cc: Carl Pope
From Common Dreams News Center
Published on Monday, November 6, 2000
Reject Politics of Fear, Vote Nader
by Chad Hanson

As a member of the Sierra Club's national Board of Directors, I have
received tremendous pressure to hold my tongue and refrain from speaking
my mind on Al Gore's environmental record. I was one of the few Club
board members who voted against a Gore endorsement, in favor of
endorsing Ralph Nader for President. I accept that a majority of those
in my own organization disagree with me on this issue. However, after
witnessing Al Gore, certain syndicated columnists, and the Sierra Club
turn on Ralph Nader in the closing days of this election, I feeled
compelled to offer my views.

A vote for Ralph Nader is a vote for George W. Bush, the saying goes.
Gore himself echoed this sentiment recently at a campaign stop in
Wisconsin. I was deeply offended. While making this statement, Gore
essentially acknowledged that he is the lesser environmental candidate,
compared to Nader. But rather than improve his environmental stance to
address the concerns of those who would vote for Nader, he instead uses
this scare tactic to coerce environmentalists to support him despite
their better judgement. According to Gore, it is us who have to change,
not him: vote for me, or else. I simply don't accept this brand of
electioneering.

Besides, I believe it is far from clear whether Gore would in fact be
better for the environment than Bush. There's no question about the fact
that Bush is a regressive neanderthal when it comes to the environment.
He'd love to increase logging on national forests, and open up sensitive
wildlands to oil drilling. But would he be effective in achieving these
anti-environmental objectives? I doubt it. The environmental community
would pull out all the stops, justifiably branding Bush as environmental
villain number one. The press would scrutinize his every move; and
moderates in his own party would resist his attempts to undermine
environmental laws, lest he tarnish their reputations by association.
There would be an epic backlash, and Bush would be hamstrung.

Gore, on the other hand, is a totally different story. The national
environmental groups are notorious for looking the other way when a
Democrat President they helped get elected sells out the environment.
The relationship, in my view, has become too cozy. The writing, in fact,
is already on the wall. In two separate campaign stops, Gore proclaimed
that he supports continuing the commercial logging program on this
nation's national forests--a view out of step with three out of four
Americans (Nader would end timber sales on national forests). There
wasn't a peep from prominent environmental groups. Nor was there any cry
from the large national groups when the Clinton/Gore Administration,
just weeks ago, made a deal with Congressional Republicans to enact the
largest funding increase for timber sales on federal lands in recent
memory. Gore's failure to support the removal of outdated Northwest dams
that are harming imperiled salmon runs was met with criticism so tepid
it barely registered in the media.

The problem is, when it comes to comparing Gore and Bush on the
environment, Bush is twice as bad but half as effective, while Gore is
half as bad but twice as effective. On the ground where it counts, the
difference between the two, in terms of the damage they are capable of,
is likely to be negligible.

So, what's a self-respecting environmentally-minded voter to do? Simple,
vote for Nader. Reject the "lesser of two evils" approach and the
politics of fear. Vote for your candidate because their positions
inspire you and give you hope, not because they have made you afraid of
their opponent. Ultimately, things won't begin to get better for the
environment until people stop voting for candidates they don't really
want.

Chad Hanson is a national director of the Sierra Club.



###



Common Dreams NewsCenter is a non-profit news service
providing breaking news and views for the Progressive Community.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of
which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this
constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided
for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes. For more
information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you
wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own
that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For SC email list T-and-C, send: GET TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.CURRENT
to [log in to unmask]