Varshney is
a third-year computer science and engineering student.
By Rahul Varshney
Over the next few days, Gore supporters will be blasting the
airwaves and the streets with anti-Nader ads and slogans. But none
of this propaganda is based on truth or common sense.
Recently Gloria Steinem, a prominent feminist, decided to add to
this message of fear (“Steinem urges
students to vote,” Daily Bruin, News, Oct. 20). Steinem
identified George W. Bush as the anti-abortion candidate. She
believes Bush will appoint justices that will criminalize abortion,
and urged everyone to vote for Vice President Al Gore. In doing so,
Steinem has slighted women across the globe. Even worse, she
blatantly lied to her captive, “mostly female, mostly
liberal” audience a few weeks ago at UCLA.
“There is a reason why Nader’s support is
overwhelmingly white and middle class and more male than
female,” said Steinem. “It’s because these are
the people who do not suffer as much if Bush were in the White
House.”
She went on further to say that, “Nader disparages the
women’s movement and the gay and lesbian movement.”
Wow. I don’t know whether she’s getting paid to say
these things, but lying about Ralph Nader just to further her views
is shameless. Steinem seems to ignore that Nader fully supports
civil unions for gays and lesbians. Does Gore? No. Gore is part of
the same administration that allowed the Defense of Marriage Act to
pass ““ a blatantly anti-gay bill.
Gore is also part of the same system that approved the
appointment of Justice Antonio Scalia in a 98-0 senate vote; the
same anti-abortion Supreme Court justice that Gore says Bush holds
in high regard.
Illustration by JASON CHEN/Daily Bruin Senior Staff How come
Steinem didn’t talk about any of these things, or
Gore’s support of NAFTA, the World Bank, the International
Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization? All of these
international institutions grant transnational corporations
tremendous power to go into foreign countries and engage in
practices that destroy the environment. This is not a gross
exaggeration; these abuses are well documented. In supporting these
institutions, Gore condones the horrible conditions these workers
must face.
Ninety percent of these sweatshop workers are women,
particularly women of color who come from lower-income backgrounds.
These women are forced to work under oppressive conditions where
they are exposed to toxic chemicals, are not allowed to use the
bathroom, and are threatened into not organizing unions. The
sweatshops lack ventilation and in many places, these women make in
a week what you and I can make in a few hours.
Gore does not talk about these women simply because he does not
have to. Do you think Gore passionately cares about a woman’s
right to choose? No, but pro-choice voters are part of his voter
base and so he campaigns on a moot. Don’t believe me?
Well think about this: the Republican Party somewhat ignores the
religious right the same way the Democratic Party ignores the
progressive left. Bush would never tamper with abortion in its
current form because pro-choice women make up a big part of his
supporters. If he ditched them, he would lose a lot of votes to Al
Gore and the Democrats. Besides, Republican presidents have
appointed our most liberal justices; you simply cannot predict the
type of justices the next president will pick.
And still, Gloria Steinem has let abortion become Al
Gore’s political trump card. He uses issues like abortion to
hammer out rhetorical differences between himself and Bush. But the
rift between Gore and Bush is not so wide once you understand that
both are career politicians whose interests lie with corporations
and whose beliefs lie in retaining power.
Why should Gore risk his neck pandering to Nader supporters when
he can simply scare them away? Ask yourself, have you ever heard
Gore argue against Nader’s platform or respond to
Nader’s accusations? No.
Even the media does not talk about the Green Party’s
platform. Do you know that Ralph Nader is the only candidate
fighting for universal health care? He even has a concrete plan
laid out on his Web site that would, “Allow (U.S. taxpayers)
to provide universal coverage for the same amount that (they) are
now paying for inadequate health care.”
Nader is also the only candidate seeking a cut in our military
budget. Gore on the other hand wants to increase military spending;
in fact his increases are twice those of Bush. Sadly, neither Bush
or Gore address Nader’s main complaint that, “The
combined budget of food, insurance and legal services for the poor,
public broadcasting and all kinds of child health programs
don’t add up to $2 billion (our current military
budget).”
Nader’s platform is quite straightforward and pragmatic
““ free for consumption by either Gore or Bush. So ask
yourself, when Gore complains about Nader supporters and their
benefit to the Bush campaign, why doesn’t Gore attack the
problem directly? Gore can take up any or all of the Green issues
in this campaign, and yet he has not taken up a single one.
Remember, a multitude of private interests have invested in
Gore’s campaign, knowing well the return on their investment
is 10-fold.
In one fund-raising event, the Democratic Party charged more
than $10,000 to buy “face time” with the president and
vice president. Did they buy this time so they could talk about the
genocide in Rwanda or the environmental damage done due to the
Clinton-Gore administration’s pandering to the auto lobby? No
way. Gore is simply a businessman with a mask on. Bush too.
Case in point, George W. bought the Texas Rangers for $606,302.
With over $200 million of public money, a new stadium was built and
with its completion, Bush sold the team. Profit to Bush? A cool
$14.9 million. And are the Rangers’ surging new revenues
going back to the public who paid for them? No, that would only
make sense; instead, they are going back to the private owners of
the stadium. Think how much these owners spent to get Bush elected,
and think about how much these owners made on their investment.
So tell both Gore and Bush on Nov. 7 the White House is not for
sale, and if a Gore supporter tells you that you might as well vote
for Bush simply respond, “You know what? A vote for Nader is
not a vote for Bush, but a vote for Al Gore might as well
be.” Feel proud of your decision.
One final note to all those voting for Al Gore out of fear; Gore
pretty much has California locked up. He is leading Bush by a
considerable amount and voting for Nader will not take away
Gore’s electoral votes. So think about this: by voting for
Nader, Gore will still win California, and the Green party can get
the 5 percent of the popular vote it needs to receive millions of
dollars for the next election — they are very close to this
target.
Personally, I would vote for Nader under any circumstances, but
if you are afraid to commit then at the least check the polls
Tuesday and if you see Gore has a considerable lead, vote for
Nader!