Today, the American public will face a daunting decision - a decision that will shape the face of our country for years to come. This presidential showdown between Al Gore and George W. Bush will prove to be the closest election since Kennedy/Nixon, but with Nader thrown in for fun. The differences between the three candidates are very clear, but I feel that this Viewpoint needs to expand beyond policy and into the realm of common sense.
Gore is a seasoned leader. He has led and represented the people of this country in a progressive manner for 24 years. Gore is dedicated to preserving and improving the environment, making advanced technology accessible and beneficial to all Americans. He believes that every woman should have the choice and the right to do what she wants with her body. This makes him the logical choice for president. The rest of the world looks to the United States as an international leader. Over the course of 24 years in serving the American public, Gore has developed the foreign policy skills necessary to represent the United States on the international stage.
"Dubbya" Bush, on the other hand, is not who or what we want representing our interests to the world. As a born and bred Texan, I have had first hand experience in what Bush cannot do for America. When Bush says that he wants to do for American education what he has done for Texas education, I cringe. The curriculum he has established is geared toward passing the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) test. Now, instead of teaching a broad range of subjects in all grades, students learn how to pass the TAAS test year after year. Because of this brilliant little strategy of his, Texas students are now ill prepared for life outside of Texas public education. Do we want this to happen to all of America? I think not. But I digress.
The downside of Bush in the White House goes beyond his hair-brained ideas in education and obvious lack of eloquence, more accurately, lack of a proper mastery of the English language. Bush just does not have the experience to lead this nation. Six years in the Capitol Building in Austin produced little more than a law enabling people to carry concealed hand guns and a ranking of dead last in air quality in the nation (granted, this wasn't solely Bush's doing, but he was instrumental in both). If this is not convincing enough, let's do a thought experiment: Can you imagine Bush trying to negotiate peace with Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat at Camp David? Shudder. I could go on and on about Bush, but people are probably pretty informed about him.
Ralph Nader is the red herring in this election. To be honest, I am not too familiar with many of his actual plans for America, because every time I see him on television he is bashing Gore. However, I do know he is a very liberal man running on a platform of idealism. I respect the man for trying to break the dreaded two-party rule, but I think his efforts are wasted with a presidential campaign. If he were to run for Senate, let's say in Oregon, he could probably win fairly easily. As a senator, he could accomplish much more of his agenda and garner support for a later attempt at the presidency. An attempt at the presidency this year, at its most successful, will only result in getting Bush elected. Nader is currently polling at three percent. It takes quite a bit of optimism even from Green party members to envision Nader taking the White House this year. Assuming that Nader voters are largely would-be Gore voters, then a vote for Nader is a vote to keep Gore out of the White House. Likewise, a vote for Nader is a vote that, while not exactly for Bush, makes it that much easier to Bush to be elected.
While Nader's plans may sound good, even great, maybe fabulous, try to think realistically. What is the likelihood that Congress is going to pass a $10 minimum wage anytime in the near future? What would it do to our economy to change things so drastically? How would a Green Party president with no support in Congress pass any new legislation? Nader wants to drastically reduce the amount of money going to the military each year. Sounds good... but how? And is America really ready for such changes? There is very little that is tangible or practical in the Nader platform. Just read the official Nader website and try to figure out exactly what Nader would do if he were president, could realistically do as president, and whether he even has a shot at becoming president. I urge you to choose the steady, proven leadership of Al Gore to make necessary improvements in education and healthcare while reserving our economic prosperity through paying off the national debt. When you think about this election logically and pragmatically, Gore is the obvious choice for president. He has the experience and progressive attitude to move America steadily in the right direction.
Jeff Blumberg is a sophomore majoring in Chemical Engineering. He is the Gore Campaign Liaison for the Tufts Democrats.
