I must vote for Al Gore or the stars will tumble from the sky. I must overpower my wayward hand as it tries to mark an "X" for Ralph, and firmly, responsibly control it and vote for the one who is not Bush. I must accept my duty as an adult, and sacrifice all hope in the face of tedious reality. I must vote for the one who is not Bush to prevent civilization from plunging once again into Republican Dark Ages.

I must do these things because Ralph Nader cannot win and therefore, must not be voted for, and because he must not be voted for, he cannot win.

I could probably see the flaw in that argument if it would quit devouring itself and sit still long enough. As it is, I'll just watch it consume and regurgitate itself every four years.

Gore is not a Republican and not Bush, therefore he is the one and only correct choice for the progressive vote. Has anyone noticed that this argument in favor of propping up Gore is the same one used consistently by cold warriors to justify support for the brutal right-wing dictatorships? "He's bad alright, but he's not a commie, and you know, they're worse." Gore is a dismal presidential prospect, but at least he's not Bush.

But he's not exactly Bush's enemy either.

Ralph Nader tried like hell to get into the presidential debates. Gore cooperated with Bush to exclude Nader. Gore used his power and his money and a Republican partnership to deny Nader a chance to debate. Now the Gore campaign drags out the celebrities to attack Nader's positions. I guess that's fair. After all, he has to defeat Bush at any cost. Even if that means teaming up with Bush to marginalize and belittle Nader while trying clumsily to co-opt his issues.

Not only did the Gore/Bush campaigns exclude Nader, but they threatened to have him arrested, twice, when Ralph tried to use a valid ticket to get into the auditorium to watch the debates. But I shouldn't let that influence my vision of a Gore presidency. Gore had to conspire with Bush to deny Nader his civil rights, to further the greater interest of protecting everyone's civil rights, in the future. No matter how unsavory Gore might be, Bush is certainly worse.

And no matter what Gore did last month, or last year, or eight years ago, right now he needs my vote to prop up his failed campaign. If he doesn't get it, the evil forces that he failed to confront during his eight year tenure as Vice President are going to kick the door in. It is certainly preferable that Gore be allowed to continue passing the goods to them through the window instead. At least that way we won't get any mud on the carpet.

The Gore people aren't trying to convince anyone by broadcasting Gore's championship credentials. Gore's political career is built on alliances with the right, selling out progressives in the process. His promises are hollow. But he is decidedly not Bush. He is a Democrat. He could win. Arguments for Nader, for working toward a future of grassroots political involvement, for refusing to rubber stamp decrees from on high, are simply dismissed as immature, a shameful self-indulgence. How much more progressive to just vote for the Democrat who is not Bush so we can all get back to sleep for four more years.

A hold-your-nose vote for Gore seems to me to be a desire to just get it over with and get back to ordinary apolitical life. As long as a Democrat is in the White House, we won't have to get involved too much. Until next time, when the Supreme Court is once again held out as the prime directive in favor of business-as-usual. A reluctant vote for Gore is a vote for a big daddy to make the bad things go away a little longer.

I'm not interested in wasting my vote like that.

It's about time we the people started taking a little responsibility around here. No president is going to stop the slide into ecological oblivion, into corporate globalization, the third-worldization of the U.S. It's up to the people to do that. After eight years of a Clinton/Gore presidency, how do we find ourselves suddenly on the verge of Reagan II? If straits are suddenly so dire, Gore hasn't been doing much protecting up to this point. Truth is, a Gore presidency would be no better, nor a Bush presidency worse, than the active populace allows them to be. That's what they used to call democracy.

Citizen participation in democracy is the truly responsible decision. Voting for the lesser of two evils, then walking away, is not the termination of civic duty. It is certainly not progressive. Progressive seems to imply participation in the struggle to progress, not to merely try to slow down the retreat. That's called a losing battle. A wasted vote, as it were.

A vote for Nader is a promise to get involved, to take a measure of responsibility and participate in the political process. That is not a wasted vote. It certainly does not hand the country over wholesale to Bush's puppet masters. It is, instead, the root of their troubles.