As the Democratic primary season reaches its peak next week on Super Tuesday, many Cal Democrats are still torn between Kerry and Edwards. The two seem so similar–really, what are the distinctions between their views on national security, the economy and health care? As long as both candidates continue to appeal to mainstream America, voters are left to choose between one’s war experience and the other’s Southern accent and prodigious hair.
Increasingly, students at Berkeley feel like this election is falling back into the old mode of choosing between the lesser of two evils. Progressives are interested in politicians bold enough to challenge what they see as political and ideological conservatism dominating the Democratic race thus far. They want a candidate who will increase educational spending and enact more policies to protect all Americans’ civil liberties.
That’s why many progressives take Nader seriously and hope his independent platform will bring important issues like affordable health care, higher education, corporate accountability and poverty in America to the forefront of the campaign. Nader’s idealistic platform includes the promises to create more jobs by investing in local public works, reduce poverty by creating a living wage for workers and crackdown on corporate greed by prosecuting irresponsible corporate executives. His history of advocating consumer rights, enacting environmental protection policies and tracking multinational corporations’ global involvement signifies his principled political integrity. His dedication to repealing the Patriot Act and reforming the criminal-justice system can remind Democrats that these are important issues affecting many Americans.
Still, the majority of Cal students are allied in their quest for regime change at the White House. They understand the importance of having a strong Democratic candidate who can defeat Bush. And they don’t want a repeat of the 2000 fiasco in which Nader’s 5 percent of the popular vote might have kept Gore from winning the election.
Electoral-college concerns play a factor here as well. In 2000, progressive Californians had more liberty to vote for Nader because they felt comfortably assured Al Gore would win their state. Now, with Arnold Schwarzenegger as California’s replacement governor and with national opinion polls vacillating in the public’s support for Bush, progressives understand the importance of supporting and strengthening the Democratic candidate. Fewer California liberals are likely to support the now-independent Nader as they did four years ago.
So maybe the Democrats should relax about Nader’s entrance into the race. He could add to the discussion. And he poses much less of a threat this time around. In the age of Anybody But Bush, “anybody” really means the Democratic nominee–it doesn’t mean Ralph Nader.
