Since Nader isn’t going to win, am I throwing my vote away?
The best way to gain the maximum concessions from the political establishment is to build the strongest challenge to them. A strong vote for Nader could bring real pressure to bear on whichever corporate candidate is elected to deliver concessions or else risk a further erosion of their base to left-wing political challengers.

We believe a vote for the Democrats or Republicans is a mistake. If the antiwar and labor movements support Obama despite his opposition to our key demands, such as a full withdrawal from Iraq or universal single-payer healthcare, what message does that send the Democratic Party? It says they can take our support for granted.

No matter how many attacks they carry out on workers, or how long they continue the Iraq War, as long as they can point to the Republicans as a “greater evil,” they will have our support. What pressure does that put on them to deliver reforms?

Every Nader vote registers a protest and strikes a blow against the establishment and their two parties. A vote for Nader is NOT a vote for McCain and the Republicans – it’s a vote for radical change. Ralph Nader is not a “spoiler” – it is the Republicans and Democrats who have already spoiled too many lives.

Didn’t Nader throw the 2000 election to Bush?
Contrary to the Democrats’ mantra, Al Gore won the popular vote by over 540,000 votes. More concerned with protecting the legitimacy of the ruling class’s political system, Gore and the Democratic Party refused to challenge the undemocratic Electoral College and actively stopped attempts to organize mass protests against the Republicans’ racist theft of Florida’s election.

It was Clinton and Gore’s policies that paved the way for Bush, not Nader. During their eight years in power, they ruthlessly attacked the living conditions and rights of groups they claimed to represent. This undermined Gore’s appeal to workers, people of color, and young people, many of whom did not vote, feeling no candidate represented their interests.

Clinton and Gore rammed through NAFTA and the WTO, destroyed welfare, and broke promises on universal healthcare, striker replacement laws, abortion, gays in the military, and more. Under Clinton, the prison population exploded from 1.2 million to 2 million. Clinton was the main enforcer of the murderous sanctions on Iraq, which killed more than 1 million Iraqis.

Nader’s real “crime” was offering a radical alternative to the two parties of big business. He won 2.9 million votes – the first credible left-wing presidential candidate in over 50 years.

Is this election too important for Nader to run?
Many on the left who argue this also opposed Nader’s run in 2004 and 2000. These same lesser-evil arguments have been made for decades.

If not now, then when should we break from the Democratic Party? If Obama is elected in 2008, we will be told we must vote for the Democrats in 2012 to keep the “greater evil” Republicans out. If we must back the Democrats in 2012, what about 2016? Would we have permission to break from the Democrats then?

As long as we stay locked into the endless cycle of lesser-evilism, we will never get anywhere. Big business will continue to control politics and set the terms of debate, while workers’ interests will be ignored.

Given how much enthusiasm Obama has generated, is it worth supporting Nader?
Obama has a lot of support from progressive workers and youth who understandably want to see the Republicans kicked out. If the election is close, Nader could face a difficult political climate, and his vote could be squeezed.

However, it would be a profound mistake to bend to the immediate mood of support for Obama to avoid standing out as a minority.

The Nader campaign needs to reach out and try to open up a dialogue with Obama supporters, while honestly and clearly explaining that there is no way forward via the Democrats – a party of war, corporate greed, and racism.

We need to patiently warn that an Obama presidency would bitterly disappoint his supporters. Under the impact of the growing economic crisis, Obama’s allegiance to big business will force him to attack workers’ living standards. Further, he will likely try to keep a major U.S. presence in Iraq because the ruling class will oppose a humiliating withdrawal.

While only a minority of workers and youth will be willing to break with the Democrats and vote for Nader in 2008, many more will be sympathetic to Nader and his warnings about Obama but will feel compelled to vote for the “lesser evil” to stop the Republicans.

But if Obama is elected the ground will be opened up for much wider layers to break from the Democrats and support a working-class political alternative. The more we can build support for Nader in 2008 and plant seeds of doubt about the Democratic Party, the faster this process will unfold under a Democratic administration.

The political authority of those who argued against supporting Obama in 2008 will be strengthened, while those who provided a left-wing cover for Obama’s pro-capitalist agenda will be discredited.