Alumni encourage voting

To the Editors:

Whether you were able to vote in 2000, surely you remember this: the “official count” (hanging chads and disenfranchised voters aside) came down to 537 votes in the state of Florida. This year the battleground is Ohio and Oberlin College could tip the scales. In the most critical election of our lifetime, every vote counts and we are counting on you to deliver Ohio to John Kerry!

Though there are several presidential candidates on the ballot, there are—in reality—only two potential presidents: George Bush or John Kerry. The Green Party recognizes what is at stake and is running a “safe state” campaign and focusing on local and state elections. Nader suggests that the two parties are solely responsible for closing out third party candidates. In truth, the framers of our Constitution created a winner-take-all system with the Electoral College (prior to the advent of political parties). If three or more candidates compete, it is virtually guaranteed that somebody with less than a majority of the vote will win. Of the 86 other fully democratic nations in the world, only a couple of them have a similar system. Most have either proportional representation or instant run-off voting. Until we change our system, a vote for a “third party” presidential candidate is a misguided vote.

Our own years at Oberlin were marked with political activism and passion. Our idealism and commitment to progressive values have not faded. We decry the corruption of our democracy by lobbyists and corporate money. We take issue with many of the Democrats’ policies. But to dismiss the distinctions between Kerry and Bush as inconsequential would be disastrous. Think about the Supreme Court and the right to safe, legal abortions. Consider the “Federal Marriage Amendment” and codifying discrimination in the Constitution. Think about the mixing of theology and science over these issues: stem cell research, abstinence-only sex education, the “morning-after pill,” the effectiveness of condoms in stemming AIDS. Consider Bush’s dismal environmental record and the reversal of decades of environmental protections (the League of Conservation Voters gives Bush an “F” while Kerry’s lifetime LCV voting record is 92 percent).

Don’t compromise your values—continue to organize and build a progressive movement. Raise the hard questions, demand accountability, be a global citizen. Take the long view. Support Green or other “third party” candidates in local races and build momentum. Press for instant runoff voting. But don’t trivialize the critical differences between Bush and Kerry, because one of them will win on Nov. 2.

It is not overstating to say that the future of our democracy and of our global relationship is at stake. The most compelling reason to vote for John Kerry is this: the world is watching. They are not examining our campaign financing, Electoral College, political parties or “protest votes.” If Bush wins re-election, the world will see this as our endorsement of the Bush doctrine: pre-emptive war, prisoner torture, disregard of international law and rejection of international treaties; an endorsement of arrogant, swaggering cowboy justice. Currently, most of the world now sees the U.S. as a significant threat to global security and they are anxiously hoping for a rejection of Bush. So do your part, register by Oct. 4 and cast your principled vote for Kerry on Nov. 2.
–Amy Lange OC ’80
–Beth LangeOC ’78
–Emily Harris OC ’78
–Emily MooreOC ’79
–Ginny Freschl LeviOC ’70
–Janis White OC’78
–Jeff Levi OC ’75
–Jennifer Harris OC ’77
–Jennifer KahnOC ’81
–Jesse Kanson-Benanav OC ’03
–Marjorie Greenfield OC ’78
–Peter RacherOC ’78
–Ray LeviOC ’71

History professor looks toward the future

To the Editors:

While I generally stay away from partisan political arguments in the Review, I find the stakes are too high in the upcoming election and the arguments expounded by Jacob Rinaldi (“Obie stands in support of Nader”) too provocative to let them pass uncommented. While Mr. Rinaldi’s judgment about building a progressive third party will have some relevance after Nov. 2, it has little meaning now—particularly the contention that voting for Nader will somehow build this third party. Let me be the first to inform Mr. Rinaldi that Nader is not going to win this election. In that context, then, and for those who live in the real world, the race that we can and should help determine is that being waged between Kerry and Bush.

In this race, the proper questions, I believe, are: are there significant differences between the two candidates and, if so, who will do more harm, who can do more good? For those in our community who favor another four years of President Bush, you can tune away now. But for those like Mr. Rinaldi who oppose Bush but “cannot stomach a vote for John Kerry,” I ask two minutes of your time for a thought exercise. Imagine that you, alone, will decide the outcome of this election. While that’s not a far-fetched exercise given the 2000 election, I hope that it encourages you to take your vote seriously. If, at the end of that exercise, you still come to the conclusion that Kerry is just too compromised for you to support, stop thinking, for a moment, that the purpose of this vote is to make you feel politically righteous. Even if you don’t want to think about the millions in this country and around the world who (I believe) will be more deeply mired in poverty and caught up in violence at the end of four more years of Bush, think about what you might say to, oh, just a few people you bump into over the next four years: like the 17-year-old who will not be able to get a legal abortion even though she was raped by her father; the Muslim teacher who finds himself locked in a Navy brig without access to an attorney or the courts; the worker at Wal-Mart who can’t afford to buy into a private pension plan and discovers that there is nothing in the social security system to support her retirement; the student in Missouri who can no longer read about evolution in her biology class; the organizer who was just told that unions are no longer allowed for government employees as they pose a threat to national security. “Sorry about your troubles,” you can say, “but Kerry supported NAFTA and so I voted for the candidate guaranteed to win two percent of the vote. Yeah, the one who got most of his financial support from Republican operatives. But don’t blame me that Bush won by 300 votes in Ohio.” If we are truly progressive, the election should be about those people, their real lives, their palpable losses. And when the election is over, then try to build a third party that is capable of advancing more of your ideas—and more in tune with the “sentiments of the American people” which you seem to have a handle on.
–Steven VolkProfessor of History

Kerry supporter responds to socialist critique

To the Editors:

In response to Jacob Rinaldi’s words on why a vote for Nader is valid, he mentions that he finds it hard to stomach a vote for Kerry. Can you stomach four more years of Bush? I understand the need to defend a voice that is unheard, but this election is not about hearing a voice but the individual taking action, a community making a difference, voting so that we can continue to allow all voices to be heard.

Wake up and realize Nader has no chance in getting elected. I stand by my initial claim that voting for him does nothing for your cause but comfort your own ideals and, frankly, I find this selfish. This election unfortunately is not founded on moral issues but on protecting the citizens’ lives and our freedoms, both of which Bush threatens.

My argument is not one in defense of Kerry’s super hero abilities. I only make the claim that as a concerned U.S. citizen who wants to see change, not voting for Kerry— whether you admit it or not—aids the Republican agenda. I should note that several Republicans have endorsed Nader for such malicious reasoning as sabotaging the liberals. Stop glorifying a cause that has no chance at this moment and keep up the fight for social change—vote Kerry.

–Julia Vogl, College sophomore
 
 

About us
Subscriptions
Advertising

Previous issue
Older issues