Third-party candidates have always played an important role in
our country’s electoral process. They call attention to many
small yet important issues that would not normally be adequately
addressed.
Ralph Nader undoubtedly took numerous votes away from Al Gore in
the 2000 election and will probably do the same to John Kerry next
month. However, as much as I wish Nader and running mate Peter
Camejo would drop out of the race, I do not believe that anyone
should try to stop these candidates from running.
With that said, Camejo spent most of his time when he spoke at
UCLA Friday morning ranting about the American presence in Iraq. He
made only one thing crystal clear ““ that he did not believe
the United States should be there. In fact, he called it an
occupation on numerous occasions and was adamant in his belief that
Iraq should be free from Americans.
Camejo claimed that both the Democrat and Republican tickets
this year are really the same party under different names, and that
voting for either one of them would bring about the same result.
However, he failed to distinguish himself from either of those
parties. He spent the hour talking about what exactly has gone
wrong in the political system today but did not offer any sort of
comprehensive plan for the future.
With little background on their platform, I could only conclude
that Camejo was calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq. For
somebody who was talking about treating the Iraqi people fairly,
that would certainly be giving them a bad deal. In addition,
leaving Iraq before the country has stabilized would turn the area
into a breeding ground for terrorists. It would certainly not lead
to the self-determination that Camejo deemed so important for
Iraq.
Camejo gave listeners no reason to vote for his ticket. We need
a strong leader who can take the mess in Iraq and set up a
well-functioning country. Kerry has at least outlined a plan, and
voters know that with Bush they can expect more of the same. A
presidential candidate needs to have some sort of plan for winning
the peace and leaving only after we have fixed the mess that we
created.
Camejo also talked about our relations with Middle Eastern
countries as a whole, criticizing American policies in the area.
However, his ideas for our role in the Arab world are both naive
and idealistic. While the United States must pick its fights and
tread cautiously on the sovereignty of other countries, it should
maintain relations in the area and protect its citizens by stopping
the spread of terrorism. Our nation’s safety relies on the
ability of foreign governments to control extremists, and this
makes our presence in the Middle East essential.
Nader and Camejo have always had a good stance when it comes to
environmental issues. The ability to shift our reliance on foreign
oil sources to other fuel sources is probably the best idea on
their ticket, yet Camejo brushed past this important point.
One month before election day, Camejo needs to be telling the
public why they should be voting for him, not why we
shouldn’t be voting Democrat or Republican.
Mishory is a second-year undeclared student.