Opinions

Back to Top

Wespeaks:
Endorsing Gore a Mistake

I was dismayed by the Argus’ haphazardly argued editorial endorsing Gore for the 2000 presidential elections. Sadly, the Argus’ handling of this complex issue was about as comprehensive as its national news coverage.

While a 2000-5000-word article could have made sense of the myriad of views presented in the endorsement, the editorial as printed is severely compromised. According to the endorsement, "Gore wants to raise the minimum wage, better fund public schools, reform social security, enact tough gun laws, and save the environment from the ills of global warming."
It is difficult to imagine how this set of issues is intended to substantially set Gore apart from Nader, who one-ups Gore on all of these issues.

Nader too wants to raise the minimum wage, and additionally supports a living wage for all workers. Nader also wants to better fund public schools, and takes a stance against corporate privatization of public schools. Nader also exposes the engineered nature of the so-called ‘social security crisis’–from his own web-site: "Social Security does not need to be ‘saved,’ it needs to be improved, which can be done by calmly making gradual changes. Panic fueled by opportunistic politicians and investment firms poses the only serious threat to the program." Nader takes a realistic approach to Social Security–one that Bush and Gore have successfully locked out of the national debate. On gun control, Nader also supports "tough gun laws" and argues for a national licensing system, stronger law enforcement, and the banning of certain weapons. And unlike Gore, who is compromised on the environment by his support of free trade agreements, Nader, who stands for fair trade, not free trade and has been a crusader for the environment for decades again has the upper hand.

The Argus next haphazardly tries to expose Nader as some sort of radical, referring to odd policy opinions that certainly are not on Nader’s web-site. The Argus is correct, however, in pointing out that Nader is concerned by the exceedingly high incomes of rich CEOs in America. In Nader’s Nomination Acceptance Speech, he said

"Today, [the] concentration of wealth and its political power has reached stunning intensities. In large companies, people who work in the same enterprise are now earning $1 for every $416 that the CEO takes away. In 1940, it was $1 for every $12. Today the financial wealth of the top 1 percent of households exceeds the combined wealth of the bottom 95 percent of American households. … What democracy worth its salt would have led to this profound inequity?"

These are not the words of a crazed radical, they are the words of a candidate who understands and wants to change the clear and intolerable wrongs in this country not addressed by Bush or Gore.

The Argus also finds fault in the fact that many may vote for Nader "to make a statement about heir disapproval with the political process," arguing that "statements are fleeting." Not in this case. Statements can have consequences, and if 5% of America votes for Nader, the Green party will receive $12.6 million in 2004. This is not a fleeting sum of money, and will have the power to bring in to the national consciousness all the issues the increasingly centrist Democrats and Republicans leave out of the debate. A vote for Gore in the State of Connecticut, (or Massachusetts, or New York, or most of the other states) will not help anybody out. Here in CT, Gore is comfortably ahead, and he does not need help winning his party 5% of the national vote. Which statement is fleeting, a vote for Nader, or a vote for Gore?

The Argus concludes that Gore "is dedicated to the values that inspire the Wesleyan majority." Values such as Gore’s support of the death penalty? His silence on prayer in schools? I can only hope that Wesleyan students read the Argus’ endorsement editorial with a sack full of salt, keeping in mind their past experiences of finding the Argus often incapable of
expressing the depth of important issues.

Fortunately, Wesleyan does have a publication willing to devote more than 350 words to the subject of who should be president for the next four years. Keep your eyes open for an election 2000 special edition of Hermes, complete with in-depth articles supporting Gore, Nader, and maybe even Bush, overviews of many candidates and their Vice Presidential nominees, and a roundtable discussion on the subject of Nader vs. Gore.

Karlsberg is a member of the class of 2003.