Fortunately, there is treatment that can restore well-being. Side effects may include a loss of attachment to the Democratic Party and alienation from mainstream spin doctors. A nine-step cure is recommended:

Dubyaphobes say now is the wrong time for a protest vote. But Ralph Nader is the best progressive candidate since George McGovern. His credentials as a citizen advocate are impeccable, his critique of the corrupt political system and the economy is thorough and fact-based, and his proposed agenda is both visionary and sensible. Nader is well-known, respected, articulate, persistent and unflinching. He has little of the baggage usually associated with left-leaning politicians. He's not calling for an overthrow of the American political system - just a return to the core principles of straight-arrow democracy. And, unlike career politicians, he's accomplished concrete things for real people throughout his life - preventing death and injury by pushing for safer cars, food and other products.

Nader's candidacy comes during a time of growing unease with corporate influence over American politics. The candidacy of John McCain illustrated the breadth of that concern. Also, Nader's run follows the Seattle protests and other demonstrations against world government by corporate logo.

Far from being untimely, Nader's candidacy comes at a crucial moment, when there is a receptive audience for his challenge to the two-party system and his message of citizen empowerment. Yet, the American Left's most influential publication, The Nation, devoted two consecutive issues to scaring its readers into voting for Gore. For decades, commentators in The Nation have been decrying the bankruptcy of the Democratic Party and calling wistfully for a progressive alternative. Now that there is such an alternative, The Nation has decided the prospect is too terrifying.

When would be a better time to support a Third Party candidate? When will there be a better candidate? When will more people be so disenchanted with the two major-party choices?

Corporations are running amok. Not only do they continue to operate unsafe workplaces, pollute the environment, and widen the gap between rich and poor, they own and control the media and the political process. They set the terms of the discussion. Nader alone speaks to this power grab.

Seize the time, Dubyaphobes. Vote for a change while there is still the opportunity to do so. If not now, when?

Dubyaphobes say: "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush." This is "fuzzy math." Say G has 38 apples, B has 36 apples and N has 6 apples. Is our children learning that giving an apple to N means that B now has 37 apples? I don't think so, not even in Texas.

Yet extreme sufferers actually say: "I can't vote for Nader because I can't let Bush win." Talk about delusions of grandeur! No presidential election is decided by one vote. Adding a single vote to a pile of millions is like throwing a snowflake into a blizzard. It has no effect.

Dubyaphobes moan about wasting their vote on someone who has no chance of winning. But a vote for Gore is a gesture of futility. A vote for Nader is a positive and meaningful contribution to building an alternative to the moribund two-party system. The size of the Nader vote is crucial. The Greens need five percent to qualify for federal matching funds in 2004. The higher the vote, the more impact it will have on issues such as campaign finance, and the stronger challenge the Green Party can mount.

Don't worry: If Gore loses, it won't be because you didn't vote for him. It's because he didn't earn enough votes to win.

At the heart of Dubyaphobia is Supreme paranoia. The nightmare scenario of Democratic spinmeisters is that Bush will pack the Supreme Court with clones of Clarence Thomas who will overturn Roe v. Wade. In its most alarmist form, this phony argument also envisions other devastating court rulings, including rollbacks of voting rights, disability rights, and affirmative action; approval of vouchers for private schools; no limits on campaign contributions; striking down gun control legislation, and a weakening of labor and environmental laws.

This scenario is far-fetched. First off, predicting vacancies on the court in any presidency is a crapshoot. Saying the next president will determine the course of law for the next 40 years is irresponsible hyperbole.

Secondly, though Bush has stated his admiration for Thomas and Antonin Scalia, his record of appointments in Texas is moderate.

Most importantly, presidents nominate but do not appoint Supreme Court justices. Thomas and Scalia are on the court because Democrats in the Senate voted for them. If Democrats don't want clones of these guys, just hold ranks and kill the nominations, as they did with Robert Bork.

Is it really conceivable that Roe v. Wade is in imminent danger? Presidents Reagan and Bush had 12 years to overturn Roe v. Wade with their appointments, and they put six of their nominees on the Supreme Court. Yet Roe v. Wade holds firm. Public opinion and a large body of law are firmly behind abortion rights.

George W. Bush is so respectful of the popularity of abortion rights that he is soft-pedaling his pro-life views. He wouldn't even grab the chance to bad-mouth RU-486 in the debates. Of course, Dubyaphobes assume this is a cover for his real agenda. They also take Gore at his word - that all his judicial nominees will stand for a woman's right to choose.

But can Gore be trusted on abortion? As a Congressman, Gore endorsed a fetus's "right to life" and voted to define the fetus as a person from conception. He supported the Hyde amendment, which banned federal funding for Medicare abortions, and even voted against an exception in case of rape. He also voted to deny federal funding for any hospital or clinic that performed abortions. Gore has reversed course (as he has on many issues), but in the debates, he still made a point of saying he supports a ban on "partial-birth abortions." This is the champion of a woman's right to choose?

On the other issues cited, rollbacks of voting rights and disability rights are unimaginable. The constitutionality of school vouchers is uncertain under any court makeup, as is affirmative action, which Gore's running mate Joe Lieberman consistently opposed -- until he was nominated for veep. As for gun control, campaign financing, labor issues and environmental laws, there is no sign the high court will decide these issues.

George W. Bush talks like a moderate, but Dubyaphobes are convinced he is a Trojan Horse for the Contract with America. Soon after Bush is in office, they say, the country will wonder: Who let the dogs out?

But wait, wasn't the Contract with America one of the most unpopular things to hit the country since New Coke? Isn't the backlash against Gingrich's 1994 "mandate" what has caused the GOP to go all gooey with moderates like Dubya? Well, say the conspiracy theorists, that's exactly why they're being so sneaky now.

In fact, Republicans can read polls. They are not on a suicide mission to destroy their own party. If the GOP was controlled by its most right-wing elements, why did Pat Buchanan leave it?

Dubyaphobes still believe in the specter of Hillary Clinton's "vast right-wing conspiracy." But if the conspiracy is so vast and so powerful, why is it afraid to show its face?

With Bush, the GOP is trying to regain the middle ground commandeered so slickly by Clinton. Far from conspiring with their own most Draconian elements, the GOP is doing to the Right what the Democrats are doing to the Left - tossing them a few bones, making them empty promises, and lecturing them that they have no place else to go unless they want to lose the election to the evil opposition.

Laugh if you want at the phrase "compassionate conservative," but Dubya is no Ronald Reagan. He's just a shrub.

Dubyaphobes are constantly trying to make silk purses out of sow Gore's ears. But contrary to liberal fantasies, the New Democrats are still in charge of the party, and Gore is a faithful center-right newbie. He crows about backing welfare reform, the Gulf War, NAFTA, capital punishment and sanctions against Iraq. His running mate is a moralizing religious zealot with a record of toadying to big business and arms dealers. Lieberman's views on culture and his propensity for invoking the deity could earn him good standing in the Christian Coalition, if only he were not Jewish.

What's the real Clinton/Gore legacy? Ending government support for millions of indigent women and their children. Now most of these families live the American dream of a minimum-wage job for mom and day care for the kids, and most of them don't have health insurance. Frighteningly, Gore says he wants to "take welfare reform to the next level."

Forty-four million Americans are without medical insurance. During one debate, Gore called that a "national disgrace." It certainly is - coming eight years after a president was elected who pledged to win universal health insurance, but ended up caving to the HMOs. Asked at a debate whether he favored universal health insurance, Gore said only by taking small steps. He didn't say whether they would continue to be steps backward.

There are now more children in poverty and more children without health insurance than ever before, and personal debt is at an all-time high. The Democrats no longer strongly back a safety net for those left behind by the vaunted "New Economy." Yet Gore talks about "fighting for working families"! On his team's watch, there are two million people in prison and the death penalty is firmly entrenched; parents are working longer hours and spending less time with their kids; auto safety standards have been allowed to lapse, making corporate crimes like the exploding Firestone tires inevitable; and no progress has been made on gun control.

Gore stayed a fan of Clinton even as it became plausible that Slick Willie was a serial rapist. He applauded when Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan to distract attention from his zipper problem. Children are still dying in Sudan because of that callous and criminal act, but not at the rate of kids in Iraq, where the brutal sanctions have killed half a million children. Gore strongly supports the sanctions, which have only strengthened the power of Saddam Hussein. Gore loves to point out that he was one of the few Democrats in Congress to vote for the Gulf War.

As for working families, Clinton/Gore's legacy includes the flight of countless jobs overseas, the relaxation of trade standards so that goods made with child labor flood our stores, and the erosion of labor rights in this country. A Human Rights Watch report says employers fired or punished more than 125,000 workers for supporting a union between 1992 and 1997 -- without a peep from Clinton/Gore.

Gore has betrayed his own environmental principles to allow corporations to continue to pollute and plunder. He supported opening the Alaska National Petroleum Reserve to oil drilling. Rather than pushing hard for conservation and fuel efficiency standards, Gore wants to solve the gas price crisis by dipping into emergency petroleum reserves. Gore supports logging forests on federal lands.

Gore has been tough on welfare mothers but hasn't said one word about corporate welfare. From 1996 through 1998, 41 companies that should have paid $9 billion in taxes on their incomes of $25.8 billion got rebates of $3.2 billion. The list includes Texaco, Chevron, Pepsi, Pfizer, J.P. Morgan, Goodyear, and General Motors - and other donors to the Democrats.

When Gore pledges he will support reforms in campaign financing, after all his years of bending the rules to help pile up record amounts of big-business dollars in Democratic Party war chests, there is an appropriate one-word response: hypocrite.

Dubyaphobes defend their support for Gore by saying there are differences between the candidates. That's true. There are also more and less humane ways of administering capital punishment, but both have the same result.

Here is a partial list of the things that Bush and Gore agree on: Supporting Israel and blaming Arafat for Middle East tensions. Free trade. Open markets for China, despite Beijing's human rights abuses. The war against Yugoslavia. More money for anti-ballistic missiles. The invasions of Grenada and Panama. The Gulf War. Supporting Indonesia in East Timor. Training Colombian troops in the Drug War. Bailing out Mexico. Not making loans to "corrupt governments." Prohibiting gays from marrying. Mandatory testing in schools. Capital punishment. Welfare reform. Curbing sex and violence on TV, the movies and the music industry. Suspending more civil liberties to lock up more criminals

Here are some of their main disagreements:

Nuclear weapons: Bush is promising to reduce nuclear weapons unilaterally, while Gore would do so only if the Soviets join in.

Military intervention: Bush would let NATO troops do peacekeeping in Kosovo and elsewhere in Europe without the U.S. military.

On education: Bush favors vouchers, Gore is opposed.

Abortion: The candidates may not be as far apart as Gore claims.

Minimum wage: Bush supports a $1 increase over three years, Gore wants a $1 jump over two years. The difference is 17 cents a year.

Social Security: Bush wants to partially privatize the system. Gore wants a "lock box."

Affirmative action: Gore supports it, while Bush waffles.

Gun control: They agree that hunters and homeowners have the right to own guns, that there is a need for "gun-free schools," that there should be trigger locks and background checks at gun shows. They disagree on concealed weapons laws.

Taxes: Bush wants a big tax cut, with everyone getting cuts and the wealthy getting the most. Gore says his tax-cut plan is fairer, but don't bet the farm on it.

Prescription drugs for the elderly: Get your calculator out and first show what the differences are, and then prove they are meaningful.

Global warming: Bush thinks it's still not proven (a lunatic position). Gore was one of the first politicians to recognize the threat but hasn't done much if anything concrete about it (a hypocritical position).

On almost all these issues, Ralph Nader has a more progressive and far-sighted position. He's against the death penalty, wants to withdraw from NAFTA and renegotiate trade agreements, favors a sharp reduction in military spending and a sharp increase in fuel economy standards, and has already instituted his own campaign finance reform by refusing special interest money. (See http://www.geocities.com/issuetree/ for more information on the Green Party platform.)

Honest Dubyaphobes admit Gore isn't an ideal candidate. Some even endorse the strategy of voting for Nader in states where the race isn't close. While such a tactic will help build the Green Party, it lets the Democrats escape accountability. It's saying progressives will withhold votes from the Democrats only when it won't hurt.

Should the Left keep giving the Democrats a free ride? Each time around, the once-liberal party pays less heed to its progressive wing. Why should it do otherwise, when progressives keep bowing and scraping? The AFL-CIO endorsed Gore before the primaries even started. What leverage did that give labor?

Shouldn't the Democrats have to do something to earn votes beyond harping on how evil the Republicans are? Democrats will keep going rightward unless they are yanked left by a strong, meaningful protest vote.

Don't give away your vote. Make them earn it.

If you are determined to be practical about this, try the idea floated at www.nadertrader.com.

Compare the practical significance of the two scenarios at issue.

First, the Dubyaphobes' nightmare outcome: Nader gets 10 percent of the vote and Gore loses.

If this happens, what Bush can accomplish will be constrained by whether the GOP controls Congress. But let's say the worst occurs: Democrats lose both houses and Bush implements a radical right agenda. In that case, public support for the Republicans will dwindle and they will lose the White House and Congress in 2004 and for years to come, the price of defying the majority on too many issues. A much more likely outcome is that the Republicans under Bush will be constrained -- by their lack of control over Congress and their slim margin in the election -- to stay their middle-of-the-road course; after all, they like winning.

Meanwhile, the Democrats, chastened by the severe slap they've received from the left, may finally reject center-right candidates like Gore as losers. The Green Party will be an effective force, with the power to put progressive issues back onto the table.

What are the effects of the scenario endorsed by the Dubyaphobes?

Say Gore wins and Nader gets less than five percent of the vote because most progressives hold their noses and vote for Gore. The Democrats will have to pay back all the favors they owe their big business sponsors. Dubyaphobes wistfully imagine they will have to pay back labor and liberal groups too. But what will compel the party to do so? A middling vote for a strong progressive candidate like Nader will prove to the New Democrat strategists that they need to do little to appease the docile Left.

The argument for a progressive alternative will weaken. The Green Party will again get shut out of federal funding, the debates, and the arena of acceptable political discussion. Hope for real change within the political system will diminish. Without a watchdog party, the big business cabal will strengthen its stranglehold on politics and the media.

Fear feeds Dubyaphobia. This fear is closely linked with hopelessness. After two decades of Reagan/Bush/Clinton, American citizens are political beggars, hoping a few crumbs for the rest of us fall from the tables of the fat cats.

The antidote to fear is hope. People who vote out of fear will have more and more nightmares. People who vote their convictions will feel more hopeful, more energized and more capable.

Dubyaphobes argue that it is necessary to be practical. But they are the ones being impractical. There is no basis for their belief that if we simply hang on and wait, our choices will get better.

The New Democrats are deeply fearful of the challenge Nader poses. Their corporate sponsors are happy keeping half the electorate on the sidelines, discouraged and apathetic. The less the electorate is energized, the more power the big-ticket contributors have to peddle their influence.

Face it: The American two-party system is bankrupt, and presidential politics is a sham. Funded by big donors and shaped entirely by focus groups and image manipulators, elections are a corporate-sponsored war of television commercials that ignore most of the real issues.

A strong showing by Ralph Nader will provide hope for reviving a citizen movement in this country. At stake may be nothing less than democracy.

Dubyaphobes, get a grip. Is voting for Nader a waste? Or is not voting for Nader a wasted opportunity?

Michael Betzold is a Michigan-based freelance writer whose articles have appeared in many publications including The New Republic and The Witness. He is the author of four books: Appointment with Doctor Death, on Jack Kevorkian's assisted suicide campaign; Queen of Diamonds: The Tiger Stadium Story, with Ethan Casey, on baseball and stadium subsidies; End of the Line: Autoworkers and the American Dream, with Richard Feldman; and a surrealistic feminist baseball revenge fantasy novel, Casey and the Bat. See www.mbetzold.com for a complete publications list. Betzold is a locked-out former reporter for the Detroit Free Press and won an Emmy for his work on a PBS Frontline documentary on Kevorkian.

Copyright, 2000, by Michael Betzold

###