The Lesser of Two Evils

This latest race has proven to be the closest in decades. Running for the conservative National Socialist Party is Adolf Hitler; his rival is the liberal Social Democrat, Josef Stalin. Though they agree on most issues, the voting public are strongly divided on which of these two Presidential candidates to vote for.

The Issues

Minorities

Stalin is considered to have a lock on Jewish votes. The Jews do not agree with his view that they should not be granted the right to practice their religion, but they find it preferable to Hitler's view that they should not be granted the right to live.

Homosexuals, too, are strongly in Stalin's court; he's against gay marriage, but he's against marriage of all sorts, and they consider that an improvement. Some object to the fact that Stalin also intends to legalize pederasty and bestiality; they say that not only is it immoral, but it's highly offensive that they be put in the same category. However, most believe that any president who supports gay rights deserves their vote, and it's better to wait to overturn the negative policies than to wait to pass the positive.

The racial vote, however, is surprisingly split; though Hitler has made it abundantly clear that he does not support the rights of non-Aryans, his token appointment of running-mate Hirohito has gained him a fair percentage of minority races, particularly the Japanese. Not to be outdone, however, Stalin has also chosen an Asian running-mate, Mao Zedong.

The Death Penalty

Hitler and Stalin both support the death penalty. Hitler, however, is more focused in his support; he claims that it is an effective deterrant from Judaism, citing figures that state that the more Jews die, the fewer Jews there are.

Intellectuals, including scientists, writers, and others who rely on freedom of speech, are generally in Hitler's court. They are more prone to agree with Stalin's views on separation of church and state, but his "execute intellectuals" policy is something of a deterrant.

Jewish intellectuals are contributing to Stalin's capaign.

(A few are voting for Jewish intellectual third-party candidate Albert Einstein, but most of them meet with heavy attacks that a vote for Einstein is a vote for Hitler. Some Einstein campaigners have been met with violent protests from Stalin supporters.)

The Debates

The debates were largely a tossup. Hitler is unquestionably the better public speaker, but he relies on emotional propaganda over content. Stalin speaks rather flatly on issues that are important to many, but his record shows clearly that he does not really support many of the issues he claims to.

Both have been virtually silent on the third-party candidacy of Winston Churchill throughout their campaigns, but recently, it has become a concern that Churchill's candidacy may jeopardize Stalin's claim to the race. Churchill was barred from the debates, and threatened with arrest if he even sat in the audience.

A lot of people (mostly Gore supporters) are going to misconstrue the above as an effort to compare Bush and Gore to Hitler and Stalin. You're missing the point. I'm not saying a damn word about Bush and Gore, and I know the Republican and Democratic Parties would not back such candidates (they'd be too progressive).

I'm not attacking Bush and Gore. I'm attacking Gore voters. I sincerely believe some of the people I've talked to would vote Stalin in that hypothetical situation.

But I'll attack Gore now. This disgusting finger-pointing at Nader is a goddamn farce. Gore can't compete with an illiterate, inbred good ol' boy who can't string a sentence together and has an indescribably bad record on environmental issues and civil rights...and that's Nader's fault?! That's so obtuse it's embarrassing. Nobody who follows that line of reasoning should be allowed to take off his bib and endanger his shirt of being coated with his drool.

Seriously. Gore is in a close race. A few of his votes end up with Nader. Is Nader "stealing votes" (ha!), or is it Gore's own fault for allowing himself into a close race to begin with? A chimpanzee could beat Bush. It could screech and throw dung at its audience and I guarantee we'd be singing Hail to the Chimp tonight. Hell, that'd be a much better campaign than Gore's run.

I mean, for starters, Gore all but refused support from Clinton. Come on, boys and girls, remember 1996? Clinton would've eviscerated Bush if they'd run against each-other. However, Gore kept his distance, hoping to dig into the conservative vote, rather than uphold the separation of blowjobs and state and keep the liberal vote. ...If he had to distance himself from Clinton's record, he should've done it on real issues...the Communications Decency Act, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", the WTO, NAFTA, welfare reform, the Protection of Marriage Ac...oh, wait, Gore agrees with those last four.

In point of fact, Gore agrees with a lot of rather conservative things...and Bush, of course, is just as centrist. Bush isn't going to hurt gay rights...he'd lose too many votes. And Gore isn't going to help gay rights...he'd lose too many votes.

Abortion, of course, is a fish-in-a-barrel issue. "Oh no! Bush is going to fill the Supreme Court with Scalias!" I've got news for you, Bubby: Gore voted for Scalia. See, just in case you failed fourth-grade social studies, then failed the portion of eighth-grade social studies where they reviewed fourth-grade social studies, then failed the portion of twelfth-grade government that reviewed fourth-grade social studies and eighth-grade social studies, our government is based on a system of checks and balances. See, while a President gets to pick a Supreme Court Justice, the Senate still has to approve him. Scalia was voted in 98-0, with Gore in the Senate. And, while it's unknown whether or not he voted for Thomas, his party certainly did. The worst Bush has done is comment that he admired Anthony Scalia (which was certainly just a transcript error, of course, winkwinknudgenudgesaynomore). Additionally, Bush has proven (<gasp>) quite inept at selecting Justices: three of the four he's appointed in Texas have turned out to be pro-choice.

And then there's Gore's environmental record. He wrote a book on it. That makes him an environmentalist. Seriously. Never mind the WTI incinerator, WTO, NAFTA, and all those timber permits. He's a Democrat, and he wrote a book on the environment. ...Frankly, we might even be better off with this asshole, because at least the environmentalists won't look the other way just because a Democrat's in office.

Did I help elect Bush? Bush was taking Arizona no matter what I did, buddy. But even still, I don't disagree with the swing state Nader voters. Nader didn't steal Gore's votes. If they were Nader's, that's because he earned them, because Gore was undesirable. If anything, Gore and his cadre of lesser-evilists killed the race for Nader.

I'll tell you what, my friends: Gore didn't have my vote, and he wouldn't have my vote. If Nader hadn't been running, I'd've voted for McReynolds. If neither Nader nor McReynolds had been running, I would've found somebody else. If no third-party candidate I could agree with had won, I would've written in one of my high school teachers, one of my parents, or Alfred E. Neuman. I would not, under any circumstance, vote for Gore.

Am I an extremist? Maybe. But I'll tell you this: Gore voters who throw signs at Nader rallies are extremists. Gore voters who follow Nader campaigners around and cover their signs with Gore stickers are extremists. Presidential candidates who assert that the public doesn't want third-party candidates in the debates, repeated national surveys be damned, are extremists. Presidential candidates who turn a blind eye when their rivals are refused admittance to debate audiences, or to public news interviews, under threat of arrest, are not only extremists, but fascists.

This, my friends, is why I will not take down my "Vote Nader/LaDuke" icon on my page. This is why I will vote for Nader in 2004. This is why I will probably never vote Democratic in a Presidential election. I believe in Ralph Nader. Gore is a liar. The media is corrupt. They all intend to push us into voting out of fear...and it's working. That turns my stomach. I will have no part in it.

But don't vote for a third party if you're not comfortable with it. I mean, what do we have to gain? All the last progressive third-party candidate we elected did was free the slaves. If you wish to vote out of fear, that's your prerogative. But I'm voting for what I actually believe, not the lesser of two evils. Did I get Bush elected? Well, if you don't follow any of the logic I've outlined above, you're entitled to put on your bib and believe whatever you want. But at least I've got my dignity.

Rome wasn't built in a day. The minor backsliding we can expect from Bush II: That's Our Oil, Baby will, hopefully, eventually help the American public register that Something Is Wrong. My parents saw a revolution. Their parents saw a revolution. I'm feeling pretty good about our chances in coming years.

All this to say, vote your hopes, not your fears. Vote for what you think is right. If you want to vote for a man like Gore, do it...just do it because you really believe in him, not because you're afraid of the nutjob from Texas.

I voted my hopes. And I'll do it again.

Index