November 5, 2000
A Letter to Gloria Steinem
By Ellen Johnson
Dear Ms. Steinem:
Congratulations!
Having received dozens of emails this week asking me to "do
the right thing" and vote for Gore, I rate your "Top
Ten Reasons Why I'm not Voting for Nader" as the most inane.
Allow me to respond.
10) "He's not
running for President, he's running for federal matching funds
for the Green Party!"
Last I checked Nader
was on the ballot in 46 states and will heartily accept the job
if elected. Nevertheless, working for matching funds next round
is a worthy goal since Nader doesn't take tainted money like
your candidate of choice, Al Gore. Unlike the shortsighted
view NOW is taking, Nader and the Greens understand that doing
the job right will take time. Choosing between the lesser of
two evils only weakens democracy and erodes the economic and
social status women have earned.
9) "He was
able to take all those perfect progressive positions of the
past because he never had to build an electoral coalition, earn
a majority vote, or otherwise submit to democracy. "
What I hear you
saying is that Nader would have to give up his principles to
be effective. Like you, for instance? If Nader is not practicing
democracy then why is Gore sending out an army of emissaries
to scare Nader voters into submission? If an incumbent vice-president,
in a popular administration, running against a lightweight and
spending over 200 million dollars in the process is afraid of
Nader, I call that democracy at work.
8) "By condemning
Gore for ever having taken a different position --for example,
for voting against access to legal abortion when he was a Congressman
from Tennessee--actually dissuades others from changing their
minds and joining us. "
On the contrary,
Nader supporters have already exercised their right to change
their minds and rejected Gore.
7) "Nader is
rightly obsessed with economic and corporate control, yet he
belittles a deeper form of control - control of reproduction,
the most intimate parts of our lives. "
What I see is the
reverse--you are too obsessed with the control of reproduction
and belittle concerns about the corporate control of children
that are already born, whose daily struggles with the effects
of poverty, pollution and a culture of violence have fallen
on the deaf ears of the corporately controlled Clinton/Gore
administration.
6. "The issues
of corporate control can only be addressed by voting for candidates
who will pass campaign-funding restrictions, and by conducting
grassroots boycotts and consumer campaigns against sweatshops
- -not by voting for one man who will never become President."
Gee, I'm laughing
so hard I can barely type. Are you suggesting that Al Gore will
work to achieve these goals? Gore promised that his first act
as president would be to pass the McCain-Feingold bill, although
he ignored Nader's challenge that he set an example by giving
back all the corporate funding he received during this campaign.
Gore's support of NAFTA and the WTO proliferates sweatshop
labor. And the words consumer and Gore used in the same sentence
is oxymoronic.
5. "Toby
Moffett, a longtime Nader Raider who also served in Congress,
wrote that Nader's "Tweedledum and Tweedledee assertion
that there is no important difference between the major Presidential
candidates would be laughable if being even-handedly negative.
There is a far greater gulf between Bush and Gore than between
Nixon and Kennedy - and what did that mean to history?"
Yes, from God's
lips to Toby Moffett's ears! As significant as Moffett's opinion
is to my political decision-making process (who is he again,
a flack for Monsanto, isn't it?), let's run down the list:
WTO and NAFTA, the death penalty, same sex marriages, drug policy,
the Middle East, bloating the military budget and welfare reform
represent just a handful of issues they agree on. And let's
not forget both Bush and Gore's conspiracy of silence, keeping
Nader out of the debates so they wouldn't have to explain their
striking similarities. Their differences regarding abortion
can hardly be compared to a gulf. It's more like a babbling
brook that both Bush and Gore can easily bridge whenever a poll
tells them to cross to the other side. The far greater gulf
is between your idea of "choice" and the real needs
of women. While you trump up women's fears that they will lose
their right to abortion, you neglect to mention the rights women
have already lost under the Clinton/Gore welfare reform plan.
Forget a living wage, health care and quality day care. Are
you concerned about all the women who can't escape abusive relationships
because they have no safety net? But, thank goodness they still
have access to abortion.
4) Nader asked
Winona LaDuke, an important Native American leader, to support
and run with him, despite his likely contribution to the victory
of George W. Bush, a man who has stated that "state law
is supreme when to comes to Indians."
This one takes my
breath away. Are you suggesting that Winona LaDuke had no agency
in her decision to accept the position as Nader's running mate?
Perhaps, unlike Native American activist Wilma Mankiller (who
also has an email campaign for Gore), LaDuke recognizes that
Nader is the only candidate who has discussed Native American
issues during the campaign, not to mention his position advocating
immediate reparations to Native Americans.
3) If I were to
run for President in the same symbolic way, I would hope my
friends and colleagues would have the sense to vote against
me, too, saving me from waking up to discover that I had helped
send George W. Bush to the most powerful position in the world.
Bush will be running for reelection the day after his inauguration.
To suggest that
this weak and ineffectual man would challenge the will of seventy
percent of the people (who support women's reproductive freedom)
is absurd. Did your friends ask you to abandon your idealism
when you fought for Roe vs. Wade? How many desperate emails
and bogus voting scheme alerts have you received from the Green
Party? While I'm debating your position, I fully respect your
right to free speech without harassment.
2) There are one,
two, three, or even four lifetime Supreme Court Justices who
are likely to be appointed by the next President. Bush has
made clear by his record as Governor and appeals to the ultra-rightwing
that his appointments would overturn Roe v. Wade and reproductive
freedom.
You are beginning
to repeat yourself. But at least you didn't say five appointments
like Gore did last week as he was "spinning" out of
control. And why stop at five. Maybe all the justices will
die or retire in the next four years-it could happen, right?
Regardless, Orrin Hatch can flummox any Gore appointment.
1. The art of behaving
ethically is behaving as if everything we do matters. If we
want Gore and not Bush in the White House, we have to vote
for Gore and not Bush -- out of self-respect. I'm not telling
you how to vote by sharing these reasons. The essence of feminism
is the power to decide for ourselves. It's also taking responsibility
for our actions. Perhaps there's a reason why Nader rallies
seem so white, middle class, and disproportionately male; in
short, so supported by those who wouldn't be hurt if Bush were
in the White House. Think self-respect. Think about the impact
of our vote on the weakest among us. Then we can't go wrong.
People who live
in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, Ms. Steinem. What race
and class of people benefit from abortion rights? Thank you
for the eight-grade lecture about self-respect. But since you
mentioned this elusive character trait, for the first time in
many years I can't wait to vote for Nader and can do it with
pride. Can you really say the same? In the last week I've been
told by my feminist sisters to "calm down and think,"
"take a deep breath and consider what you're doing,"
"work from within instead of being reactionary," and
"you will have blood on your hands if you help elect George
Bush." (These are direct quotes.) Is this the "essence
of feminism" you speak of? CP
Ellen Johnson teaches at Arizona State University.
|