The Golden Rule and the Myth of the "Spoiler"

Hopefully, most of us are familiar with the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would like others to do unto you." It's a principle among people of a diverse array of belief systems and ideologies. Often, people interpret this statement as a reminder to do good, be kind, etc. Sometimes, though, we miss the deeper meanings of the Golden Rule, for example, that it is also about the role of individuals in a larger society, about complicity, about how to avoid inadvertent involvement in injustice.

Probably the biggest argument raised against Ralph Nader's candidacies is the idea that he is a "spoiler" or somehow responsible for Gore's loss to Bush in 2000. There are, of course, way too many counterarguments to cover here in one post. Some of them being that Gore won (see investigative journalist Greg Palast's work on this as just one example), the people who voted for Bush are responsible, Gore's pathetic excuse for a campaign is responsible (he couldn't win his home state which is pretty much unheard of, he couldn't get hundreds of thousands of Bush-voting Dems in Florida to vote for their own candidate, and some research has shown that Gore's polls went up when he took stances closer to Nader's), the people who prevented tons of African Americans from voting in Florida are responsible, the Supreme Court who shouldn't be in the business of deciding elections is responsible. There's a lot more where that list came from--and I haven't even started on the many benefits of Nader's campaign.

Really, the Democrats have no right to call anyone a spoiler. They are not entitled to anyone's vote. Furthermore, they have had every opportunity to advocate for and pass instant run-off (aka "rank choice") voting, but they don't want to. They seem to be more interested in making sure we only have two parties than they are in winning. Americans are supposed to sit down in silence with millions of lives at stake because the corporate Dems don't have the spine to do what we elected them to do or to run a real campaign for that matter? Absurd doesn't begin to describe it.

But basically what people are saying when they raise the "spoiler" argument, is that no one can vote for what they really want, because everyone believes that everyone else is going to vote their fears. The direct implication being that they would like everyone else to vote their hopes, and vote based on issues, but their lives and choices are being directly affected by how they believe (often correctly) others will vote.

Unfortunately, sometimes that Other Golden Rule can seem very compelling. I am referring to the idea that "The one who has the gold, makes the rules." With all the control the corporate moneyed interests have achieved over all aspects of our government and daily lives, it can be hard to resist this idea. But the only way peace and justice have ever been achieved is by doing just that.

These are the times when it's really important to remember the Golden Rule. We're not supposed to do unto others as we believe (often correctly) others will do unto us. We're supposed to do unto others as we would like others to do unto us.

I think my meaning is clear enough, so I'll leave it at that. Little doubt, there are people who will consider this a gross oversimplification of the facts. Once again, I invite them to find me a candidate Better Than Nader. Bring your arguments; let's debate.