10.31.00 - There's been a lot of talk about the Nader factor in recent days. In fact, it's gotten considerably more coverage in the media of late than Nader himself or his platform. In case you missed it, the Nader-factor argument goes like this: In a close race between Gore and Bush such as now exists, a vote for Green Party candidate Ralph Nader is, in effect, a vote for Bush, and could well be the difference in putting the Republican into the White House. The idea being that the vast majority of Nader supporters would vote for Gore if Nader wasn't in the picture. Spend a couple of hours in any coffee shop in the country and you'll get a feel for just how widespread this argument has become. The words "I really like Nader, but." float past more often than the smell of patchouli.

All this political talk makes it clear that people are taking this presidential election very seriously, and that's a good thing. What's puzzling, however-considering this high level of political contemplation-is that there seems to be a rapidly growing number of Nader-factor voters-people who claim that they want to vote for Nader, but are going to vote for Gore. I understand why Democrats are selling the Nader factor. I just can't figure out why Nader supporters are buying. It's really quite inexplicable.

There's an old argument in Christian apologetics known as "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic." No sacrilege intended, but it seems to me that the same logic used by theologians in their argument can also be applied to would-be Nader defectors.

Lets start with a clarification of the Nader-factor voter's rational. Deborah Mathis, syndicated columnist with Tribune Media Services and herself a Nader supporter intending to vote for Gore, recently penned a piece that laid out the logic behind her decision.

Mathis' column starts with the words "God bless Ralph Nader." She then spends seven hundred words or so praising Nader's political message as the right message for America.someday. But toward the end of her piece, Mathis switches gears and notes that the very "future of Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are at stake in this election, and that the only responsible thing to do is vote for Al Gore because it's the only way to keep Bush out of the White House. She then calls on Nader to drop out of the race concluding, "Nader must remember that a hero sacrifices himself for the greater good, not the other way around."

In a typical election year with typical candidates, this argument would make perfect sense. Pulling your vote from say a Bill Bradley and giving it to Gore to hedge your bet against Bush would be nothing short of common-sense politics. But Ralph Nader is not a typical candidate and a close examination of his message exposes that this type of political leapfrogging is quite illogical under the current circumstances.

The core of Ralph Nader's message is that we are no longer operating in a true, two-party democratic system. He claims that the Democrats and Republicans have become a single two-headed beast committed to serving the same corporate interests. According to Nader, we should ignore the political rhetoric being spouted by both Bush and Gore and look at their records. In doing so, he says, we will see two men who dance to the same tune being played by the same wealthy few who fill their campaign coffers. Nader tells us that Democrats and Republicans alike now support corporate mergers which form monopolies; they encourage unbridled globalization which exploits Third-world workers at the expense of American workers; and that neither party is truly committed to the environment or to seeking a livable wage for those at the bottom of the economy.

Put simply, Ralph Nader believes that Bush and Gore are interchangeable parts of the same broken machine and that the perceived difference between Democrats and Republicans is largely an illusion. So what should we make of Nader's suggestion that Democrats and Republicans have formed there own merger? The theologians tell us there are only three logical ways to interpret Nader's message-he is either telling the truth, he is lying, or he's a nut job who believes that what he is saying is true but is completely misguided. Like it or not, this exercise in logic creates quite a quandary for would-be Nader defectors.

If Nader-factor voters believe the man is lying or that he is a delusional nut, then why would they still claim to support his views even as they reluctantly mark their ballots for Gore? They wouldn't, which indicates that they believe he is telling the truth. But if these same voters believe that Nader is telling the truth, then how can they see voting for Gore as anything short of condoning and perpetuating the destructive democratic illusion that stands for everything that Nader opposes? They can't. Nader-factor voters simply can't have it both ways. They are either embracing an illogical political position or their claimed support for Nader is disingenuous.

Deborah Mathis encouraged Nader to "remember that a hero sacrifices himself for the greater good." If she really understood the man or his message, she would know that Ralph Nader didn't forget that quality. On the contrary, he practically invented it. Nader isn't being selfish by staying in the race. It's just that in his mind an Al Gore administration has no more to do with the "greater good" than a George W. Bush administration. And if you don't think that he's a liar or a lunatic, you might just want to consider giving him your vote.