[Peace-discuss] Vote for Nader in Illinois

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Participating in elections for president (and for other offices too) is
only a small part of the anti-war work AWARE should be doing, but, as Mort
pointed out at the last meeting (with reference to three articles on
Znet), it is a puzzling part. I'm glad to know that we're going to have an
"internal discussion" on the matter before the meeting on July 18, and I
look forward to participating.  Pending my being convinced otherwise by
the discussion, here's the position I'll argue for.  We in Illinois are in
the same situation in regard to the presidential election as Chomsky and
Zinn in Massachusetts are -- i.e., we all live in "safe" Democratic
states. --CGE]

	June 25, 2004
	Contrary to What You've Heard...
	Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn Plan to Vote for Ralph Nader
	By GREG BATES

Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn have stated many times that they favor
ousting Bush this election, even if John Kerry is "Bush-lite." And that
stand has been repeatedly used by progressives opposed to Ralph Nader's
campaign.

However, Chomsky and Zinn, both residents of John Kerry's home state of
Massachusetts, say they plan to vote for Ralph Nader.

This may come as a surprise to those who have trotted out Chomsky in an
effort to blunt Nader. One example is Jeff Cohen, the founder of the media
watch group FAIR (and by way of disclosure, is an author along with both
Chomsky and Zinn at Common Courage Press at which this reporter is
Publisher). As Cohen stated on Commondreams.org May 7, "Progressives need
to be a bridge forward, not an obstruction. Noam Chomsky has described the
choice we face: 'Help elect Bush, or do something to try to prevent it.'"

To cite another example, Doug Henwood, the publisher of the Left Business
Observer wrote in April, "...as Noam Chomsky puts it, to the distress of
his many fans, given the magnitude of U.S. power, 'small differences can
translate into large outcomes.'"

But in response to an email query from this reporter, Chomsky wrote,
"Voting for Nader in a safe state is fine. That's what I'll do. I don't
see how anyone could read what I wrote and think otherwise, just from the
elementary logic of it. Voting for Nader in a safe state is not a vote for
Bush. The point I made had to do with (effectively) voting for Bush."

Chomsky also made clear how he views the election in the context of other
efforts for change: "Activist movements, if at all serious, pay virtually
no attention to which faction of the business party is in office, but
continue with their daily work, from which elections are a diversion --
which we cannot ignore, any more than we can ignore the sun rising; they
exist."

In another email exchange, Howard Zinn stated, "I will vote for Nader
because Mass. is a safe state. And voters in 'safe states' should not vote
for Kerry." He also notes, "I don't have faith in Kerry changing, but with
Kerry there is a possibility that a powerful social movement might change
him. With Bush, no chance."Ý

The question of Kerry's receptivity to social movements deserves serious
consideration, discussed further in the book from which this article is
adapted. But returning to the issue of voting for Kerry in safe states,
the impact of the Electoral College is virtually absent in discussions
about Nader's run.

As BusinessWeek June 14 2004 points out, 75% of voters live in safe
states. Voters casting a ballot for Kerry in those states, regardless of
the message they intend to send, will be perceived by the Democratic
National Committee as endorsing the Kerry platform of war and moving the
Democrats to the right. Meanwhile, voters in safe states have the
opportunity to send a message that Kerry's platform is unacceptable,
without risking throwing the election to Bush.

[Greg Bates is the publisher of Common Courage Press and the author of
Ralph's Revolt: the Case for Joining Nader's Rebellion, from which this
essay has been excerpted. Bates can be reached at:
<gbates at commoncouragepress.com>.]

	***