls by a partisan Florida Attorney General? What about voters who were turned away from polling stations for fraudulent and disingenuous reasons? And I guess no one is going to try to remember and take responsibility for the idiotic ballot structure that caused so much confusion. Had that ballot been properly organized, there never would have been any question. Finally, are we going to let Al Gore (or George Bush, for that matter) off the hook for their failure to mobilize barely more than half of the voting public? It's pretty sad that no one has the integrity to actually focus on the issues that would have made a real difference. Hell, every single one of us should take responsibility for not doing more to get out the vote. If you really care, organize a votingpool and head down to the polls together.

Ralph Nader is doing what he believes is best for American democracy. There is no reason why you have to agree with his vision of what our country should be like, but if you care about vibrancy and robustness in politics, you should welcome his and all other third party platforms. They broaden the debate and offer alternatives, some of them good, some implausible. Options are a good thing and additional parties can have effects by focusing on one issue and raising public awareness about it. Imagine if a third party candidate gained national prominence and attention and focused all of the parties energy on campaigning, for example, on ending our dependence on oil in lieu of cleaner, sustainable energy. Clean energy is such a no-brainer than everyone would quickly get behind such an idea and the major power parties would be forced to address it. Individuals often feel powerless (and for good reason, since we are!) in the political process since lobbyists and political action committees dominant the attention of elected officials. Third parties give voters an additional voice.

Third parties as they stand now are so small they must pay closer attention to their support bases and they must focus their message on salient issues. Just as a small person can throw a larger one with proper deployment of force and leverage, smaller parties can affect national trends and currents by strategic deployment of communication. They are more responsive and people who become involved in them can feel that they are part of the party rather than just a faceless mark on a ballot every election cycle. Smaller parties are more nimble, which serves the public interest as well.

Some people have observed the similarities between the Republicans and Democrats as parties. There are differences indeed, but even so-called conservatives such as Reagan and Bush have ballooned the cost of governing and liberals such as Bill Clinton brought us under fiscal control. There is so much overlap on so many issues (and in so much funding) that the similarities between the two are not so far off. Domestically especially, the major issues are gay marriage and snow mobiles in national parks. Pretty amazing convergence going on there that puts us in such a climate.

There are differences, but they are nowhere near as substantial as the differences between Republicans/Democrats and say the Greens, the Libertarians, or the Natural Law party. I'm not suggesting that we need to abandon the tried and tested 2 parties we are accustomed to; I'm saying we would all benefit from the wider perspectives and added vibrancy and robustness that would develop from including other parties in national debates. One potential flaw in a two party system that we have seen emerge from the shadows of potential into the realm of the real is vicious partisanship that destroys flexibility and politicking in the Capitol. We have gone from a two-party cooperative system to a one-party power system that may flip from one of the two parties to the other at election time. That isn't a good system, thank you very much.

If we had a 70-70-20-20-20 split among Republican/Democrats/Greens/Libertarians/Natural Law senators (wouldn't that be a hoot!), no one party would be able to dominate outright. Sure, the Dems and Repubs could easily sideline the 3rd parties by coordinating their efforts, but they would be forced to deal with each other and a bit of both agendas would get advanced, a good thing. Or imagine if there was a 60-60-30-25-25 split of sorts. Now the minority parties would have the power to gang up on the others and would have real power that the president would have to reckon with. Now that is a democracy that I would be very very proud of.

But to get there, we have to have 3rd party candidates running for office and promoting their parties and we need people to vote for them. No matter how bad Bush is, he is gone after one more election cycle regardless. The damage he will wreak can be undone, as unfavorable a proposition as it is. But putting off the development of a stronger democracy is self-defeating. We only get a chance to advance the state of the system every four years and change comes slowly. But as support alternative platforms, more of the disenfranchised who aren't voting at all because they don't like the options they are given will begin to see new options and new hope and the effect can begin to gain momentum.

To ask Nader not to run is a slap in the face to all the people that would vote for him. Rather than asking him not to run, minimally opponents should be convincing voters not to vote for him. His campaign is a good thing that helps our struggling democracy stay alive. There is no acceptable reason why his campaign has to hurt any other candidate. If a candidate has to run against an incumbent unopposed in order to win, they really aren't a very good candidate. And if an incumbent needs a third party candidate to draw votes away from his opposition in order to maintain power, such an incumbent really isn't a very compelling leader. Both or either of these scenarios suggest that the options provided to voters are drastically lacking and thus we need more alternatives, precisely the thing that third party candidates that Nader represents.

It is fine to believe that people should focus on voting for Anybody But Bush. But many people don't believe that their vote should be sacrificed to vote for someone they don't like just to get rid of someone they like even less. Some of us want to use our vote to vote for someone who we agree with more, regardless of their electability. If those who think that continue to vote that way and help to to convince others that there are worthy candidates out there, different from the big two, options can grow and the nation will be better off for it.

But we have to take a long term view and be willing to endure short-term discomfort in order to reach the higher ground. Fear of the transition traps us in short-term stopgaps that leave us perpetually dissatisfied, disappointed, and disenfranchised.

Comments welcome

Moving Forward in Palestine

Israel and Palestine are consumed by cyclical violence that feeds upon itself as each combatant uses the aggression of the other as rationales for its own, only to see its own actions used as rationales for aggression against itself. Both sides understandably and predictably claim that they cannot allow the transgressions of the other to stand unpunished, arguing that a failure to do so only renders their own position incompetent and emboldens their enemy.

The cynic in me is tempted to ask if there really is any merit in salvaging the situation, actually. Both sides have squandered any integrity, pride, or honor by their despicable behavior and treatment of the other. Sometimes I almost wonder what it would be like if the world built a wall around Israel and just let them all duke it out in perpetuity.

Alas, I know this is an inhumane and counterproductive to the ideals of civilization and morality and would ultimately only end up bloodying the rest of our hands with the irresponsibility of the actors in that theatre. Yet if we can't wall them up in their own disgust, what is to be done?

Someone has to get the last shot and someone has to suffer an unanswered attack. Perhaps some agreement could, in theory, be reached whereby a final day of attacks was permitted by both sides, a sort of preemptive retaliation and retribution served contiguously. Even if giving each side a day of open-season on each other were plausible, it likely would fail to serve its purpose if, say, Israel takes advantage of it take out 50 targets with 3 or 4 non-combatants nearby. Obviously this isn't going to be an option.

We could follow the current path and just hope it fizzles out on its own. The problem with this sort of fade out is the lack of leadership and intentional deployment of ideals and actions that are needed to make a peace agreement stick. The fire might fizzle but would leave behind a tinderbox ready to go up in flames at the slightest spark.

The problem needs leadership. Both sides need leaders who are willing to do what it takes to move past the violence into peace. The problem is that one side it going to have let the other get in an unanswered shot, perhaps more if it comes from the palestinians. Why would I suggest that Israel needs to be willing to let Palestinians attack them without retribution? Because someone has to do it and the Israelis are the best suited to be capable of it.

We can take racist arguments and suggest that Palestinians are incapable of controlling themselves and thus it falls to Israel to do so. Or we could spin it and point out that since both sides have squandered their reputations over the course of their conflict, there is much to be gained by taking the difficult and costly yet ultimately necessary and productive steps to bring peace. Or we could hold Israel responsible for starting the problem in the first place and expect them to lead in the clean up of the messes that they've made. Or perhaps it is because a logistic analysis reveals that Israel has the infrastructure and command and control systems in place to control the population better than Palestine and the rather worthless and ineffectual Arafat. There are other reasons, of course, and which one we choose doesn't really matter. It doesn't even really matter if it is Israel that does it or not. But someone has to take the lead.

Turn the other cheek is the moral choice. Should Israel find the strength needed to chart such a course, it would be rewarded with support from the Palestinian and Arab street. As it stands, the Arab street implicitly supports and endorses aggression in the name of Palestine because Israel has provided no reasons not to. But if Israel could show that it is more concerned with fixing the problems of the region (a cooperative problem that is Israel's problem as well as others') rather than just its own interests, it would immediately garner the support of the street and Palestinian inspired violence would lose its broad public base rather quickly.

Of course I am not suggesting that Israel just roll over and take the murder and destruction of its people that some in the Palestinian camp desire. But I am suggesting that the alternatives of mutual destruction or self-sustaining violence aren't alternatives of any merit. Rejecting them undeniably leads to a conclusion along the lines I have tried to present here today.

For the sake of all people, in Israel, in Palestine, in the rest of the Middle East, in the rest of the world that suffer from the lesion that festers on the east coast of the Mediterranean, I hope that Israel (or Palestine, if they can produce a leader for themselves, which would be grand) can do the honorable, pride, and ultimately only thing that it can do to avoid destruction.

Comments welcome

Welcome to GATTACA

It looks like Californians are going to get to decide on whether to require DNA samples from all felony arrests in the state. Note that this is DNA from arrests, not convictions (which already happens, btw).

Considering our current state of fear and the ease with which proponents of invasive government and technological intrusion can manipulate public opinion, it seems naive to believe that we are not heading into a total DNA database future. As big as the pure identification problems are (DNA fingerprint), DNA is more powerful because of what it reveals about a person, be it ancestry, disease susceptibility, or perhaps even intelligence propensities. Once these databases are established, the lack of privacies laws and separation of public/private uses of data virtually insures that employers, insurance agencies, and even prospective mates and partners will mine these information treasure troves.

As bad as it can be made to sound, there are positives, of course. We do need reasoned and reasonable discussion about this issue with fair and honest analysis about the positives and negatives, devoid of hyperbole and fear, that indicate probabilities, possibilities, and potentialities. Security is always a trade-off and we must fully consider what we are getting in light of what we are giving up. Only then can we honestly render judgment as to whether or not we want any given scenario.

As it stands, right now the only benefit I can imagine for myself from being in a database would be exoneration for a crime I didn't commit but was otherwise suspected for. This security assurance is nice, but in my mind is worth enough to me to trade off for the risks of data exploitation by businesses and individuals. But I'm willing to change my mind.

I wouldn't vote for this measure in California though. If this passes on a rationale of casting a wide net helps to catch criminals, is there any reason for not just getting DNA from everyone in the state regardless of whether or not they get arrested for a felony? It would start with arrests for all crimes and then extend to voting and driver's registration, etc. Can you think of any reason why it wouldn't go this route?

Nickel and Dime explore the meaning of terrorism, part 1

A nickel and a dime were contemplating recent issues in modern society and decided to begin with some basic points.

: What is terrorism anyway? Has anyone actually defined it, or is it just like obscenity and we know it when we see it?

: How about this: Terrorism is violence for political purpose.

: Is that all it takes for it to be terrorism? Is all violence for political purposes terrorist activity?

: Well, I suppose that isn't necessarily all that it takes. It is violence in pursuit of political or social change. And we are going to have to define "violence" here eventually as well.

: How about we define violence in this case as intentional acts capable of causing death and injury?

: That'll work, for now at least. I think that we have to include some consideration of the root of the word as well. Terrorism is about inciting terror, after all. Terrorism must be defined, at least, as violence aimed at political change that incites fear.

: Or maybe we could think of it as violence that incites fear in order to effect political change?

: I think we are getting closer.

At this point in the conversation, the nickel and dime got pulled out of their pocket and stuck into a vending machine for a packet of Ultra Light Menthol Cigarretes, which distracted them from the topic for a little while.

TO BE CONTINUED...