Rahul Varshney  Varshney is a
third-year computer science and engineering student. Yes, engineers
have opinions too. Find out more of Rahul’s by e-mailing him
at [email protected]. Â
 Click
Here for more articles by Rahul Varshney Â
Because Gore and Bush are full of crap.” I was thinking of
how I would respond to someone asking me why he should vote for
Ralph Nader, this year’s Green Party candidate, and that was
really the first thing that came to mind. See, I’ve been
reading up on the two big-party candidates and came across so much
rhetoric and promises that it’s absurd. You read what they
say, and you want to believe it, deep down you really do.
But actions speak louder than words. 500,000 dead in 1996 with
4,000 dying every month since then. Iraqi children that is, with
the embargo that is causing these deaths having little effect on
Saddam (CounterPunch, Nov. 1, 1999). Nazar Ali, an Iraqi local,
said, “You are creating a generation of people who hate
America” (U.S. News & World, September 11, 2000). Is this
the foreign policy that America should be pursuing? Secretary of
state Madeline Albright told 60 Minutes, “We think the price
is worth it” (May 12, 1998).
Worth what? What is the U.S. gaining from all of this? One
answer comes from a Kuwaiti newspaper. “The U.S. frightens us
with Saddam to make us buy weapons and sign contracts with American
companies, thus ensuring a market for American arms manufacturers
and a continued American presence in the Middle East”
(www.coastalpost.com, February, 1999).
Arms manufactures can lobby Gore and Bush; the Iraqi children
cannot, and this is what it comes down to. The collective silence
of Gore and Bush has been bought, but not Nader’s. As a
result, he flatly opposes the embargo on Iraq.
Iraq, sadly, is not the only source of wanton death on the hands
of the Clinton-Gore administration. The White House decided in
early September to enter the U.S. into a 40-year-old civil war in
Colombia by giving $1.3 billion to the Colombian government. While
atrocities have been committed by both sides of the war, 78 percent
of the nation’s human rights violations have been committed
by the right-wing paramilitary.
 MING-YI KHONG/Daily Bruin A paramilitary is a group of
civilians in military form that has the backing of local and
international businesses. This same paramilitary has “deep
ties to the Colombian armed forces,” as reported by the
Council on Hemispheric Affairs in Washington D.C. (San Jose Mercury
News, June 29, 2000).
So is the Clinton-Gore administration funding human rights
abuses to win the “war on drugs” or is something more
covert occurring here? Former U.S. ambassador to Colombia Myles
Frechette comments, “Clinton is coming to Colombia for
domestic political reasons and that’s to allow Al Gore to say
that the Clinton administration did not neglect or underfund the
drug problem in Colombia” (www.cnn.com).
Simply put, the Clinton-Gore administration is funding what some
term as the “new Vietnam” in order to make Al Gore look
tough on drugs. If Gore really wants to reduce drug production in
Colombia, he should first look toward reducing the demand that it
supplies. Sadly, the Clinton-Gore administration has decided that
eradication of the coca plant (what cocaine comes from) is the only
solution, even though a 1994 study shows that eradication is
“23 times more expensive than drug treatment programs”
in reducing national cocaine consumption by just 1 percent (Foreign
Policy In Focus, October 1998).
The Clinton-Gore administration has authorized $330 million for
coca eradication, independent of the $1.3 billion spent on the
military (San Jose Mercury News, June 29, 2000). For $14 million
(yes, I did the math) we could accomplish the same effect without
the biological warfare being committed today.
Again I ask you, is this foreign policy that America should be
pursuing?
Before you answer, let me delve into a little American history.
Back in the early ’80s, President Carter funded a similar war
in El Salvador. In 1981, in an El Salvadorean village named El
Mozote, a U.S.-trained elite army unit killed more than 450
children under the age of 14. 70,000 Salvadoreans died over the
next 10 years (San Jose Mercury News, September 3, 2000).
Now let me rephrase the question. Are you going to let history
repeat itself? Or will you cast your outrage at the polls this
November?
“But a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, and he’s
much worse!” chant the Al Gore supporters.
Oh yeah?
Gore’s Web site, www.algore.com, in bold letters declares,
“The (Clinton-Gore) Administration Proposed the Largest
Anti-Drug Budgets Ever.” Bush offers no brighter picture.
“I support the $1.3 billion in aid.This money should help
build up the capabilities of Colombia’s armed forces.”
(www.georgebush.com.)
If Gore and Bush are so different, as many Al Gore supporters
claim, then why are both Gore and Bush supporting inane drug
policies, policies that will kill innocent people with no fruitful
gains? Because they know it’s what gets them votes,
it’s what gets them power, and it’s what gets them in
position to start the cruel cycle all over again. Does your
conscience tell you something is wrong here?
Without a doubt, none of the issues mentioned in this article
will be legitimately discussed in the upcoming presidential
debates, which by the way are privately financed and organized by
the Democratic and Republican parties. This is why your vote counts
so much. It signifies a want for change in the American political
system. For less than $3 per taxpayer, the campaigns could be 100
percent publicly financed ““ no special interests, no
corporations, no PAC money (www.ralphnader.org).
Gore and Bush may support this in rhetoric, but Nader practices
it. The only type of donations he accepts are those from
individuals, with a $1,000 cap on each. As a result, Nader is
beholden to no one; he has no hidden agenda to satisfy. Instead,
Nader speaks forthright on institutions, both corporate and
governmental in nature, that have polluted, killed and harmed.
Take the U.S. auto industry for example. Under the Clinton-Gore
administration, the auto industry has been given a free ride on
emission and fuel efficiency standards. While Honda has taken the
lead in producing environmentally friendly cars all on its own,
Ford, GM and Chrysler (“The Big Three”) received a
billion-dollar “injection” from American taxpayers over
the last eight years (votenader.org).
The results, you may ask? The Big Three, along with Isuzu, are
the four worst polluters in the auto industry (www.ucsusa.org).
What? Excuse me?
What about all the money the Clinton-Gore administration threw
at them? Doesn’t it count for anything? As Nader writes in
his Web site, the $1 billion infusion “has been a perfect
smoke screen behind which they (the Big Three) can carry out their
efforts to thwart mandated increases in CAFE (national fuel
economy) standards.” This is what Nader calls
“corporate welfare,” and he has done and will do
everything in his might to end such practices.
Again, I want to make sure that everyone knows what happened
here; taxpayers gave money to Detroit automakers to produce greener
cars, and not only did they do nothing in return, the Big Three
spent this money on lobbying Congress to fight laws that would
force them into producing greener cars. Okay, I just got a headache
from writing that last sentence. Does anyone see how stupid our
whole political system has become? And where the heck is Al Gore in
all of this? This is the man who the Sierra Club claims would be,
“the most pro-environment president in our history”
(Fox News, July 24, 2000). Are they joking?
Ralph Nader, on the other hand, could rightfully make this
claim. He is dead against the World Trade Organization and trade
agreements such as NAFTA. Why? Because they put corporate interests
ahead of human rights and the environment. Promptly after the
Clinton-Gore administration legitimized NAFTA, U.S. companies moved
their operations south of the border to seek out cheap labor.
I’m sure you’ve heard of this movement of factories,
but do you know these multinational “maquiladores”
across the border have little care for worker safety or any sort of
environmental regulations?
Women spray-paint toys with mere eye goggles for protection
““ never mind that the toxic oil-based paint drenches their
skin and invades their lungs. Walking up and down the assembly
line, you can see women of all colors. No, this isn’t some
racially heterogeneous group. These women are red, blue, or pink
depending on which toy they have sprayed (Joshua Muldavin, March
1999).
With Gore and Bush both enthusiastically supporting NAFTA and
the lax human rights and environmental standards that “free
trade” entails, where are the differences between these two
candidates that we hear so much about?
Quite frankly, there are none. Gore and Bush have been bought by
corporate and special interests; nothing they can say will change
this. Their mindset and their biases are mired so deep in this vile
political system that lying and cheating come naturally to them.
More than anything, I want you to question politics today. I simply
do not have enough space to raise all the issues, all the
controversies, and all the corruption in this year’s
election. Heck, I could barely talk about Ralph Nader, let alone
his running mate, Winona LaDuke, a Native American woman. Please,
go to www.votenader.org and www.ralphnader.org, and read up on
Ralph Nader and what he believes in, you will be impressed with
what he has done.
One final thought: Keep in mind that every word in the other two
articles you (hopefully) read on Gore and Bush are backed by
millions of dollars in advertisements, media coverage and corporate
money.
Like I said in the beginning, you want to believe these guys,
you really do. I implore you, do your own research, make your own
conclusions. Otherwise, our democracy will only suffer.